What We're Reading
- God and Race in American Politics: A Short History
by Mark A. Noll - It Happened in Italy: Untold Stories of How the People of Italy Defied the Horrors of the Holocaust
by Elizabeth Bettina - Tradition: Concept and Claim
by Josef Pieper
Our Blogroll
« Why St. Jerome Is an Icon for Our Times | Main | Dr. Luther, Rapmeister »
Family Feuds
Anglican agonies demonstrate the link between long history and deep conflict.
Now is not a happy time to be an Episcopalian, or an Anglican, or an Anglican who was until recently an Episcopalian, or any permutation thereof. After agreeing to a temporary moratorium on ordaining homosexual bishops, the Episcopal Church - the American branch of the Anglican Communion, so named because Anglican sounded treasonously English during the Revolutionary War - voted last week to lift the moratorium and begin developing a liturgy to bless same-sex unions. (Though the Episcopal Church's presiding bishop is, after the fact, claiming the vote didn't actually mean that.)
The exodus of conservative members and parishes already underway is sure to continue, along with an increase in expressions of anger, chagrin, and sadness on all sides. Oh, and there will be plenty of valuable church properties to wrestle over, too.
Although several other Protestant denominations have been agonizing over homosexuality for years now, Episcopalians seem to be tied in the tightest knots, an impression created in part because they make such great news.
I once asked an Associated Press religion reporter about what seemed to me excessive coverage of the Episcopal Church, and she pointed out that stories about that church usually involve sex, money, and power (Episcopalians make up 7 percent of the U.S. Senate, for example, though less than 2 percent of the American population), plus, just as important, Episcopalians helpfully tell reporters when and where to show up. Local dioceses have annual conventions. The General Convention of the Episcopal Church in the United States, the group that met last week, convenes every three years. Bishops from the entire Anglican Communion meet every ten years at Lambeth Palace in England. To get a sense of how handy this is for religion reporters, who are lucky these days to have jobs, let alone generous travel budgets, imagine trying to cover all the major developments in America's vast non-denominational universe. Where would you go? Whom would you interview? How would you know when you had done enough work to file the story? It's a whole lot easier to plan a trip to the next big church convention and report on whatever happens there.
An unfortunate consequence of the Episcopal Church's media-friendliness, and of its famously slow and involved deliberative process, is that a casual observer might easily conclude that all Episcopalians ever do is fight. Episcopalians themselves might feel this way; not being one, I will not presume to speak for them. But the Episcopal Church is not uniquely tormented by internal tensions, nor are such tensions necessarily malignant. According to philosopher Alisdair MacIntyre, any institution that hopes to last must contend with conflict.
In his landmark book After Virtue (1981), MacIntyre defined a living tradition as "an historically extended, socially embodied argument, and an argument precisely in part about the goods which constitute that tradition."
This is probably not the definition most of us would use. Family traditions - annual vacation spots, holiday foods, and so on - evoke warm, fuzzy thoughts. Vacations and holidays can occasion spats, or worse, but these are (one hopes) aberrations, not essential aspects of the traditions. Institutions, including churches, that promote their traditions usually do so to communicate stability, dignity, aesthetic richness, and monetary richness, certainly nothing so unseemly as squabbling. Think of the soothing voice on television, intoning, "A tradition unlike any other … The Master's on CBS." Soft music, verdant putting greens, smiling champions - no conflict there. The scene is placid enough to make the viewer forget the Master's is a fierce competition that every contestant save one will lose.
The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion of which it is a part (at least for now) bear all the marks of dictionary-defined tradition. The Church of England is the oldest Protestant denomination in the English-speaking world, ancestor and antagonist of Methodists, English Baptists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and Quakers. The Episcopal establishment in Virginia and surrounding colonies was every bit as old and firmly rooted as the Congregational establishment in New England. From stately signs out front to elegant windows behind the priest, countless Episcopal churches exude nobility, with the overtones of high ideals and high status intended. And yet the church is embroiled in an ugly, messy, knock-down drag-out fight. As MacIntyre would have it, this, too, is a hallmark of tradition.
If that is the case, if a living tradition not only must weather arguments but in fact is a sprawling argument, then who needs tradition? Haven't Americans, with their penchant for leaving behind Old World identities, denominational ties, and boring hometowns chosen the wiser course? Not so fast. MacIntyre posits that traditions provide context and meaning for human practices while also identifying goals - goods - toward which to strive. These are things worth thinking about, and worth arguing about. People who shrink the circle of their connections until it is scarcely larger than themselves still have to find satisfying answers to these questions, but they have to do it alone.
I find it very useful to think of churches, institutions, and traditions of all sorts as historically extended, socially embodied arguments. I like any interpretive lens that incorporates history, of course, and I also like the way this formula embraces real people and their often angular opinions. I am not a theologian or a philosopher, and my brain doesn't process abstractions well. But I certainly notice a brawl, on the evening news or in the archives of the periodicals I study, and I'm driven to figure out who is arguing what, and why, and what they believe is at stake. Conflict makes institutions flex muscles they would otherwise lose to atrophy, and it forces individuals to articulate beliefs that can turn to mush beneath presumed consensus. The saying goes, "It's all over but the shouting," but as I observe history unfolding, the shouting proves that "it," the living tradition, has a ways to go.
Image of Episcopal presiding bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori in Portland, Oregon, June 6, 2009, via Wikimedia Commons.
recent posts
Archives
March 2010February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 |
Comments
I heard that some Episcopal US congregations are joining the Episcopal (Anglican) organizations in Africa because they want spiritual leadership that is still anchored in the Bible...not in the lastest ideas (unattached to any ethics) which float out of our culture...
Church denominations must DRAW a line. Where do you stay joined & agree to disagree? But if the differences are too much - and go clearly into apostasy, they should act...in some way to separate themselves. A denomination I was in - is hesitating to draw that line. Maybe they are correct in giving more time to work things out. I hope they are not afraid to take a stand (if necessary) even if it means going against the denomination which has many relatives & a shared ethnic group...
Maybe leave the denomination; or maybe (like one United Methodist church I heard of) REFUSE to accept clergy who are clearly apostate in their beliefs.
++++++++++
Some churches I heard of should maybe be joining a GAIA group or some other pantheistic or New Age group. They are Christian only in their past...
Posted By: vikingmother | July 25, 2009 10:07 AM
Although we are small in number, remember that the Episcopal Church USA is not the only Anglican church in North America. There are quite a few othodox, Biblical and evangelical Anglican churhes in this country. I belong to one of them. We hope that one day, our confederation will be the recognized part of the worldwide Anglican communion.
Posted By: Barbara | July 25, 2009 11:32 AM
ctually, I think this is a great time to be an Episcopalian, and I couldn't be more proud of them. The division is not between "Biblical" and "Liberal" traditions, but between those who choose to face reality, and those who want to continue in denial. Gay clergy ( and organists, deacons, etc) have always been a part of the leadership in the Episcopal Church, conveniently classified as "confirmed bachelors", and will continue to be so even in those congregations who break off into other parts of the Anglican Communion.
I belonged to a historic Episcopal congregation in the Northeast, which went through some turmoil over the "gay" issue. Some of the more prominent elderly widows of the church were confused and upset that the Rector had allowed a congregation of Dignity-Integrity to use the church in the afternoon. They soon changed their attitude when it was pointed out to them that the "single" young men who were visiting them and helping them prepare communion, etc, were members of that organization, and had in fact become one of the most vital forces in keeping the aging congregation alive.
As a "straight" Christian I welcome the new atmosphere of truthfulness and acceptance that is emerging in the Episcopal Church, even though there will be some who will have to struggle with their own prejudices and misconceptions about the Bible, sexuality, and their organist's long time committed relationship to another man.
Posted By: david Moore | July 25, 2009 12:04 PM
David Moore, what do you mean? The Bible, both Testaments,
is very clear in its opposition to homosexuality. "Prejudices and misconceptions" have nothing to do with it.
It is actually the liberals who are prejudiced (against Biblical teaching) and have misconceptions, not the conservatives. The "reality" is that homosexuality is wrong.
The "denial" is the liberals' denial of Biblical authority. ECUSA is clearly apostate and should be
abandoned. It does nothing for the Kingdom of God but spread confusion, division, and heresy.
Posted By: John G. | July 25, 2009 4:07 PM
Romans chapter 1 provides a very clear picture of what happens when you exchange the truth of God for a lie. It is not connected to a one time event or just a previous people, place, or time. The consequenses of sin by a people and a nation continue to repeat themselves throughout history. We as nation and as a people are simply repeating what has happened many times in history. This is not a new debate. Our God is a sovereign God and He is the one allowing this to happen. He has told us that there are consequenses to sin. Exchanging the truth of God for a lie is a serious matter. God knows what is best for us and what works to allow people to function properly. God would prefer we not suffer but will allow us to go our own way when we turn from Him. How many times do you have to read about people turning from God? The majority of all scripture is about people turning away from God and then turning back to Him. Whether 4000 years, ago 2000 years ago or 2009. Gods laws are fixed and constant and never changing. So goes the church and so goes the culture, look around and honestly ask yourself, if I were a child today would I be confused? God has a special place in His heart for children. He never intended for it to be confusing. God wants us to hold to His truth, to His design and to His plan, we will never find a better way in this life or our eternal life with Him. Philemon verse 6
Posted By: george | July 25, 2009 5:27 PM
John G:
Remember that the Pharisees accused Jesus of rejecting Biblical teaching as well. There is a lot of uncertainty about what the Bible "teaches" on a lot of issues, and not everyone who disagrees with you is tossing aside the scriptures.
Homosexuality is one of those issues. From a literalist perspective, I have to acknowledge that Moses says nothing at all about lesbianism, which makes me wonder if the Mosaic commands against same-sex activity are about something other than sexuality (idol worship, perhaps?). And the one comment from Paul in Romans 1 about women's sexuality is fairly vague. So it may well be that the Bible does not in fact condemn homosexuality.
I think the more profitable approach (to use Paul's metaphor in 2 Timothy) is to judge Christians by their fruit. If gay Christians are bringing God's love and healing into the world, then they are of God. And if the anti-gay Christians are not doing the same, then they are not of God. Just like in the apostolic times: the Greeks bore the Spirit but the Pharisees didn't....
Posted By: non-metaphysical stephen | July 25, 2009 5:58 PM
Yes, the controversy really is about whether holy scripture shall be authoritative and final or not. Although there are some less than crystal clear matters in the Bible, the practice of homosexuality is quite clearly condemned in both Old and New Testaments. It is disingenuous to divert the issue to whether one bears fruit, or has a loving relationship; what is pronounced wrong remains wrong, and must be repented of for the individual to be in good standing in the church. I am sure my biblically-oriented Episcopalian friends will agree. I am sorry the others try to reframe the issue.
Posted By: Art Tyree | July 25, 2009 7:30 PM
Quite often agitators or activists use religion and an organized church as a stage to give themselves voice and legitimacy. It gives them a captive audience in an attempt to prove that their cause is correct and that God is on their side. The question is, where do you draw the line between activism and religious endeavor? Jokingly it is said that the purpose of a protest march is simply to annoy the people who are not in the march. Agitators agitate and annoy as a ploy to gain attention to their cause no matter what collateral damage they might create, as they consider themselves more important than any church organization. We witness among them live and constant moving protest marches meant only to disrupt in order to gain attention to themselves and their Judas like unholy causes.
Posted By: Tom Bivens | July 25, 2009 9:21 PM
The situation described in the article reminds me of a joke circulating in the UK several years ago. Two chaps meet in Canterbury and are discussing the state of the Church of England in particular and the Anglican Communion in general. One said he was most distressed because his lord bishop did not believe in the Resurrection whereupon his friend replied "oh that is not so bad old boy my lord bishop does not believe in God!". As one dear friend of mine who is a cradle Episcopalian said to me recently, "I always thought that we had at least the essentials of the Christian faith but now we can't seem to even define that and with the PB saying that she could not affirm the divinity of Christ as being any different that any other person I guess there is little wonder!. When any church cannot answer with authority the question that Jesus posed to his disciples "who do YOU say that I am?" that church no longer is a church but a philosophical society!
Posted By: Father Andrew Gentry FCSF | July 25, 2009 10:42 PM
Actually is a very good time to be an Espicopalian - we are slowly taking out head of the sand to take our place in the real world to which we are called to minister. It is only too easy to do as others do, and pretend we live in some other world which people convince themselves is real.
Posted By: Philip | July 26, 2009 5:29 AM
I am so saddened and frustrated with arguments about whether the practice of homosexuality is a sin or if it is as valid and as acceptable as heterosexuality. Like earlier comments express, the Bible makes any sexual practice outside of marriage a sin. It is clear God meant marriage to be a sanctified union between a man and a woman; this is written in Genesis and continues to this day.
Other passages say it is an abomination to God; so that's it, in black and white. Any human variations, justifications or interpretations that try to legitimise sex between 2 men or between 2 women are denying God's emphatic word on the subject.
So why oh why are we even debating it? If we profess Christian or Jewish allegiance to God, the Bible old and new are His guide and books of Wisdom and law for us to follow.
Jesus Himself said nothing in it was to be altered; but we in our arrogance and rebellion will do anything we can to make God and His loving Word to fit OUR perspectives!
Sadly the homo-phobic in the Church condemn homosexuals as worse sinners than those who commit other sins! None of us have any right to judge our brother, judge the sin, yes,and try to help a brother repent and move on, but NOT the sinner. God gives the right only to Jesus to judge all of us.
Those who are Christian's yet have convinced themselves that it is acceptable to God for them and others to have same-sex relationships ( as long as it is in a loving 'long term' context)are in deception. They have blinded themselves and others into this view. But that is their choice, God gave us free will, to follow God's will for our lives, or to follow our version.
How many homo-phobic Christian's are in a second marriage after being divorced? Jesus has words about that situation too! How many 'straight men' lust after other women ? How many of us are gluttons, full of self righteous pride, cruel to our wives and children, ignore the poor,the widow,the orphan?
We are (most of us)hypocrites, with planks in our own eyes.
I'm so tired of 'churchianity', we are all sinners, those who give their lives to Jesus, are saved by His grace and mercy alone.
Lets get out of our church buildings, and out of our theological boxes and do what Christ told us to do. Repent of sin, accept His forgiveness, forgive others, then go into the world and preach the Good News, with our changed humbles lives, so other sinners can see the difference and want the Joy God has given by His Holy Spirit, to those that believe in Him.
Posted By: Clive McLaren | July 26, 2009 6:45 AM
I find Father Gentry's "joke" very amusing since he is a "Father" and all, and his sentiments quite helpful.
What is the value of calling something a church, in the Christian sense of adherence to the teachings and mission of Jesus Christ, if that thing for all practical purposes has given up on Jesus Christ. In other words, what is the point of continuing to say that you believe in Jesus, when the Jesus in whom you claim to believe is a Jesus of your own remaking and refashioning.
Would it not be better to say that you have discovered a new Jesus who is distinct from the N.T. one, so that people who want to continue believing in the "old" Jesus can be free to do so?
Should not the "new anglicans" say clearly that they no longer follow the old ways, but have found some new and exciting ways which include "celebrating" diversity and inclusiveness, and being "tolerant" of "old" sins, vices and wrong-doings.
But hold on! Isn't that exactly what the Episcopal church is trying to do. This "thing" has made it pelucidly clear that it is no longer following the old paths. My question is why are people dedicated to the old ways, taking so long, and finding it so hard to believe what they are seeing and hearing?
Posted By: Steve Skeete | July 26, 2009 7:18 AM
WHICH PART OF GOD'S WORD DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
ROMANS 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
ROM 1:2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)
ROM 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
ROM 1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
ROM 1:5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:
ROM 1:6 Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:
ROM 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
ROM 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.
ROM 1:9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers;
ROM 1:10 Making request, if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come unto you.
ROM 1:11 For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established;
ROM 1:12 That is, that I may be comforted together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me.
ROM 1:13 Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.
ROM 1:14 I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise.
ROM 1:15 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.
ROM 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
ROM 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
ROM 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
ROM 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
ROM 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
ROM 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
ROM 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
ROM 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
ROM 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
ROM 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
ROM 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
ROM 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
ROM 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
ROM 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
ROM 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
ROM 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
ROM 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Posted By: Gerald Goldberg | October 29, 2009 8:00 AM