Roses By Several Names
Taking a break from my various writing projects to comment on a local op-ed piece written by a Robert P. Jones for the Springfield News-Leader.
The topic is the Episcopal Church and its recent splash in the media because of its decisions at General Convention about one gay bishop in particular and the blessing of same-sex unions in general. Jones's editorial concerned the latter, specifically the Convention's compromise decision not to develop liturgy for blessing same-sex unions while at the same time providing that each diocese may choose freely whether or not to perform such blessings. Jones writes:
As one who grew up Southern Baptist, I was struck both by how natural the solution of respecting the integrity of local churches, especially on controversial issues, seemed to my own religious sensibilities and how alien this principle has become to the contemporary form of the denomination that instilled this value in me.
It is more than a little ironic that a denomination that historically affirmed local church autonomy -- based on a theological conviction that individual believers and churches are free to follow the present-day workings of the Spirit of God, even in directions others do not understand -- has become far more hierarchical, authoritarian, and rigid (virtually turning opinions on the issue of homosexuality into a litmus test of fidelity to God) than those it has traditionally criticized for quenching the Spirit in "dead institutions" and "empty ritual."
Just last month the Missouri Baptist Convention cut off its million-dollar endowment to William Jewell College, a Missouri liberal-arts school founded by Baptists and dedicated to academic and intellectual excellence, because the college refused to take the stand the MBC wanted on the same issue -- namely, expressly prohibiting homosexual activity in the student body and providing "education" to its students telling them what to think about the issue. Now, the MBC can do whatever it likes with its money, and William Jewell purposely left that money out of its budget-planning in expectation that their chosen course of action would have that result. No big -- though I thought I'd mention just in passing that the tornadoes of May 4 hit Jewell particularly hard, and some of the departments no longer have buildings.
The plans of the American Anglican Council and its allies, in protest against the decisions of General Convention on this issue, are to employ a similar strategy of fiscal flanking; those bishops, parishes, and programs that disagree with the decisions of General Convention are planning to change their funding patterns to reflect their opinion, and of course they are well within their rights to do so, wherever they have authority over the funds involved. However, the plans to redirect funds apply only to General Convention, not to local churches, dioceses, or institutions, since it is clear that the line does not run cleanly through the church. The plans include also a resolution to maintain faith and communion with the church and to respect and support individual bishops whatever their position on the issue.
I do not know what the disaffected Episcopalians would do if they were in the majority, but being in the minority, it seems fairly clear that, with the added proviso of mutual respect, they have taken a similar course of action to that of the Missouri Baptist Convention in particular and the Southern Baptist Convention in general. I expect, however, that if the Episcopalians who disapprove of any sanction for homosexual behavior were in the majority, they would simply cast their votes and be done with it. What interests me is that the Missouri Baptist Convention's behavior indicates that they feel themselves to be similarly in the minority, though they have all the votes and the purse strings to boot.
Which brings me to the point I wanted to make, which is slightly different from that of Dr. Jones, but nonetheless relevant. I believe that this sense of moral embattlement, far from helping anyone's cause, actually makes the situation worse. What we are attempting to determine, in this issue (and in all other morally debatable and controversial issues) is a) whether homosexual behavior is always and unequivocally wrong; b) whether "homosexual Christian" is an oxymoron; and c) whether this issue's resolution is essential to continued communion among churches. To feel that the other side is not listening, that they have some kind of charismatic power over one, that one's cause is doomed to be shouted down, is a virtual guarantee of erratic and aggressive behavior, and I should know. For a church body to insist on dictating how its constituents think is to me the greatest argument for the weakness of Christianity, because it indicates that the body does not believe it sufficiently to let it defend itself. It indicates that they feel the gospel of Christ to depend almost solely on their ability to promulgate it in society. Fortunately, this is not the case. But it makes it no less irritating to watch.
I don't believe, of course, that "the gospel of Christ" and the established doctrine on one particular sexual issue are one and the same. But I think the same principle applies to the one as to the other. Unless we do away with the posturing and the martyr complexes, we are not going to solve any of the points I outlined above, especially the last. Or, for that matter, any controversial issue which comes down the pike.
I've only been in the Episcopal Church nine months, but I do believe that Dr. Jones is right in saying that for a so-called "dead institution", it is remarkably alive to the movement of the Holy Spirit -- and I believe that applies to people on both sides of this issue. For a church that has been present for every possible accretion of ecclesiastic tradition, it seems more to hark back both in liturgy and practical administration to early church times than the rugby scrum that is the governance of many "free-church" denominations. And I also believe that regardless of what happens as we deal with this particular issue, the signs are that faith, justice, and love will prevail among the churches. I feel fairly certain that if I were in a liberal church that was hit by a tornado, my conservative Episcopal brothers and sisters would still show up with chainsaws, flatbed trucks, blankets, and food. Just call it a feeling, nothing more definite than that. (I hardly need add that the liberal Episcopalians would do the same for their conservative brethren and sistren.)
I too have an opinion on points a), b) and c), but I'm not going to bring it out till I've ruminated some more. For now, well -- there ya go.
Taking a break from my various writing projects to comment on a local op-ed piece written by a Robert P. Jones for the Springfield News-Leader.
The topic is the Episcopal Church and its recent splash in the media because of its decisions at General Convention about one gay bishop in particular and the blessing of same-sex unions in general. Jones's editorial concerned the latter, specifically the Convention's compromise decision not to develop liturgy for blessing same-sex unions while at the same time providing that each diocese may choose freely whether or not to perform such blessings. Jones writes:
As one who grew up Southern Baptist, I was struck both by how natural the solution of respecting the integrity of local churches, especially on controversial issues, seemed to my own religious sensibilities and how alien this principle has become to the contemporary form of the denomination that instilled this value in me.
It is more than a little ironic that a denomination that historically affirmed local church autonomy -- based on a theological conviction that individual believers and churches are free to follow the present-day workings of the Spirit of God, even in directions others do not understand -- has become far more hierarchical, authoritarian, and rigid (virtually turning opinions on the issue of homosexuality into a litmus test of fidelity to God) than those it has traditionally criticized for quenching the Spirit in "dead institutions" and "empty ritual."
Just last month the Missouri Baptist Convention cut off its million-dollar endowment to William Jewell College, a Missouri liberal-arts school founded by Baptists and dedicated to academic and intellectual excellence, because the college refused to take the stand the MBC wanted on the same issue -- namely, expressly prohibiting homosexual activity in the student body and providing "education" to its students telling them what to think about the issue. Now, the MBC can do whatever it likes with its money, and William Jewell purposely left that money out of its budget-planning in expectation that their chosen course of action would have that result. No big -- though I thought I'd mention just in passing that the tornadoes of May 4 hit Jewell particularly hard, and some of the departments no longer have buildings.
The plans of the American Anglican Council and its allies, in protest against the decisions of General Convention on this issue, are to employ a similar strategy of fiscal flanking; those bishops, parishes, and programs that disagree with the decisions of General Convention are planning to change their funding patterns to reflect their opinion, and of course they are well within their rights to do so, wherever they have authority over the funds involved. However, the plans to redirect funds apply only to General Convention, not to local churches, dioceses, or institutions, since it is clear that the line does not run cleanly through the church. The plans include also a resolution to maintain faith and communion with the church and to respect and support individual bishops whatever their position on the issue.
I do not know what the disaffected Episcopalians would do if they were in the majority, but being in the minority, it seems fairly clear that, with the added proviso of mutual respect, they have taken a similar course of action to that of the Missouri Baptist Convention in particular and the Southern Baptist Convention in general. I expect, however, that if the Episcopalians who disapprove of any sanction for homosexual behavior were in the majority, they would simply cast their votes and be done with it. What interests me is that the Missouri Baptist Convention's behavior indicates that they feel themselves to be similarly in the minority, though they have all the votes and the purse strings to boot.
Which brings me to the point I wanted to make, which is slightly different from that of Dr. Jones, but nonetheless relevant. I believe that this sense of moral embattlement, far from helping anyone's cause, actually makes the situation worse. What we are attempting to determine, in this issue (and in all other morally debatable and controversial issues) is a) whether homosexual behavior is always and unequivocally wrong; b) whether "homosexual Christian" is an oxymoron; and c) whether this issue's resolution is essential to continued communion among churches. To feel that the other side is not listening, that they have some kind of charismatic power over one, that one's cause is doomed to be shouted down, is a virtual guarantee of erratic and aggressive behavior, and I should know. For a church body to insist on dictating how its constituents think is to me the greatest argument for the weakness of Christianity, because it indicates that the body does not believe it sufficiently to let it defend itself. It indicates that they feel the gospel of Christ to depend almost solely on their ability to promulgate it in society. Fortunately, this is not the case. But it makes it no less irritating to watch.
I don't believe, of course, that "the gospel of Christ" and the established doctrine on one particular sexual issue are one and the same. But I think the same principle applies to the one as to the other. Unless we do away with the posturing and the martyr complexes, we are not going to solve any of the points I outlined above, especially the last. Or, for that matter, any controversial issue which comes down the pike.
I've only been in the Episcopal Church nine months, but I do believe that Dr. Jones is right in saying that for a so-called "dead institution", it is remarkably alive to the movement of the Holy Spirit -- and I believe that applies to people on both sides of this issue. For a church that has been present for every possible accretion of ecclesiastic tradition, it seems more to hark back both in liturgy and practical administration to early church times than the rugby scrum that is the governance of many "free-church" denominations. And I also believe that regardless of what happens as we deal with this particular issue, the signs are that faith, justice, and love will prevail among the churches. I feel fairly certain that if I were in a liberal church that was hit by a tornado, my conservative Episcopal brothers and sisters would still show up with chainsaws, flatbed trucks, blankets, and food. Just call it a feeling, nothing more definite than that. (I hardly need add that the liberal Episcopalians would do the same for their conservative brethren and sistren.)
I too have an opinion on points a), b) and c), but I'm not going to bring it out till I've ruminated some more. For now, well -- there ya go.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home