WhatCanWeSay

What Can We Say?
Suggested Responses for People in the Pew Regarding the Actions of the General Convention of the Episcopal Church

(Recently, I had the opportunity to facilitate a retreat with the Vestry of a small parish in North Carolina. At the end of the retreat, the group wanted to discuss the actions of the 2003 General Convention. I was struck by the fact that they were both anguished and genuinely seeking a way to address the issues raised in Minneapolis. What follows is my attempt at a reply.)

The GCECUSA 2003 took a bold step in affirming the action of the Diocese of New Hampshire in naming Gene Robinson their Bishop Coadjutor. The Convention took the somewhat more moderate step in acknowledging that ceremonies blessing unions of same sex couples were occurring and would continue to occur and were "within the bounds of our common life."

The emotions of critics who see these moves as heresy and supporters who see them as a long-overdue Spirit-led affirmation of human dignity are intense. There is a broad middle ground of Episcopalians (and others) for whom these actions came as a bolt out of the blue. They were largely unaware of the history and deliberations behind the decisions and they are sincerely uncertain what to think or how to respond to the vociferous critics of those actions. For them, the shift in understanding of homosexuality and the church’s response to it is seismic; their anxiety must be honored. The arguments for the status quo are historical and fairly well understood. It is the intent of this position paper to provide the undecided middle with a dispassionate rationale for support as a means of resolving the issues for themselves.

Why Put the Church at Risk?
If something is the right thing to do, Christians individually and the Church as a whole have a responsibility to take a stand for that right. Some mainline white protestant churches did not step forward in leadership during the Civil Rights era and lived to regret it.

Why Didn’t Bishop Robinson Step Down?
There is no way to speak for Bishop Robinson; however, the Diocese of New Hampshire elected him with overwhelming support. At that point he was no longer an individual, he represented the collective will of the Episcopalians of New Hampshire. If he had withdrawn his name, that would have been a slap in the face of his Diocese and the process that chose him.

Why So Fast?
The actions of General Convention only appear fast because virtually no attention had been paid to the discussions until then. Over the last thirty years, the ECUSA has been studying and debating these issues. It was not until the issues came to a head that the broad spectrum of the Episcopal community became aware of them.

What Does the Bible Say?
Biblical authority is the central objection raised to the actions of General Convention; and, on the surface of the English translation of the Bible, the case seems pretty straightforward. However, the meaning of the Bible is seldom simple to ascertain. The things we believe before we begin to read Scripture inevitably influence what we understand it to mean or how deeply we analyze translation and context. Opponents of the death penalty read "Thou shalt not kill." and use the commandment to oppose the death penalty. Those who support the death penalty say we must go further and understand that in the original language the word translated "kill" is referring to murder.

Similarly, scientific evidence about the true nature of homosexuality and experience with the spiritual lives of gay and lesbian friends have prompted many to more deeply examine the seemingly clear statements in the Bible. They have discovered that the Levitical proscriptions against homosexuality (which also included the blind, lame, hunchbacks, and dwarves) were designed to maintain the genetic purity of the Hebrew people and to encourage population growth among a small group of people. Paul’s writings describe homosexuality as a punishment, not a sin. The concept of a faithful, nurturing homosexual relationship was unknowable to him. His only awareness of homosexuality was likely in the form of abusive or promiscuous relationships. (There are many issues related to translation of these passages in the New Testament. A prominent one cited as forbidding homosexual relationships is actually dealing with temple prostitution and/or child exploitation. However, this is not intended to be a thorough exegesis of the few Biblical passages that form the rationale for labeling homosexuality sin.)

While the Anglican approach to truth gives primacy to Scripture, the Bible has never been the sole source for that truth. Tradition and Reason are the other two legs of the stool. It is this last—Reason—that has compelled many within the church to dig deeper into Scripture. In doing so, they have found it to be far less clear than it appears on the surface. This has led them to reevaluate their understanding of homosexuality.

What Do We Tell Our Children?
As with any controversial subject, what and how much we tell our children depend on their age and their readiness. The simplest approach may be to say that the Episcopal Church has chosen to take a risk for people who many consider to be second class citizens. It is a stance in which they can take pride.

The more detailed concerns that parents of early adolescents and teens express fall in the area of sexual morality, marriage, and faithful relationships. If the question is about committed, monogamous relationships, we can tell them that this represents no change in the position of the church. That is exactly the relationship that Bishop Robinson enjoys. If it is about divorce, which Bishop Robinson has also experienced, then there are many in the Church, including many Bishops, with whom we must have equal theological difficulty. We should not be singling him out on this score alone. If it is about the fact that Bishop Robinson is not married to his partner, it seems a little disingenuous to hold him accountable for something that reports indicate he would like to do but which we as a nation (and a Church) will not allow him to do: marry.

What Will Become of the Anglican Communion?
It is far too early to predict. In the past, the worldwide body of Anglicans has effectively accommodated many areas of disagreement among its provinces. There is some evidence that this may happen again. It is helpful to remember that theological blindspots exist everywhere in those areas where local culture and the Gospel message potentially conflict. Western Christianity has a tendency to look the other way when white wealth and privilege are questioned. Some Third World Christians are similarly reticent on issues related to the health, safety, and dignity of women. We do need each other. One of the real gifts to the world of the Anglican tradition is its lack of rigid dogma. In contrast to other doctrinaire faiths, the Anglican community is, in the words of Dr. L. William Countryman of the faculty of the Church Divinity School of the Pacific, "pretty sure [that] assurance is mistaken."

What Will Become of the Episcopal Church?
Some threaten and more fear schism. However, the early indications suggest that the fears may be somewhat overblown. There are a significant number of Episcopalians who are angry or who are grieving over these actions. Some have reduced or eliminated their support for the Church; others have left. The long-term results remain to be seen.
However, there is another side to this issue that must be acknowledged. The whole world is watching. Seldom in recent history has a body of believers been more visible in the public eye. There are many who have observed the actions of the Episcopal Church and have seen a revelation. To them, Christianity as they understood it was inbred, intolerant, and unwelcoming. Whatever else might be said, they can see that the Episcopal Church has gone on record as affirming the dignity of at least one category of marginalized people. That suggests hope that it might be a welcoming community for them. There is a significant, unparalleled opportunity for evangelism. The Church has a responsibility to take advantage of it.

Conclusion
Revolutionary new understandings of God’s will for the world are not in themselves heretical. Paul and Peter had significant arguments about the place of Gentiles in the Christian community, and Peter had to change his beliefs. Martin Luther fought with the Roman church about the merit of scripture in the vernacular and the "priesthood of the believer" and Christendom was changed. In more recent history, Scriptural proof texts cited in support of slavery had to be abandoned and understanding of the role of women in the Church has been completely revised. Both resulted in a healthier Church more in harmony with God’s will.

There is no doubt that the transformation in understanding of homosexuality suggested by the actions of GCECUSA 2003 are troublesome to many. For those struggling with the issues and what to tell friends and relatives critical of the decisions, these suggestions may provide a means of responding.

The attention the Church has received over these issues has given it an unprecedented amount of public visibility. There is a vast number of people, not part of any church, who may be receptive to this unusual body of believers. In response to the Great Commission, we have a responsibility to take immediate steps to reach out to the unchurched around us and invite them to experience the Gospel of Christ as it is expressed in the Episcopal Church.

Doug Borwick
Winston-Salem, NC
26 January 2004