The Second Denomination I Have Lost
I grew up Southern Baptist. I attended the Baptist church until I was 29 and am a product of a Baptist college. I have great respect for Baptists, particularly their commitment to the authority of Scripture.
Unfortunately, fundamentalists took over the Southern Baptist Convention in the early 1980s and began chasing out everyone who didn’t toe their particular theological line. Baptist colleges and universities were the worst hit, although in some places entire congregations were kicked out. In carrying out their theological purge, the fundamentalists abandoned the basic idea of what it means to be Baptist: the freedom of the individual believer within the local congregation.
At that point, I decided to change denominations. I wanted to belong to a denomination that respected the history of Christianity. I wanted a community of faith that followed its own rules. I wanted a church where the two sides worked out their issues instead of splitting over them. So, I joined the Episcopal church. Believe, the irony of that decision is not lost on me.
The communique released by the primates is an interesting document. Some very conservative diocese have been having bishops from other provinces come in to officiate in services. This is against the canons of the church. So, the communique sets up a situation in which they are given alternative oversight by someone other than the person elected by the majority. In case you are not following this, the conservative got rewarded for violating canons. They were told that what they were doing is wrong, but if they would stop doing it the church would basically set up the same situation but make it legal.
The liberals and moderates, however, who had followed all the rules, were told that they had to stop blessing same sex unions and consecrating gay bishops. The General Convention of the ECUSA has already agreed to the latter. The former has never been on the table because it is not an issue that affects the Communion. But the primates have issued their ultimatum, even though there is nothing in the canons that give the primates that right. In other words, the liberals and moderates got punished for following the rules.
The reason that the conservatives in the Episcopal church got their way is that the majority of primates agree with them theologically. But this ignores what makes us Anglican: the fact that we worship together despite differences as long as we accept the creeds of the church. That is the essence of Anglicanism as established by the Elizabethan Settlement and defended by Richard Hooker. But the conservatives seem to think that it is alright to ignore Anglican rules and traditions in order to force your theology on someone. Anglicans have never been held together by a common theology. We are held together by a common faith.
This means this is the second denomination I have lost to conservatives who want to force others to accept their theology even when it goes against the essence of the denomination. I have to say, it is getting kinda old.
On February 22nd, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Kevin, you said, “The liberals and moderates, however, who had followed all the rules, were told that they had to stop blessing same sex unions and consecrating gay bishops.” (Emphasis mine.)
That is somewhat disingenuous since blessing same sex unions (leaving aside consecrations) is not exactly “following the rules.” I would also point out that there are plenty of “moderates” who are not in favor of blessing same sex unions or allow ordination and consecration of gay members of the community.
As for what makes us Anglican, I will defer since I do not know the Settlement well, but my guess from Hooker is that these matters would be considered serious enough to be address by the Communion. Also, if we can make the argument that society has progressed such that our views on sexuality can change perhaps we have progressed enough socially that our view of the Communion can change? Given modern means of transport and communication does the EC need to be USA? Why must we be bound by our geography? And other such questions were never possible for the community 150+ years ago.
And I wouldn’t despair yet. I seriously doubt that the conservatives have stolen your denomination.
On February 22nd, 2007 at 7:29 pm
To the best of my knowledge, there are no canons that prohibit same-sex unions or the ordination of gay clergy. I could be wrong on this.
Second, I was not implying that all moderates were in favor of these things. As a moderate, I think that the church should not have ordained Robinson, due to the affect it was going to have on other provinces. But some moderates do approve of these things. My point was that it is not just liberals who agreed to this path.
Finally, I would agree that our understanding of communion can change. Perhaps we should abandon what has made us distinct for over 400 years. But if we are going to do so, shouldn’t this be decided by everyone? Seems to me that abandoning one of our distinctives is something that we would need a supermajority of the people to agree to.
If we are going to change and start saying that bishops can cross geographical bounds, this should be done by consent. It is not enough for a few parishes or dioceses to say that they want to abandon this rule. The church as a whole should decide.
What is happening is that we are in the process of forming the Anglican Communion. The Communion is a very recent idea. We still need to hammer out the details of what communion means. But it seems to me that some conservative provinces that don’t accept the historical polity of the church are calling the shots.
If the Communion is going to work, all provinces are going to have to respect the rights of other provinces to structure themselves by their own rules. In the US, we have a church where the laity have a say in the decisions. This is not the case in Nigeria, for instance, where all decisions are made by bishops. We are not telling them they need to change before we will be in communion with them, but they are demanding that we do.
On February 23rd, 2007 at 8:12 am
I should just clarify two things. I don’t pretend to know all the canons, but it is my understanding that several times liturgies for blessing same sex unions have not passed the GC. That implies strongly if not directly that such an action is not formally sanctioned by the church.
I also wanted to make it clear that I was NOT endorsing what has gone on with bishops from other provinces trampling on TEC. I am one who espouses following the rules until they are changed, if they are changed. I was, however, wondering aloud something akin to what the ABC had suggested after TEC’s last GC as well as considering some of the technological opportunities, economic issues, etc. that we have discussed on blogs in the past only now with respect to church polity.
For the record, this too is my second denomination. I don’t know that it is lost to me or you, whatever our individual views are.
On February 23rd, 2007 at 10:29 am
The fact that GC hasn’t passed same sex liturgies is a good point. Most bishops do not permit such liturgies, while others allow them to happen without approval. For example, some bishops will allow their priests to perform such services but not in an Episcopal church.
This means that the primates are asking the Episcopal church to stop doing something it has never officially approved of doing.
My statement that the denomination is lost to me is hyperbole. If, ultimately, the primates push the ECUSA farther than they it feels it can go, I suspect that the Episcopal church will simply leave the Anglican Communion. After all, the Anglican church survived for 400 years without an Anglican Communion. I greatly hope that doesn’t happen, but I suspect it will if the ECUSA perceives itself as being asked to change its polity in such a fundamental way.
On January 15th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Many years ago, the Church of England were considering whether Divorcees were entitled to get re-married in church. Eventually, as it still stands today, the decision is the choice of the Priest. This is where they should take Gay Unions, after all the same Biblical/Scripture/Morals arguements are being used!