Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Denied but Important Aspects of the Proposed covenant

Recent discussions of the proposed Anglican covenant largely ignore certain aspects of the proposal that need airing; specifically the affect of the proposal's adoption upon LGBT persons and upon TEC's ministry with, of, and to LGBT persons and couples. I've noted once or twice a suggestion that LGBT persons should just wait for now, as though discrimination is acceptable for a while longer (!), but, rightly so, this suggestion has been challenged and put down.

But largely the conversations have ignored the origins of the proposed covenant in both misogyny and homophobia. One need only remember that it was the ordination of priests who are women that led to the "crisis" identified by the Archbishop and his Commission on Communion and the Ordination of Women, which then led to the Virginia Report and its suggestions of a "universal authority;" and that it was the "crisis" of the election of an unapologetically gay man to be a bishop that led to the Archbishop's appointment of a Lambeth Commission on Communion.  I hope people are seeing here a top-down reactionary response to the autonomy of TEC (and of the Church of Canada) in the identification of ministries of which the Archbishop disapproves as subjects of 'crisis.' So influential has the ABC been in the processes of these Commissions that he has been able to set the terms purely by fiat. Without conversation, dialogue, or debate the Archbishop has taken extraordinarily presumptuous privilege in naming these ministries as crises in the Communion. And his approach has been quite effective, because the rest of us have been on the defensive ever since.

Rachel Tabor-Hamilton's insights are illuminating here: "In my opinion, informed by the perspective of indigenous experience of the Anglican Church across the globe, the Anglican Covenant was a predictable next step, as someone has already noted, like a 'treaty' to legislate purity control. There is no other intent behind the Covenant other than exclusion of people who are different, as ascribed by those whose self-interest is to maintain privileged status. Christ teaches that authentic human relationships cannot be legislated and that spiritual issues do not have political solutions. The Covenant is void of any truth, being based as it is, on an inter-cultural history of violence and domination," the Rev. Rachel Taber-Hamilton, Secretary Executive Council on Indigenous Ministry.

We need to recognize that we ourselves are "people who are different."  We are LGBT and their advocates. By our own constitutional and canonical integrity, TEC is about to formally end our discrimination against LGBT persons and couples, lay and ordained.  Because we have had the audacity and charism to recognize the call to ordained ministry among women, and because we have had the audacity and charism to recognize the call to ordained ministry among persons who are gay or lesbian, and because we are, perhaps, about to recognize our call and charism to recognize the sanctity of love among same-sex couples, we of TEC are being threatened yet again with a process of legislative purification by those whose privilege is challenged by our democratic autonomy.

The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. noted in his Letter From a Birmingham Jail something quite relevant to this discussion today. He wrote: "I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will.  Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

In our context, it is the well-intentioned moderate who seems to fear the disturbing presence of justice, who seems to favor a superficial peace in the perpetuation of the status quo.  It is the well-intentioned moderate who claims to favor an end to discrimination, but just not now, because it is somehow inconvenient.  It is the well-intentioned moderate who can still bring this current effort for inclusion to utter defeat.

TEC needs to be vigilant in its attention and diligent in its ministry. The misogynist and homophobe know that we can still be defeated in this civil war. I apologize if the military analogy offends some people's sensibilities but, as someone has noted, 'It takes heat to make light.' Equal rights are never handed over to those seeking them; they are demanded, fought for, and won; or they are never gained at all. We need to be serious about seeing this effort through. We need to know that we still can lose.

Arguments that favor the proposed covenant consistently fail to address the oppressive and discriminatory practices that would be perpetuated by its adoption. We need to demand that they do so.  It is easy enough for people who already enjoy the privilege of membership and/or ministry to tell those to whom these are being denied that they should wait a little while longer. But if they believe truly that this is a laudable position, let them then resign their ordination and its privileges, let them declare their cessation of officiating at heterosexual marriages, let them publicly deny themselves access to the sacraments, and let them suspend their participation in the worship and fellowship of the Church, until....what?....until a "universal authority" of the Anglican Communion declares that LGBT persons really are fully fellow Christians?

Those who favor the proposed covenant need to come clean on what they believe about clergy who are women, what they believe about their LGBT kindred in Christ, what they believe about the Church's call to celebrate the ministry of clergy who are women, what they believe about the Church's call to reach out to and inclusion of LGBT persons in its community, and what they believe about the proposed covenant's tacit perpetuation of discrimination against people are different and against people who live and minister on the margins.  If these are topics of discomfort for them, or are vocations that they cannot acknowledge, let them come clean and bring their views on these to the discussion around the proposed covenant.  Failing that, they are simply dodging the core intentions of the proposed covenant.  And we need to hold them accountable for their attempts to do so.

God's Peace.
Jim +

No comments:

Post a Comment