Fort Worth, Quincy, Pittsburgh, San Joaquin: A problem of love

Today the Episcopal Diocese of Ft. Worth under +Jack Iker announced that it too is leaving the Episcopal Church and aligning itself with Archbishop Venables and the Southern Cone. This is now the fourth diocese to cast off its ties to the Episcopal Church over disputes which ultimately are about conservative versus progressive interpretations of the Scriptural witness to us as Christians.

Ultimately, this dispute is all about love. That means that, for many of us, this is a dispute about the very nature of God.

I think most of us (with perhaps the exception of +John Shelby Spong) would agree that we are called to live according to the precepts handed to us in Scripture as one part of the infamous three-legged stool that Anglicans use to craft our understanding of our faith and theology. The difference sadly, boils down to these two questions, and these questions alone:

Is God a loving God, or is God a judging God? Does God call us to love or condemn?


These questions are vital to one's theology literally as well as figuratively. I would actually state that these questions are vital to how we live our lives, which is what theology should be.

One of the flashpoints for conservative displeasure and censuring of the Episcopal Church has to do with homosexuality and its status in the interpretation in Scripture. One could even make the case that the anger of the conservatives is over the call of some people to love those of their own gender. So this dispute is literally about love, one could say.

Conservatives ultimately interpret the Scriptural witness in four or five specific verses to mean God wishes to judge and exclude homosexuals. Progressives interpret Scripture not based on specific verses but on Christ's action in sitting at table with the most marginalized and despised of his times to mean that God loves all and Jesus is sent to all in love. Ultimately, the dispute is about strict interpretation of the Bible versus loose interpretation of the Bible, similar to political disputes about the interpretation of the US Constitution.

We could rehash all the particulars of this dispute, but that's been done better by others elsewhere. I myself have great unease about +Gene Robinson's path to the bishopric in particular, but it's not his homosexuality per se that troubles me, as I have explained previously, and listen, defenders of Bishop Robinson, we are just going to have to disagree about that. Then there's the dispute many of these conservatives have about the leadership of women in the Church, but this point merely reinforces the definition of the problem.

But what troubles me more than anything else is the anger that radiates from those who are leaving the Episcopal Church, and their Global South counterparts who are welcoming the self-exiled into their diocese and provinces. They seem to lack any love for their fellow Christians save those who agree with them theologically. They are full of rage, bitterness, judgment, and vindictiveness. To them the Church is only a Church if it is an exclusive club and I mean both meanings of the word "club"-- as a group and as a blunt weapon.

Any cursory examination of the words and actions of Jesus instructs us to act otherwise. The one recorded instance in Scripture when Jesus showed anger was directed at those who had used literal interpretation of Scripture to defile the sacred sanctuary of God. Jesus clashed with the conservatives of his time over their wrong intent justified upon isolated bits of scripture and tradition. This sounds familiar.

We are called to proclaim Christ crucified, a Christ who loved us so much that he was willing to suffer and to therefore witness to us through that love. Jesus loves us despite our pettiness and brokenness.

It is love that joins us together.

It is love that calls us to a personal relationship with God.

It is love that calls us to be the Body of Christ in the world in fellowship to each other.

Love calls us into unity, not division.

How wonderful and wondrous! How miraculous! All else pales into insignificance.

And I must ask: where is the witness of love in this current dispute?

Prayer for Unity

This might be a good prayer for the bishops at Lambeth to consider as they settle down to business next month:

"Fill us, O Lord and Father of us all, we beseech Thee, with Thy gentle Spirit, and dispel on both sides all the clouds of misunderstanding and passion. Make an end to the strife of blind fury. Arise, O Christ, Thou Sun of righteousness, and shine upon us. Alas! while we contend, we only too often forget to strive after holiness which Thou requirest from us all. Guard us against abusing our powers, and enable us to employ them with all earnestness for the promotion of holiness."

-- Huldrych Zwingli, opening prayer at the Marburg Colloquy, 1529

Blessed and Broken

As I have been doing the daily office this year, I have been reading from Matthew. Yesterday, I read further along, to chapter 15, concerning the feeding of the thousands. Seven loaves and a few fish feed a multitude-- perhaps ten thousand people. Until the bread was blessed and broken, it did not fulfill its purpose. It had to be broken to be shared and to fill the people until they were full.

This is, I think, a symbol of our life in Christ. In answer to our brokenness, we have faith in God. It is that faith that leads us to the blessing of being aware of God's love for us. It is during "the long dark night of the soul" that we feel the presence of God resting with us, abiding with us. Contrary to those who think that God should fix all the problems of the world, if everything was wonderful, we would have no need for God. It is our brokenness that creates a bridge for us to abide in God's kingdom.

We are called to be One. One in Faith and One in Deed.

The body [of Christ] is an organic unity which cannot be divided without damage to the whole. Life flows from the stem to the branches, from the head to the members. Christ is the vine, he is the body. We are incorporated in him. A branch cut off withers and dies. A member cut off ceases to exist. To belong to Christ is to belong to his Church. In the perspective of the New Testament, a Christian living in isolation is unthinkable-- a contradiction in terms.

Again, the life of the body implies diversity in unity. This is Paul's dominant thought in both Rom., ch. 12, and I Cor., chs. 12 to 14. There are many gifts and corresponding functions. God is the giver. Therefore, no one can pride himself on his gifts nor disregard the gifts of others. And fullness of life is attained only when all members of the body are healthy and contribute to the life of the whole.

We are here given some precious instructions as to the life and structure of the church. There is a diversity of ministries, that is, of "services." If there is a hierarchy of functions, it can only be according to the measure of the Spirit that God bestows. Those who are leaders should consider themselves as those who serve, in all humility and love. (See Rom. 12:3-11; I Cor. 12:4-31; Luke 22: 26.) And of all gifts, the greatest-- without which all others are of no avail--is love. This ios the recurring note in all the apostolic letters, as in the sayings of Jesus himself. (See I Cor. ch. 13; Phil. 2:1-8; I John, chs. 3:14-18, 4:7-12; John 13:34.)

The very insistence in these letters on "mutual subjection," on forbearance, each counting others better than himself and seeking their interest rather than his own (Eph. 5:21; Phil. 2:3-4), shows that failure to fulfill the law of love has been one of the stumbling blocks of Christian communities from the very beginning. But it was also considered as the decisive test of their discipleship. The danger in taking pride in one's own gifts while disregarding those of others was always looming on the horizon, as is shown by the chaotic assemblies at Corinth. Paul firmly reminds the churches that "God is not the God of confusion but of peace" (I Cor. 14:33; see also the entire chapter). Every gift must be used for the building up of the church.

Furthermore, the unity of the church is seen at the same time both as something given and as a goal to be attained. Unity belongs to the very essence of the church! "There is one body and one Spirit,... one hope... one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all." (Eph. 4:4-6). The passage is probably referring to the unity of Jews and Gentiles, but the truth it states remains the same for the church throughout the world. It is not in our power to make the church one, for the unity is God-given. We can only manifest this unity in word and deed.

-- Suzanne de Dietrich, The Witnessing Community, 1958.

These words were written fifty years ago in the context of the strengthening Ecumenical movement throughout the world. As I read them, I think of so many of our leaders who would profit from contemplating the truth expressed here.

How committed, truly, can the Episcopal Church, or certainly the Anglican Communion, be toward the goal of unifying the visible, human-wrought fractures within the body of Christ, to the spirit of ecumenism, if we cannot even speak to each other without wanting to cull, to exclude, to build a fence around our little corner of heaven?

On August 23 this year, Christians worldwide will celebrate the 60th anniversary of the founding of the World Council of Churches. Anglicans proudly played a prominent role alongside so many others in founding this noble body, and yet if we look at the crises facing the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion in 2008, how can we hold up our heads without shame?

If you listen to the debate between the two sides of the current schism in San Joaquin or elsewhere, all one is likely to hear is a prettified version of "You started it!" "Did not!" "Did TOO!" What's next? Catcalls and Bronx cheers? Of course, to be fair, when the United States has been led all too willingly for nigh the last decade by people who engage in the same kind of playground idiocy, but on a global scale resulting in the death or exile of millions, I guess we shouldn't be too surprised. But it is time to put away childish things-- more than time, indeed-- and attempt to really live the message of the Gospel, not just random bits of scripture plucked from the margins of the message of Christ, ignoring the centrality of this truth:

THAT MESSAGE WAS AND IS AND ALWAYS SHALL BE, LOVE.

There certainly is no love in the hearts of most involved in this scandal. If there was, we certainly wouldn't be in the mess in which we find ourselves. There may be love at the base of all this dissension, but it's love of self and love of station and love of victimhood and love of privilege.

Call me naive-- I care not. But if the actions of Christians are not rooted in love, then they are not rooted in Christ, and ought not to be countenanced.

When I was in school, I had an English teacher who claimed to be the most confirmed of Christians, and she had the opportunity through the curriculum of the public schools to teach the Old Testament as literature. Unfortunately, as she force-fed us sermons by right-wing evangelists and hounded the Jewish kid in the third row, most of us noticed how very small her love of her fellow-man seemed to be. Her face set into a perpetual scowl, she regaled us with stories of death and destruction, of a vengeful God smiting in righteous anger. She saw nothing wrong with a God who would send a couple of bears to eat up a bunch of kids for making fun of the bald pate of a prophet. I'm sure this lady thought she was saving our souls from eternal damnation-- but her mien did more to turn some classmates from the message of Christ than she ever even knew. I will acknowledge having loads of fun asking her exactly on what day man was created and who Abel married and other sorts of smart-ass adolescent mockery which really was not very nice. But there was certainly no love in her faith.

And it's the same now. We are called to be one body. We are called to labor for the love of Christ, to name the grace that has touched and transformed us like a bolt of lightning. The words are simple, but the action and the fulfillment strain us to the utmost. It would help if we would try.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, both sides of the disagreement over slavery found ample Biblical support for their positions. In the 20th century, the Pauline epistles were used -- and are still used, if the current controversy in Wales or in our own Diocese of Springfield, Illinois is any example--to both support and condemn the ordination of women. The heart of these disputes lies in the fact that the Biblical canon is seen as both the inspired Word of God and is acknowledged as having been assembled by very human men several centuries after Christ. None of the Gospels is coterminous with Christ's ministry. Epistles by Paul made the cut even if the authorship was dubious, while other epistles, such as those by Clement, fell by the wayside, however important they had been in the early life of the Church. We have to acknowledge that Scripture is a part of our tradition, and look at what the overarching message of Christ is through his example and his presence in our hearts.

Of course we all struggle with this love of those who oppose us or argue with us or condemn us. But at the very least, can't we recognize this fault in ourselves and try to overcome it? And I certainly need to do this as much as anyone else. Lord, make me an instrument of your love. Amen.

The rebirth of San Joaquin

More parishes in San Joaquin are vowing the "Remain Episcopal."

A growing number of Episcopalians in the Diocese of San Joaquin are opting to remain within the Episcopal Church (TEC) as the Fresno-based diocese prepares for an anticipated March 29 special convention that would elect a provisional bishop.
Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, in a letter to be distributed via a new diocesan newspaper, notes the proposed convention date and reassures the people of the diocese that work is ongoing "to ensure that you and your fellow Episcopalians may continue to bless the communities around you well into the future."

"I anticipate convening a Special Diocesan Convention on 29 March, at which you will elect new diocesan leaders, and begin to make provision for episcopal leadership for the next year or so," Jefferts Schori writes. "That gathering will be an opportunity to answer questions you may have, as well as to hear about plans for the renewal of mission and ministry in the Diocese of San Joaquin."

The convention announcement follows a series of February 19-22 meetings with individuals and groups from Lodi to Bakersfield which the Rev. Canon Bob Moore called "very fruitful. We've been able to broaden the scope of people who may see a future in the reconstituted Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin and that's been good," he said.

Moore noted as signs of progress the appointment of a 26-member steering committee to help continue the diocese (see roster below); 17 congregations who have opted to remain with TEC; the anticipated March 29 special convention to elect a provisional bishop; establishment of new diocesan headquarters in Stockton and a partnership with Episcopal Life Media to facilitate dissemination of information and to provide a new diocesan newspaper edition.

"It's an enormously big step," said Moore, of the new diocesan publication. "The lack of information here is profound," he said.

The Presiding Bishop appointed Moore, and later the Rev. Canon Brian Cox, as an interim pastoral presence to continuing Episcopalians after 42 of 47 diocesan congregations voted in December to leave TEC and to realign with the Argentina-based Anglican Province of the Southern Cone.

On my other blog, I have a persona who occasionally steps in known as The History Geek, and she comments upon historical antecedents of events from the news or current events. So let's turn to my History Geek side for a little parallel.

In the American Civil War, the state of West Virginia seceded from the seceded state of Virginia. The mountain people of West Virginia had little sympathy with the concerns of the slave-owning plantation owners in the Tidewater region. Although hardly a bastion of abolitionism, the West Virginians had long resented the imbalance of power that had existed in state politics to their detriment. When Virginia voted for secession, the delegates from western Virginia walked out.

Now, here's the interesting part: Since constitutionally, a new state formed from an existing state has to have the permission of the existing state, the West Virginians simply asked permission from themselves to form their new state, since they were the only part of the state still under the authority of the Constitution.

San Joaquin stands in the same situation. And Bp. Schofeld can scream all he wants, but a fragment of a diocese that has seceded from the Episcopal Church has nothing to say to those who choose not to go with them. The people of the reconstituted diocese of San Joaquin may not agree with everything done in the Episcopal Church, but they have chosen to stay. I myself have qualms with Bp. Robinson's qualifications, but I refuse to ally myself with the homophobic rants of African bishops who would never countenance bishops of the Episcopal Church meddling in their own affairs.

And, of course, this site has some interesting information. Here's an interesting point of view:

...(T)he split now occurring, and that conservatives want made official, is distinctly un-Anglican. The heritage of Anglicanism is genuinely "big tent" and rich with compromises. That slavery wouldn't cause serious fragmentation within Anglicanism but the ordination of a gay bishop somewhere would, shows that Anglicanism itself--a centuries-old thing--has become the latest victim of a conservatism that is on the rise in many nations, including our own. That money from major GOP donors has helped destroy something so global and old, demonstrates its power, and leaves me in horrible awe.

Point Second: Many have foreseen this split. The Anglican Churches in Africa are growing especially rapidly and are especially conservative and evangelical. The conventional wisdom is that they will dominate the Lambeth Conference in 2008. (One Episcopal priest expressed his frustration to me hyperbolically, "They're minting 12 new bishops a day!") By virtue of the simple fact that they will so hugely outnumber the bishops from the Americas and Europe by 2008 means that if they really want to invent a way for a national church to be thrown out of the Anglican Communion, they will.

And they will have to, because all of this is unprecedented. Lambeth is a consultative and advisory body officially and only. Period. It doesn't even have the mechanisms in place to dis-invite or excommunicate or kick-out or chuck a member. This is an important point, since most of the media coverage I've read misses the fact that the conservative bishops are calling for something that in essence isn't even possible without re-inventing the Anglican Communion itself, and making it a distinctly un-Anglican thing: something that's authoritative more along the lines of the Roman Catholic Church. If the conservative bishops have their way, it's really the end of Anglicanism as history has known it, not just an end to the participation of Americans and Canadians in some "Anglican Communion."

Pretty well stated.