A Christian Liberal is NOT an oxymoron.

Posted by XT on April 14th, 2008 in Progressive Faith

I’m a relative newcomer to the Episcopal Church/Anglican Communion. It’s quite possible that I don’t understand all of the subtleties that are causing fractures in the worldwide church (I certainly am not immersed in it as this site), but I think it can be represented rather simply as three major issues: 1) Some diocese want to ordain clergy and clergy leadership that are openly living as gay men or women (mostly in the United States); 2) the Nigerian branch of the church has taken upon themselves to “liberate” congregations that oppose such measures; 3) the Australian branch of the church is licensing lay persons to officiate over the celebration of the Eucharist (this is news to me – commentary to follow).

Even if I’m lacking full coverage of the issues, or if I am missing important considerations, I do understand the comparison made at Episcopal Future:

One thing struck me on reading the Introduction, Draft II and Appendix all together, something out of the American amalgam of church and social contracts : These three are rough approximations of a declaration, a constitution and canons (or law).

I took a look at the Saint Andrews Covenant and some of the commentary that I’ve found in different places. There are some serious flaws with it – chief among which are the lack of a means of amending the document. That relegates this document to the dustbin of history as soon as the ink dries on it. That same flaw was the one that eventually brought down the Articles of Confederation.

The Articles are a good parallel. They had several serious flaws. In addition to the one mentioned above, it also lacked any means of enforcing decisions upon recalcitrant members and focused on forming some kind of wishy-washy relationship where each member would retain full power to refuse to implement the decisions of the whole, but would never actually use it because such care and brotherhood was evidenced in working out the details of actions. As James Madison reportedly said it would be a good document to govern angels, but , “What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”

My own quick review of the document revealed it to be a whole lot of sweet words and precious little else. My chief example is:

3.2 Acknowledging our interdependent life, each Church of the Communion commits itself:

(3.2.1) to have regard to the common good of the Communion in the exercise of its autonomy, and to support the work of the Instruments of Communion with the spiritual and material resources available to it;

(3.2.2) to respect the constitutional autonomy of all of the Churches of the Anglican Communion, while upholding the interdependent life and mutual responsibility of the Churches, and the responsibility of each to the Communion as a whole[12];

(3.2.3) to spend time with openness and patience in matters of theological debate and reflection to listen, pray and study with one another in order to discern the will of God. Such prayer, study and debate is an essential feature of the life of the Church as its seeks to be led by the Spirit into all truth and to proclaim the Gospel afresh in each generation. Some issues, which are perceived as controversial or new when they arise, may well evoke a deeper understanding of the implications of God’s revelation to us; others may prove to be distractions or even obstacles to the faith: all therefore need to be tested by shared discernment in the life of the Church.

(3.2.4) to seek with other Churches, through the Communion’s shared councils, a common mind about matters understood to be of essential concern, consistent with the Scriptures, common standards of faith, and the canon law of our churches.

(3.2.5) to act with diligence, care and caution in respect to actions, either proposed or enacted, at a provincial or local level, which, in its own view or the expressed view of any Province or in the view of any one of the Instruments of Communion, are deemed to threaten the unity of the Communion and the effectiveness or credibility of its mission, and to consent to the following principles and procedural elements:

(3.2.5.a) to undertake wide consultation with the other churches of the Anglican Communion and with the Instruments and Commissions of the Communion;

(3.2.5.b) to accept the legitimacy of processes for communion-wide evaluation which any of the Instruments of Communion may commission, according to such procedures as are appended to this covenant;

(3.2.5.c) to be ready to participate in mediated conversation between parties, which may be in conflict, according to such procedures as are appended to this covenant;

(3.2.5.d) to be willing to receive from the Instruments of Communion a request to adopt a particular course of action in respect of the matter under dispute. While the Instruments of Communion have no legislative, executive or judicial authority in our Provinces, except where provided in their own laws, we recognise them as those bodies by which our common life in Christ is articulated and sustained, and which therefore carry a moral authority which commands our respect.

(3.2.5.e) Any such request would not be binding on a Church unless recognised as such by that Church. However, commitment to this covenant entails an acknowledgement that in the most extreme circumstances, where a Church chooses not to adopt the request of the Instruments of Communion, that decision may be understood by the Church itself, or by the resolution of the Instruments of Communion, as a relinquishment by that Church of the force and meaning of the covenant’s purpose, until they re-establish their covenant relationship with other member Churches.

(3.2.6) to have in mind that our bonds of affection and the love of Christ compel us always to seek the highest possible degree of communion.

How is any point of this excerpt going to help overcome any of the problems listed above? In fact, it defends the loose affiliation that allows for it. Basically, a lot of ink could be saved if they just said, “Individual churches can pretty much do what they want to do, but we’d like for them to at least try and develop a broader consensus.”

This is not a slap at either the structure of the Anglican communion nor their desire to not impose policy upon individual congregations (and dioceses) from the top down. It’s simply an observation that this isn’t going to solve any problems. The church is at a crossroads and can’t decide which path to follow, and this document just says, “It would be nice if we followed the same path.” No word is put forth on how that will happen, other than to say “mediation” should take place even if people just aren’t happy with each other or about the idea of mediation. That’s like saying, “I hope it works out.”

This isn’t new territory, though. The Anglican community, indeed, every denomination, has faced decisions about which way to take their larger church. Each time, there will be a group of “fanatics” that will demand that the “true path” is the one they want to take. Then there will be a “can’t we all get along” faction that wants to look past the problems and pretend as if such efforts can heal ongoing wounds. It can’t.

Think of it like a divorce. There are some divorces in which a couple becomes friends after a period of time passes and healing has taken place. Usually these are the unions in which the people involved understand that the other isn’t a bad person, they just don’t belong together. But it is only by parting than they can eventually come to a respectful friendship.

Other times, the divorce is fought tooth and nail until nothing is left but the hate. By the time the end comes, wounds have been inflicted that never heal. As tragic as any divorce is, this option is even moreso.

The other, even more tragic option, is that the divorce never takes place. Instead, two people who should never be together continue inflicting low-level pain upon each other for years, even decades. Both are hobbled from achieving their real potential. As their pain oozes out towards everyone around them, they become the couple no one wants to sit across a dinner table from. It’s obvious to everyone that they should part ways, but they won’t.

This document urges that the Anglican communion remain a communion even while committing the equivalent of war upon each other. There are good reasons for remaining in communion, but they cannot overcome the good reasons for finding a reasonable manner in which to part ways. My pastor is one of the best I have ever had the experience of having – and he happens to be a gay man. If the Anglican/Episcopal church ever decides that he shouldn’t have his current position because of the way God made him; then my membership in that church will end. It is non-negotiable.

And the majority of Episcopalians in America are willing to agree, at least enough to retain membership in the church and to keep coming back every Sunday. I think it would be as big of a mistake for me to claim that they are with me as it was for the Conservatives to claim that they would all leave. Most people, I believe, are willing to let individual member churches make up their own minds – they are unwilling to impose doctrine upon others.

It has to be pointed out that it isn’t those of us who want to ordain openly-gay clergy that want to leave the church. It is those who oppose us who have, by their actions, tried to divide this worldwide communion. The problem with the St. Andrews Covenant isn’t that it tries to change things, but that it tries to keep things the same without acknowledging that one side is willing to destroy the church itself to get its way. This is like a marriage counselor telling the faithful spouse that they must learn to make their unfaithful partner happy.

As far as the licensing of lay persons to conduct the Eucharist, I am all for it. Anglicans/Episcopals don’t teach transubstantiation – it isn’t really the body and blood of Christ that we share. It is the commitment to the generations of Christians who have come before us to follow our faith wherever it leads that we share. It is the desire to move our faith into the future while rooting it in the past that makes the Eucharist a special event.

I don’t know of any requirement from Jesus that “do this in remembrance of me, as oft as you will” must only be accomplished when the bread and cup are held by specific individuals. That would fly in the face of “as oft as you will” – wouldn’t it? Yeah, it infringes upon the “traditional territory” of the clergy – but they have plenty of other duties to deal with. They can learn to share, too.

Sphere: Related Content