Anglican shibboleths

They can't compromise on homosexuality.

That's like compromising on divorce!

Sometimes I feel I'm going hoarse, but this issue is not about religion (individual denominations can make their own rules about sexuality, as they please). It is about the fragile political set-ups of two parts of the world:

1. England: The UK has no Constitution, and it is far from certain what the laws even are - in theory, we are a combination of a theocracy and absolute monarchy. To my mind, what is really needed is a written constitution, abolition of the monarchy, disestablishment of the C of E - the whole Enlightenment show, really. However, some conservatives strive to hold the current situation together, and a pillar of that is the establishment of the C of E.
The C of E is only established in England, not the UK, and England does not even officially exist - Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland do, but not England. The situation is a mess, and I just look forward to the creation of the Republic of England, within the EU, on friendly terms with the Republics of Wales and Scotland, with the Windsors shifted off to cocaine-addled retirement in the Caribbean, and Scotland and Ireland left to sort out their boundary dispute, Northern Ireland, themselves. Anyway.

2. Sub-Saharan Africa: Almost all states are colonial creations, drawn on a map, with no historical legitimacy. Enlightenment ideas have also struck less deep root than in other former-colonial regions such as India and Latin America. In much of the area, just about the only legitimacy going is that of the church.

The crisis in the Anglican Communion today stems from an attempt on the part of a small majority of clergy and a plurality of members within the Episcopal Church in the USA and the Church of Canada to redefine the via media -- or "middle way" -- as a middle way not between Catholic and Protestant forms of Christianity, but as a middle way between Christianity and secular modernity.

That attempt is bound to fail.

One can mediate the peaceful coexistence of the two, but one cannot "synthesize" them without adulterating both and damaging both fundamentally within their two respective sets of terms.

The "liberal" or "progressive" Anglican project is based on an adulteration of two of the three foundations of Anglican authority: scripture, tradition, and reason.

By historicizing scripture and tradition in some highly debatable ways, the "liberals" or "progressives" have sought to relativize and therefore to undermine the authority of both.

At the same time, they have held to an Enlightenment view of objective and disinterested reason as their basis for reject the claims of scripture and tradition in the manner that they have -- and in so doing they have altered the equilibrium within the reciprocity among the three to favor reason over scripture and tradition as a basis for authority.

In doing so, they have failed to historicize and to relativize their own Enlightenment terms in the same way that they have historicized and relativized the claims of classic Christianity -- which is to say, they have failed to view the Enlightenment itself as the contingent product of a certain time and place and likewise their own emotive claims in their present time and place -- emotive claims which are taken as having more basis, more authority than the claims made by orthodox Christians, today or in the past, regardless of their place.

In this, there is an imperial parochialism, or a parochial imperialism, of the present against the past, and of what one might call the Urban North against the Global South.

I concede the point that many in the Global South are arguing now for an emphasis on scripture as opposed to tradition or reason that would not be -- in my view -- the ideal relationship among the bases of authority.

However, I would nonetheless argue that a reassertion of biblical first principles -- or rather a reassertion of the gospel as attested to in the biblical texts -- is what is called for now.

There is a need to speak the truth that the early Christians knew to the power held today within the Anglican Communion by heterodox and sometimes heretical factions in the ECUSA and the Canadian Church.

The latter have the guns so to speak, but those inclined to take the former path have the numbers on their side.

If one thing is clear from the demographic history of the Anglican Church it is that secularization of the Church leads people (unsurprisingly) to leave the Church -- either to abandon Christianity per se as a half-way house whose closet one leaves for the "light" of full secularity, or else to leave the Anglican Church for some other Christian church whose members are more Anglican than Anglicans themselves.

The coercion at the moment is that one cannot be Episcopalian (or in the Church of Canada) if one is not "progressive."

In a very short time that coercion will reverse its terms.

If one is "progressive" one will not be allowed to be a Christian, "not even" an Episcopalian or one from the Canadian Church.

Orthodox Anglicans here and in Canada will have ride this out -- during which time we can take comfort from the fact that most Christians at most times and in most places have much worse storms to ride out than our own.

I write all this an Episcopalian of orthodox Anglo-Catholic disposition who is finding himself "strangely warmed" more and more every day by the Methodist Church in which he was raised, and which he left as an adult because he favored the Book of Common Prayer to liturgical dancing and pop hymns sung by youth choirs to prerecorded tracks of a very poor excuse for rock and roll -- both of which look more and more appealing in the relative light of Schori, Spong, and Robinson.

Augustus. With respect to the alienation of so many due to the fad of "liturgical dancing and pop hymns sung by youth choirs to prerecorded tracks of a very poor excuse for rock and roll" let me just say Amen and Amen. If I wanted the hand-clapping, call-and-response, drums and guitars of what seems to be 99.999% of today's Southern Baptist church services, I'd have joined the Pentacostals at the get-go. Where do you go to find the church gathered in reverent quiet? Where is the congregation that invokes the presence of the creator of the universe dressed other than in the costumes of the marketplace? Where are sermons preached that demand more than a 30 second attention span and that spark more than a cheap, self-satisfaction? I'd really like to know.

John E.,

Thanks. All the best to you, also

JLF,

To be fair, there are many Episcopal congregations which remain orthodox Anglo-Catholic. But that in itself is the tragedy, and the crux of the problem at hand. The ECUSA already is in schism in terms of there being a wide range of practice across congregations, extending as I say from orthodoxy as understood in Anglican terms to what essentially is Unitarianism with vestments, smells and bells, and the Book of Common Prayer. The position of "progressives" in the ECUSA is Unitarian theology done "Anglican style" -- with the substance of the Anglican liturgy and sacraments reduced to matters of style and of a snobbish sense of one's good taste as opposed to one's "progressive" brethren in the Unitarian church. This is meant as no insult to Unitarians. I merely mean to say that Unitarianism and Anglicanism are two different things, which is obvious to almost everyone but "progressives" in the ECUSA. It is also the case that secular modernity and Christianity are two different things, which again is obvious to almost everyone but "progressives" in the ECUSA.

And to be fair to the Methodist Church, to the Baptist Church, to Pentecostals, et al, I have a very great admiration for the gospel music tradition in the African American church. One's time would be better spent on a Sunday morning in listening to Aretha Franklin's *Amazing Grace* lp than listening to the Book of Common Prayer as read by Katherine Schori, who may or may not believe a word. I simply found that the Methodist Church I attended till I was college age did the pop music thing rather badly, but, then again, at the time I was a sullen teenage boy and put off by what to me in all my (lack of) wisdom then seemed to be the rather kitschy fellowship among the youth I was invited to join -- though I do know that that fellowship was meaningful to several of my peers whom I greatly admire.

forestwalker,

With all due respect to the Orthodox, I'd rather ride out the storm or go down with the ship -- either one -- somewhere within the Anglican tradition than to bail out to somewhere else. For reasons related both to my upbringing in the Methodist Church and to my work as an adult writing and teaching on British culture and the culture of the English-speaking world of the former British colonies, I simply cannot contemplate a break with the Anglican Communion. I'd rather stay home and read the KJV and the BCP on my own, if things came to that. Also, there's something to be said for the dissident's role that some generations of Christians must play and that Anglicans have played from time to time in the history of our church -- if nothing else, it braces one against the complacency that often has been a weakness of the Anglican church in its different forms.

Augustus,

A collateral issue you've raised, I think, goes to the heart of what many here complain about: cafeteria Christianity. Although there has always been some tendency to minimize doctrinal differences, I submit that denominational differences have been minimized most by the need of the politically conservative religious leadership to unify believers in support of the Republican Party and its candidates. That has been aided by the mega-church model mentioned earlier that needs to emphasize consumer preferences to maximize attendance (and programs, and collections, and political clout, and so on and so forth.)

But there ARE real doctinal differences among denominations. To pick just one recent thread, there are reasons why the Roman Catholic church denies the Eucharist to non-members while many Protestant churchs practice open communion. A congregational ecclesiastical polity has its own justifications for organization that differ from hierarchical models. The role of the priest is fundamentally different in Catholic and Protestant churches. These differences are fundamental, not just the difference between Rocky Road ice cream and French Vanilla, that is to say, a matter of personal preference.

Or perhaps they are of no consequence at all. Finally, in the modern age we've learned that that sort of thing just doesn't matter. We're all "Christians" no matter the particulars of our belief. It's just another way to say that all (Christian) roads lead to Heaven.

And next . . .

Augustus - if you're still reading the KJV, you're wasting your time. Even the least amongst the SBL come down hard on it. It is a shoddy translation of a bad translation of an edited version of the original texts. You should be reading the NRSV, or at the very least the NIV. A decent one is the Harper Collins Study Bible - especially for the notes on each passage.

I know I've said this here before, but it's absolutely crucial to keep in mind that the Archbishop himself has long been one of the most important theological defenders of the possible legitimacy of gay marriage, so it's entirely understandable that he wouldn't be fond of kneejerk conservative reactions to the whole homosexuality debate. At the same time, and as I've also pointed out before, despite his openness to considering gay marriages within the Church, Rowan Williams is no liberal, and his attitude toward tradition is vastly different from what you'd find among what I'd guess would be the overwhelming majority of pro-gay American Episcopalians. Williams is one of a few theologians out there right now who are fully sold on the importance of tradition but who think there may be space for certain kinds of homosexual relationships within the resources that the tradition itself provides. This is why Williams (and others like him) tend to anger people on both the liberal and conservative sides of the fence, because he's neither liberal nor conservative, but a radical (in a double sense) traditionalist who has no problem with using the tradition in innovative ways while at the same time remaining wholly faithful to it. So on an issue like homosexuality, a simple appeal to individual experience won't fly like it will for liberals, but neither can it be assumed that the tradition is unanimously against certain kinds of homosexual relationships just because a surface reading of the tradition seems to suggest that.

Whatever ones own views on homosexuality--I tend to lean against it, or least think it's short of the ideal--I don't think one needs to fear that Williams is simply trying to accommodate liberalism, and I don't think one needs to think that the homosexuality debate is necessarily as important as some conservatives think it is. Within the context of the liberal-conservative divide, there's no doubt that the issue has fundamental importance, and there's no dobut that liberals are attempting to radically change the location of divine revelation, locating it within "experience" rather than within scripture and tradition. But conservatives would do well to be able to step outside that divide, so that they can be more genuinely open to hearing the whispers of the tradition rather than immediately associawte gay marriage with liberalism.

Nate W.,

Than you for your very thoughtful post.

For what it's worth, let me be clear that I do not believe that Rowan Williams's position -- or set of positions -- on homosexuality are what is most fundamentally at issue here.

Williams's positions are reasonable ones that bear more hearing out than they sometimes get -- which is not to say, however, that I find myself entirely convinced by them on every count.

Given the general drift away from scripture and tradition toward reason as a basis of authority, I think that the radicalism -- in the innovative sense as opposed to the fundamental sense -- even of Williams's traditionalism should be taken with a great deal of caution, with a healthy grain of salt.

We will err no matter what -- being human, not divine -- but at this particular point in our history, the safer risk to take would be to err on the side of scripture and tradition, as opposed to the side of reason, the authority of which we've been inclined of late to amplify excessively in ways that are theologically and philosophically naive, as I tried to suggest in a previous post.

Also, for what it's worth, let me say that I think you overstate how "pro-gay" parishioners are in the Episcopal Church, if by "pro-gay" you mean pro-Robinson, with Robinson considered as a tribune within the Episcopal Church for the political agenda of an organized "gay community" and considered as an advocate within the church for what it is fair to call an organized "gay lifestyle."

Distinctions must be made at this point between "gay" -- a political identity that one take on voluntarily -- and "homosexual" -- a sexual predisposition that one simply has, involuntarily.

In terms of the political split that the Robinson ordination was meant to provoke, my guess would be that the split is more like 55% "pro-Gene" as opposed to 45% "anti-Gene" or "skeptical of Gene."

And I would also argue that within those political blocs, there is a range of opinion with regard to the question of homosexuality, as opposed to the question of "gay" identity.

My own view is that the scriptural teaching is correct in asserting that homosexuality inclines one more toward sinfulness of some particular sorst -- toward some sorst of sin among all the different sorts of sin, some more greivous, some less -- even more so than heterosexuality does.

Homosexuals must bear that inclination in a way that heterosexuals do not -- which is "unfair," but no more "unfair" than the inclination toward other sorts of sin that other sorts of people must bear more so than homosexuals do, in terms of their homosexuality alone.

The question for Christians -- Anglican and otherwise -- is what sort of social institutions we ought to support as a means of helping those of us who are inclined toward certain sorts of sin to resist those sorts of sin.

I would gently and respectfull submity that Christian ratification of "the gay community" or "the gay lifestyle" as they presently exist as social institutions for organizing and mobilizing homosexuality into particular forms of sexual practice may not be the best thing we could do to work toward creation of the institutions that will help homosexuals among us to live Christian lives as best they can.

And let's please not fool ourselves that unconditional ratification of "the gay community" and "the gay lifestyle" as they presently exist -- promiscuity, polygamy, and all -- is what is at issue in the current dispute within the Anglican church -- that in addition to the fundamental changes in doctrine on which such a ratification would have to be based, and which such a ratification is intended to produce surreptitiously, and which it will in fact produce if it is ever undertaken, even among those who do not intend to make the sorts of conscious changes in doctrinal belief that "progressives" in the church would urge them to.

Our practice would change and our beliefs would not be far behind -- at least those of us who would remain within the Anglican church, or who would acquiesce to church authority instead of taking on a posture of dissent, while remaining in the church to fight another day.

The "progressive" position -- and even Rowan Williams's much more traditional stance -- would be much more persuasive and, much less open to suspicion, if it called for changes in the doctrine of "the gay community" that were in any way commensurate with the changes in doctrine that each of them calls for in the Anglican church to accommodate political demands by "the gay community" as distinct from the church.

It seems to me that what is called for now is something paradoxically more radical even than what the "progressives" demand -- the reformation of "gay" identity in terms of Christianity, or better yet, its replacement by a new identity and a new set of social institutions for Christian homosexuals and homosexual Chrisians.

The creation of such an identity and such social institutions will take a very great deal of time, and what results may or may not entail an active homosexuality and/or the institution of gay marriage for those who are involved.

In any event, for the present it seems to me to be the safer course to hold to the orthodox line that is urged by the Global South than it is to take the heterodox line that is urged by the Metropolitan North.

The latter will pass because demography is not on its side.

When it passes, we can perhaps address the question of homosexuality in a more sophisticated and more substantive way than either side seems willing to do at the present time.

Thanks for your attention. Now on to hot dogs, fireworks, et al.

Augustus Johnson: or else to leave the Anglican Church for some other Christian church whose members are more Anglican than Anglicans themselves.

Most of these are known as "Roman Catholics of Anglican Use." There is also a broad subculture of "liberals" and "progressives" in the Novus Ordo RC Church who might be termed "Episcopalians of Roman Catholic Use." They are easy to spot. They are the ones trying to catch June bride Gene Robinson's bouquet.

I rather like Roland's idea of welcoming England home as what you might call, via Battlestar Galactica, the lost 13th colony. Based on my experience, though, you'll never get an Irishman to agree that he's only 3/5 of a man, even on paper. I don't know about Scotsmen . . . you'd have to take a peek under 3/5 of the kilt and find out.

"Well in that case, the Colonies would welcome you home! We could use a 51st state and what's an ocean today? Besides, England doesn't really seem comfortable with that whole Eurozone thing anyway. "

You do have a point. Actually, the Daily Mail (a slightly eccentric, right-wing newspaper) occasionally has some commentator put this forward as a serious suggestion.

"The Commonwealth of England. Has a nice ring to it, no? A fifth commonwealth ike Massachusetts, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Kentucky. Of course, I can see why you might be ambivalent about the title. "

It IS an odd word. I think it's actually the English equivalent of the French "commune", but it's been given all sorts of disjointed meanings, like the relict range of a species:
The Commonwealth of Canada
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts (I didn't know about the others, and I thought Virginia was a Dominion??)
The British Commonwealth
The Commonwealth of Cromwell

"Did I mention that the House of "Lords" probably has to go?"

That must be part of the anti-monarchist package.
Seriously, republicanism is a lot more mainstream and middle-of-the-road than it used to be. When I was a student, republicanism was more or less equivalent to Marxism, which one or two American classmates found odd!

"And you do know that the RC's will probably sue to get Canterbury back, don't you?"

I don't think that's particularly likely, do you? Think of the upkeep costs. No doubt Joe Taxpayer will soon have to take that on.

"cricket's out and baseball's in."

I hate team sports, but England never does all that well at cricket, anyway. We don't really have the climate for sports that involve days standing around not doing much, unlike Australia, India, the West Indies and S Africa. Cricket has never really caught on in Scotland (colder than England) or Wales and Ireland (wetter), or in Canada, for that matter.

"welcoming England home as what you might call, via Battlestar Galactica, the lost 13th colony. "

Shouldn't it be the 14th?

I hope you had a good 4th of July, anyway. By the way, Roland, I always have difficulty remembering which has the 4th and which the 14th!!

rombald: I always have difficulty remembering which has the 4th and which the 14th!!

Well I grew up with both! But the "quatorze juillet" was rather anticlimactic. To tell you the truth, I was never all that keen on the storming of the Bastille, guillotining the royals, la Terreur, Marat in his bloody sitzbath, all followed by that upstart Corsican dwarf. Pretty squalid stuff. The Americans did the revolution right. Vivent les Etats-Unis!

Thanks for the Independence Day good wishes. And best of luck with the republican movement. "President of England" sounds a lot better then "Queen of England"! Will the vice-president have to learn Welsh, I wonder?

Roland: I've just checked. You were right on both counts.

Virginia is a commonwealth. It was called Dominion before independence, apparently in recognition of having supported the Crown in the English Civil War. I thought it had kept the title, but it must have changed it to commonwealth at some point, perhaps at independence.

Canada was Dominion until the 1950s, and is now just Canada. It's Australia that's a Commonwealth - I got them mixed up.

I do like the word "Commonwealth". Like the French "commune" it's much richer than "community", involving the feel of cooperation or common good (the common weal). I could imagine Rod writing about it at some point.

rombald,

Virginia has retained the title of "The Old Dominion" as a nickname -- most (maybe all) of the States have nicknames of one type or another -- Georgia is "The Peach State," Florida is "The Sunshine State," Ohio is "The Buckeye State," Pennsylvania is "The Keystone State," etc. And the Commonwealth of Virginia is nicknamed "The Old Dominion." I know you're British, but I don't know if you live in the States. If you do and you already knew all this then I apologize for being pedantic.