It’s possible, even likely, that many of you are blissfully unaware that The Episcopal Church’s triennial General Convention is winding to a close in Columbus, Ohio tomorrow. It’s even likely that many of you are blissfully unaware that The Episcopal Church holds a General Convention every three years! Would that we all could be so blessed. Unfortunately, knowledge of General Convention is like Pandora’s Box–once you open it, all sorts of unpleasant things fly out, and you’ll never be rid of them.
You might recall that earlier this year my parish chose to leave what was then called the Episcopal Church in the United States of America (ECUSA) and seek refuge in the Diocese of Luweero in the Anglican Church of Uganda, a church to which our parish somewhat remarkably has deep and longstanding ties. I have consequently been watching General Convention with some interest, as the forces which drove St. Luke’s to this odd step have been the prime topic of discussion in Columbus. I have been watching, and praying for clarity.
The Episcopal Church, as this convention has asked it to be called, consists largely of three groups: the progressives on the one hand, the traditionalists on the right, and the folks in the middle who have been attending The Episcopal Church for years and don’t know what all the fuss is about it. It’s fair to say that the folks at Convention fall into one of the first two groups, as the latter (a group I belonged to not so long ago) are hardly aware of their yearly Diocesan Convention, let alone the triennial General Convention.
For those of us in the second of the two groups, the traditionalists, it’s become clearer and clearer over the last few years that (A) the progressives have captured the national church organizations, most of the seats in the House of Bishops, and a substantial number of the individual parishes, and that (B) the progressives and the traditionalists have no common ground for discussion. We argue from the Bible, from tradition, and from orthodox theology; they argue from….well, in point of fact, what do they argue from? I’ll come back to that.
I imagine that point (A) has long been obvious to the progressives as well; point (B) seems to have eluded most of them. There are several reasons for that. First, they seem to take it as an article of faith that if opposing parties will simply sit down and hash things out, they can come to a reasonable consensus. That we traditionalists haven’t yet come to a reasonable consensus with the progressives simply means that we haven’t discussed it sufficiently…because if we had, then naturally we’d see it their way. That we continue to disagree with them is simply a sign that we’re unreasonable. (Bear in mind, these are the folks who seem to think that the Israelis could come to a reasonable accommodation with Hamas if they’d just sit down and talk things over. Israel tried that with Yasser Arafat, and it got them nothing but years of suicide bombers.) There are no problems so big that enough careful listening won’t make them go away.
The second reason is that Anglicanism has always incorporated many different theological parties of wildly different views, and as a result Anglicans have gotten really good at papering over the differences with grand-sounding but theologically vague rhetoric. Those who rise to the top of the leadership in TEC are generally especially good at this, and that makes it difficult to see the divisions clearly.
The progressives, so far as I understand their position, base their policies on the “liberation theology” that came out of Latin America in the 1980’s. Liberation theology, so far as I understand it, is a realized eschatology–a plan to bring about Heaven on Earth by breaking down every last barrier, every last oppressive structure, to liberate every last oppressed and marginalized group. In this system, the Church becomes primarily a means to this end; the Bible is important so far as it serves this end; the Resurrection is primarily a metaphor for this liberation; and notions of morality, sin, and redemption are secondary, where they are not in fact instruments of oppression and marginalization. Consequently, they have supported first the ordination of women as priests and bishops followed by the blessing of same-sex unions and the ordination of gay and lesbian priests.
It is always dangerous to characterize your opponents’ views; there’s always the risk of raising up what James Lileks once terms “a clone army of strawmen.” But I believe I’m presenting their views fairly, though no doubt overly simplistically.
The traditionalists, on the other hand, esteem traditional Christian orthodoxy, traditional Christian morality, and view the Bible as the inspired Word of God that holds authority today, rather than as a man-made document that might have been appropriate two-thousand years ago but is now sadly out-of-date. For the traditionalists, the traditional teachings of the church are not to be thrown out simply because they conflict with the demands of our modern culture and of liberation eschatology. If one can make a biblical and theological argument in the context of tradition for some new innovation, such as the ordination of women, then some traditionalists might accept it. This is, in fact, the state of affairs regarding women’s ordination: some traditionalists accept it on theological grounds, and some do it.
What first made the vast gap between the progressives and traditionalists apparent to most of us was the aftermath of the last General Convention, when a gay man who had left his wife and children to live with his gay partner was confirmed as the Bishop of New Hampshire. We begged and pleaded, all over the Anglican blogosphere, with the progressives to give us a theological justification, on solid biblical grounds, for what they had done–and none was forthcoming. I never even saw it attempted. I still haven’t. The progressives simply do not value that kind of argument.
As a result, much of the coverage of the Current Unpleasantness has focussed on the question of gays and lesbians in TEC, even though for us traditionalists the issues go much deeper and broader. Because the question of gays and lesbians in TEC is the presenting problem, though, even we tend to spend too much time on it.
Which is no doubt why yesterday’s events have thrown all of us for a loop. Yesterday, after just five ballots, a woman was elected to be the Presiding Bishop (what in other Anglican bodies would be called an Archbishop) of TEC. Bishop Schori is the first female Anglican primate. This puts her in a position of authority over all other bishops in TEC.
I don’t believe that ordination of women as priests and bishops was in the forefront of anyone’s mind as Convention opened this year–yet there are three dioceses in TEC (Quincy, San Joaquin, and Fort Worth) which do not accept the validity of women’s ordination. The Diocese of Fort Worth has already requested “alternate primatial oversight” from the Archbishop of Canterbury–in other words, the bishop of Fort Worth has refused to accept Bishop Schori’s authority. Word is, it’s likely that the other two will do the same once Convention is over and their delegations return home. On top of these, Bishop Schori is one of the more liberal bishops in TEC, fully at home with the realized eschatology of liberation that drives the progressives. The progressives at Convention, through this election and through the resolution process, have been standing their ground and have been refusing to resort to the kind of nebulous rhetoric the previous Presiding Bishop is famous for.
I and many others prayed for clarity; it looks like we’re getting it, in spades.
(A footnote: now is not the time for me to discuss the rightness or wrongness of women’s ordination. Suffice it to say, there are theological arguments rooted in scripture for both positions. It’s not an issue I have strong feelings about, nor have I studied the arguments on either side.)