ECUSAn Reactionary Religion
S IS being reported all over the blogosphere and even on NPR yesterday AM, the Episcopal Church, USA, voted to remove any hindrances for ordination to all her members – including gay or lesbian persons, and those living in committed partnerships.
What is being missed, however, is the ditching of a lot of her members.
As Susan Russell said on NPR yesterday, the reason this passed now – exactly the reverse of 3 years ago – is many (most?) of the conservatives are gone.
In other words, without the other half of the Body of Christ, the left half just spins wildly off into space. The same is true, of course, on the Right Side of the Anglican Nave in the US: ACNA will most assuredly now only spin further to the right. Sad, really. As their Presiding Bishop said – no one is saved alone. Banishing conservatives to the hinterlands destroys the communion needed for salvation. A good thing has happened at a terrible cost. If schism is a sin, what happens to those who push others into it? Further more, no one schisms alone: Both sides of the Anglican Nave have schismed so far apart as to leave the aisle filled with rubble in the church’s collapse.
While both continue to babble about being the “real” Anglican presence in the USA.
Reminds me of ROCOR and the OCA.
I don’t pretend to know what to do here. Indeed, I – in my person – am a gay man: I’m part of the problem in this equation for the right. But in making that admission, I’d be part of the problem for the left.
The question is not how do we do peace and justice for a minority within Christ’s flock. The question is not how do we “include” those who clearly have enough votes to include themselves at least within their own hyper conservative or hyper liberal ghettos.
The issue is how do we recognise our own sinfulness – in the first person is the only sin we can see – and see Jesus in the other – in the second person is the only way we can see Jesus.
How do we fall down and worship Christ in the person of someone we despise?
Category: Egg Cracking, church geekery
Discussion: You came too late to this party
Share:
“Banishing conservatives to the hinterlands destroys the communion needed for salvation.”
But the liberals didn’t banish the conservatives to the hinterlands. They willfully banished themselves. And whereas the actions of B 033 take the church in a direction it hasn’t gone before, it is a direction the church needs to go. How can we say that we believe in a God of love – indeed that God is love – if we as a church cruelly confine our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters to the closet? They should be open about who they choose to love as they serve Christ’s church with honor and dignity. The alternative to this is nothing but bigotry and hypocracy, and it needs to be named as such.
The implications of B 033 also go beyond gay and lesbian relationships. It calls into question the bigotry and hypocracy of patriarchal social values in general – values that have become not only outdated in our socio-economic climate but harmful to human beings through the devastating, de-humanizing effects of repression, which only leads to depraved minds and damaged relationships.
Why not admit that people like to have sex for reasons other than procreation and that there’s nothing wrong or unholy with this? Why not admit that teens and young adults who are not financially ready for marriage have sexual desires that should safely and lovingly be explored? Isn’t this common sense? It’s no wonder that red states have the highest rate of divorce, teen pregnancy and adultery. Let’s not create burdens we can’t carry. Let’s be human, let’s be real, and yes, let’s be holy and loving towards our fellow human beings.
I apologize for being so preachy and a little angry, but I’m tired of the damage caused to human beings by the cruel and unrealistic social values of religious conservatives. My grandfather was right when he said that sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade.
Nothing to be sorry for, James: you preach as you need/can!
The questions are not “is the Church wrong on sex and how do we fix it?” The question is “how can we best achieve the salvation of humanity?” But the answer to the important question is not, “Run forward so fast as to scare others away or prevent the weaker folks from keeping up.”
A priest said to me elsewhere: the conservatives are tossing out compassion and the liberals are tossing out logic. It takes two to schism here. Rome *and* Constantinople have to both repent – even though both may be right. Etc. Both are banishing each other to the hinterlands or, as Barbara Harris is reported to have said after her consecration, “If you need to go, then go…” Is not the universal welcome of the Gospel.
No one here is close enough to right yet.
I used to think that the Jew/Gentile division pictured in Acts and the Epistles was resolved by the apostles. But, clearly, not. That issue tracked for centuries: the Ephesians were still fighting to observe Passover in the 190s and St John Chrysostom was still telling Christians not to light sabbath candles… 200 years later. Even then: it was not without pain, antisemitism and schism. There were (are?) odd sects left stranded in the Judean wilderness and the debate over the Peshitta is, I think, part of the remains of it.
Do we have time to go slow?
Do we have time to go slow?
Apart of me would like to agree with you here, but I so strongly believe in the damaging effects of patriarchal social values to the human soul that the larger part of me says no. While we need to love our conservative brothers and sisters in Christ – and recognize them as such – we need to call them out on their views that hinder the salvation of many.
The 2 questions you juxtaposed are directly related: our views on sex directly affect our views on salvation. Placing the burden of unrealistic sexual mores on us often leads to sexual depravity. Instead of allowing ourselves to explore our sexual natures in a safe, loving and life-giving way, many conservative Christians repress such feelings to the point where they boil over to unhealthy activities like promiscuous sex, adulterous relationships, pornography, etc. – sexual activities that are life-destroying and deny us the salvation of Christ that transforms us to what we should really be.
My appeal here is to common sense combined with a striving towards what we should really be (salvation). Conservative, patriarchal social mores fit neither of these appeals and therefore should be abandoned. I congratulate the church to which I belong for doing just this.
I have to disagree here. As much as I dislike “patriarchal values” I have to admit we’ve evolved for millennia with them (unless you buy into alternative history models, in which case you’ll disagree). They may be what we no longer need – but they’ve not been too harmful. Oppressive maybe, but no more or less than any other human system – eg, the way our current trends tend to oppress or cut out those who disagree. We’re just making another human choice and crediting it to God, I think.
I can relate to what you’re saying. Patriarchal values aren’t all bad. The institution of marriage is a product of patriarchal values, and it has served civilizations well in bringing about stability and order in human relations. I think you might be misunderstanding my strong words against certain aspects of patriarchal values that need to go – repressive sexual practices for instance – as an outright condmenation of everything patriarchy stands for. This is not what I’m saying, and I apologize for being unclear on this point. I actually hope and pray that gays and lesbians will be able to experience the stability and order of marital relations, hardly an outright condemnation of patriarchy.
As far as “making another human choice and crediting it to God,” I also relate with your concern. I think this sentiment can also be applied to conservative Christians who identify patriarchal values with the gospel. Both liberal and conservative Christians are in the same epistemological boat here – we both don’t know jack about what precisely God thinks about this or that issue. Simplistic appeals to scripture and tradtion won’t work here because scripture and the formation of our traditions took place within the context of specific time periods and reflected the social prejudices of those time periods -unless you believe the Bible and the church’s tradition are totally the word of God and fell from the sky. I know of no intelligent Christians – liberal or conservative – who see the bible or the ongoing tradition of the church in this way.
So if simplistic appeals to scripture and tradition won’t work to bring about some clarity, what will? Common sense, or what we Anglicans call reason. Just look at the day-to-day effects of keeping gay and lesbian priests and bishops in the closet. Look at the effects of telling teens, young adults and single heterosexuals that if they have sex before they’re married, then God will damn them to hell or look unfavorably on them. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to induce that the effects of such actions and sentiments are not good.
As you might know, I grew up in a conservative Christian fundamentalist environment. I was told such silly things by people I admired that even looking at a woman in a sexual manner is adultery (a gross misinterpretation of Matthew 5:27,28 in my opinion). I would like to say here that I had enough sense back then to realize that what my elders were saying to me was off the mark – that there is nothing wrong about looking at a beautiful woman and thinking to yourself, “wow,” (within reason, of course) – but I didn’t. I have felt the negative repercussions of such teachings ever since.
Such sentiments are even more harsh on gays and lesbians, since there can be no possible opportunity to carry out their feelings and desires according to traditional Christian teaching. As a heterosexual, I at least have the option of expressing my sexuality in marriage with the blessing of the church throughout the ages – for the sole purpose of procreation, of course: ) Gays and lesbians shouldn’t feel ashamed nor barred from the ministry for being open about a very important part of who they are, and neither should heterosexuals. Inductively observing the effects of such teachings in the lives of people points to the will of God, in my opinion.
My apologies for getting a little personal here, but I knew of no better way to illustrate what I am trying to say.
First: no need to apologise for the level of personal content. We’re dealing with a terribly intimate and thus entirely social issue. Writing as someone attracted to the same sex, I take most all of this personal.
This, James of Chicago, is where I most agree with you:
“Just look at the day-to-day effects of keeping gay and lesbian priests and bishops in the closet. Look at the effects of telling teens, young adults and single heterosexuals that if they have sex before they’re married, then God will damn them to hell or look unfavorably on them. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to induce that the effects of such actions and sentiments are not good.”
This topic also impinges on or liberates the lives of heterosexuals, and differing parts of me suspect one of two things: 1) some straights who support gay rights do so exactly because it would mean liberation for themselves as well (everything is ok!!!!); and 2) some straights who oppose gay rights do so exactly because it would mean liberation for themselves as well. The latter option of course makes sense in the case of closeted, married social conservatives like that Senator, but it also points to the fears felt by people of their own sexual power and energy. If they let other people out of tight rules, they must also take responsibility and liberate themselves.
And, all of these options refer back to personal responsibility. The straight men I know who have – honestly – discussed male sexual appetites with women come in two categories: those who report over-powering, uncontrollable urges that they rely on God’s rules to control and those who report very strong sexuality over which they exert self-control (aided, or not, by God’s Holy Spirit). If you rely on the rules… of course you want all the rules to be in place and you want the other rules to be as strong – inf not stronger – than the rules you follow.
The question my religion teacher asked me: do you drive *when* the light is green, or *because* the light is green? Do you stop when or because the light turns red?
When working out our salvation with fear and trembling the synergy is not, however, just with God: it is with all those around us, all those whom God has placed in our lives for a purpose. The parties engaging in harmful, even destructive (to self and other) theology can’t just be cut off to wallow in their own dysfunction! How unloving, how cruel, how outright evil can we be?
Likewise, in the rather Orthodox concept of Ubuntu, there is no me without you. Our being *is* communion. Period. My mental health, spiritual happiness or sexual satisfaction is altogether meaningless for my own joy or my salvation if you are not there too. If God has placed you in my path for my salvation – and yours – surely the right answer is not “Buh-bye, don’t let your chausable get caught in the door on the way out.” If you are holding out on entering the promised land (a metaphor for salvation, not sexual liberty) surely the right answer is for me to die coaxing you across the border.
“When working out our salvation with fear and trembling the synergy is not, however, just with God: it is with all those around us”
Amen, Huw! I read a book that came out recently called Stealing Jesus, where the author (his name escapes me) provides a defense of liberal protestant christianity against fundamentalism. My main critique of the book is that it sometimes desended to a polemic against fundamentalist Christianity, but the author made a really good point in his discussion on ethics. He said we should follow the rule of love, not the rule of some arbitrary, law-giving, angry God.
The criteria for our actions should always be how does this affect the salvation and well-being of others – which is hardly an “anything goes” morality. That’s why I spoke out against destructive expressions of sexuality like promiscuity and pornography, to name a few. Such expressions of sexuality are all about self – gratification and have nothing to do with intimacy, love and the shared communion you talked about.
That being said, I still maintain my appeal to common sense – that sexual repression and sexual licentiousness are opposite sides of the same coin. There needs to be a holy balance on this issue informed by the concept of Ubuntu – let’s work out our salvation together with fear and trembling.
It’s funny how the phrase, “and those living in committed partnerships” gets overlooked. That would allow those nasty, disgusting people who have sexual intercourse with members of the opposite sex but aren’t married (but are committed) to be be ordained too.
My question to the James of Chicago would be, where do you draw the line? How much pain and misery is created in this world by teens and young adults having sex when they’re not ready? And I’ve always been told how healthy and wonderful the gay lifestyle is (but not really). God doesn’t forbid certain things because He’s keeping wonderful things from His servants, but for the same reason we don’t give 10-year-old children alcohol, firearms and cars.
So, the Episcopal Church has given the finger to traditional Christianity. I’m not even sure they belong in the category of Christian anymore really. I know, we shouldn’t judge those who are liberal, just those who are conservative. Seriously?
I think the people I most feel for are those in the “excluded middle.” Let me give you an example from politics. There are people who are morally conservative, but socially progressive. They fit in neither the Democratic nor the Republican parties.
In the same way, I have known people whose views on the authority, efficacy, reliability, truthfulness, etc., etc., of Scripture will rival those of any evangelical, but who have come to the conclusion, using those very Scriptures, that there is a place for more than one expression of a committed covenant relationship. Those people have no place to go after the split. Among them are both gay and hetero folk. Mind you, I do not agree with their exegesis, but I can feel for the fact that they are taking the Scriptural enterprise very “evangelically” and yet find that neither side really accepts them.
Thanks! THose left in the middle when the rafters collapse.
Years ago I used to go for long walks at 1:00 am. I was anxious at first, since there might be someone lurking in the dark. But I quickly got over it; I realized that it’s only worthwhile lurking if you have a reasonable assurance of….Having someone around to accost, bother, attack, whatever. I realized I was the lurker, so it was pretty safe.
I think all the expression of what you might call “The agony of victory” is similar. You fought for years to get something, now you got it! But it isn’t nearly as much fun as you thought it might be? Why? It’s only fun to demand that two men can get married if there are straight couples to notice. If they leave it isn’t (And I use this word only because it’s used by the groups to describe themselves) “Queer” anymore. And a little disappointing. Now it’s the norm. And something is lost, isn’t it? Those “Conservatives” didn’t play by the rules and stay around to be offended. How dare they. What will you do now? Any Bantu words to describe dissatisfactory triumph? You have nothing to complain about and only each other to complain to.
Bob, I couldn’t agree more.
Other James and Bob – y’all remain cynical all you want as a healthy ballance to our conversation! Personally my own decision to pop-off into Indy land was in part because the constant fighting was getting annoying. This convention would have driven me crazy if it had anything to do with my own community. The gloves are off.
While making a commitment to mission on paper, ECUSA has also fired its entire evangelism office – something I would have held on to while they were ditching the other things too. It seems to make clear to me that the “Evangelism” office was there to point at. Despite the fact that it was generally occupied by *very* liberal sorts, including my friend the late Linda, Strohmeier, it was used as a decoy: “Look, oh you evangelical conservatives, we have an EVANGELISM office!” Now the conservatives are gone, there is no need to placate them any more. I suspect my own former office is also gone as it was there to placate foreign conservatives.
This is what I’ve been saying since I left ECUSA for the OCA… and it was only worse when I came back: there is no commitment to the people who differ in their read of the Bible, although I’d go further: in many cases (as Fr Ernesto points out) there is no commitment to people who read the Bible at all. I suspect, honestly, that the next people to go will be the moderates, although that may take another 25 – 30 years. Even many of the people that drive E. Orthodox folks batty (I’ll refrain from listing names) are, in fact, moderates, wrestling with the Bible and the Tradition in the way I’ve described in my posts on Progressive Orthodoxy instead of trying to “fix” the Church. I’m thinking they’ll have to leave soon.
Fr Ernesto, let me say thank you, very much, for your post. I perhaps misread myself into the center that you describe, but I feel like jumping up and down and saying “you get it!”
Honestly I’m more than cynical. I’m outraged and what I see as a slap in the face (and it isn’t my face that was slapped).
Oh, this is rich. I didn’t know 17-year-olds could be voting delegates.
James, see the last line or so of the NYT article:
“What it’s about is keeping people at the table,” he said, “pushing more discussion.” — Quoth the 17-year old delegate. Pore thaing. He probably really believes this. 30 years ago folks who couldn’t see any clearer than this were encouraged to turn 18, 19, then up into their 20′s before voting in adult events like a church convention. Not now. The discussion is over. He will grow up with ever more regular clown masses, hip-hop masses and you-too-charists. Eventually though yoo-too-charists become more and more too-cute-arists and you have to invent new and odder things to amuse yourself. He’ll probably just leave. When you win all the marbles and then the ones you hated all leave, well, as I pointed out, it isn’t like you thought it would be. I’ve asked before, what if there’s no opposition to same sex marriages at all. Will lots and lots of those couples get married? I doubt it. No more than every straight couple does in ECUSA. Schism in Anglicanism won’t bother Americans at all. It will just mean that they are less likely to call in befuddled people like Rowan Williams for photo ops and maybe not wear the puffy shirts for big events. Organizations like ACNA (unpredictable, may just go away) will operate happily. You notice this could NOT have happened the other way round, if conservatives had won? The message of the Gospel would still be what it is, and no one would expect ultra liberals to leave and form their own organizations. It isn’t in their nature to start anew, but to subvert from within and destroy. It worked. No long faces, now! Get busy.
LOL. I have to laugh, Bob. We were having a decent, intelligent discussion. You two should go vent with one another. James is still an Episcopalian witha bad taste in his mouth from all the pious Orthodox he met. You do remember, right, that I left ECUSA. And that I am critiquing from without as you are.
Regarding marriages… you’re holding up a straw man, something that can’t be measured: there’s no way of knowing how many people wanted to get married or would have gotten married or won’t now. Stop venting that particular topic. I’m with you on the U2charists, though: which are about as silly as they come. And clown masses bother me, too. You’re preaching to the choir.
Schism w/in ECUSA should matter not at all to Americans. It should matter, however, to Christians. I know the Uberpious Orthodox don’t think of the rest of us that way. But such is life.
Yes, a bad taste. Being a good southerner I think I’ll have me some bourbon.
Huw, I was thinking of you–and others–when I wrote my post. It would be so much easier to be überfromm and always sure would it not?
überfromm?
“James is still an Episcopalian with a bad taste in his mouth from all the pious Orthodox he met”
This is very true, but I feel as if my views are being a little misunderstood here. In many ways I consider myself apart of that excluded middle, which is why I didn’t fit in with the pious Orthodox I met in the Antiochene Archdiocese and I don’t exactly fit in with the predominantly liberal crowd in ECUSA.
Let me be absolutely clear in saying that I’m not for an “anything goes” approach to sexual morality. This “anything goes” approach not only cheapens and despiritualizes sexuality but also harms human beings. I believe that ideally sex should be saved for two people (yes, people) committed to each other in the bans of marriage. Our current social circumstances are making that more and more difficult to follow, and I think the church needs to take account of that.
I think Peter Gomes said it best in his book The Scandalous Gospel of Jesus: “What are the implications for Christians and others who are concerned for the welfare of a culture that is increasingly seduced by the values of materialism, entertainment, and the general coarsening of discourse but are not prepared to retreat into a kind of religious absolutism rooted in a cultural nostalgia or a tinny patriotism.”
Is there a way we can be faithful to the principles of the gospel without equating the gospel with Leave it to Beaver or Ozzy and Harriet?
Oops! Sorry James-of-Chicago: I was referring to “Other James” as the former Orthodox.
It looks like other James and I have something else in common besides our names.
Woots! Another reason to give me a “Senior Moment” :)