“
… it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there are
quarrels among you, my brothers and sisters. What I mean is that
each of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or
“I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” Has Christ been
divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the
name of Paul? “(1st Corinthians 1:11-13) I’ve not reached the point of being able to take some absolutist’s position—as some have done and are doing; but I have come to a consensus within my own heart and mind. It’s time I share that with you, not at all looking for your agreement or disagreement with me, because—contrary to the positions of some of my sisters and brothers across the denomination—one of the joys and paradoxes of being either Episcopalian or Anglican, or both, is that such lock-step agreement has never been part and parcel of who and what we are. With that said, as to practical particulars there are three trends I’d address … (1) Neither Anglican nor Episcopal polity has, or ever had, a mechanism to allow churches or their clergy to choose which bishop they’d prefer. Diocesan bodies, whether known as ‘Council’ in Virginia’s case or ‘convention’ in most of the rest of Episcopal circles, elect their bishop from among a number of candidates. Those candidates reach the end of that decision process through the guidance of the Holy Spirit in an intensive discernment process; and I firmly believe that the hand of the Spirit is evident in the final choice. If that is not true, then every church council decision made since the days when our Christian faith first moved out of its initial synagogue and house-church settings is, and probably should be, suspect. It is all ‘up for grabs’ in that instance. In some provinces bishops are appointed by archbishops; but not in the Episcopal Church. Once that decision has been made by a diocese and ratified by the General Church, either at General Convention or by the Standing Committees of the dioceses, an individual is consecrated as the diocesan bishop. In our system, churches and/or clergy are under that bishop’s authority (it’s why we are called “Episcopal” churches), and they do not then choose whether or not to follow that individual. The bishop … is the bishop … is the bishop, in the same way that the governor of Virginia is our governor and we cannot choose to follow the governor of South Dakota because we like her or him better or are more in agreement with their thinking. If we truly want to follow the governor of another state, then we move to that state, but our status as citizens of Virginia ends. As you likely have read, some bishops, clergy, and congregations have chosen to make such a move—a move that is neither Episcopal nor Anglican right down to its very essence. Handling situations—even those which may be of vital importance—in this way represents what we in the church would call “congregationalism,” and we as a church, Episcopal and/or Anglican, are not “congregational.” (2) I firmly believe and support the canons of the church—the national and diocesan church laws. Those canons indicate that local church property is held in trust by a local church for the diocese. For me, that means that should any individual or congregation decide to leave the Episcopal Church, they are called on to vacate the property and to allow those who have chosen to remain within the Episcopal Church to continue their ministries in that place unhampered and unfettered. I would boldly say that if anyone who belongs to any group, from a church congregation to a bowling team, decides to longer be a part of the larger grouping, then it is they who have chosen to move on, and they should simply do so. Period. (3) Another disturbing trend for me has to do with the thinking about the “ordained” clergy. Clergy within any church—any church at all—are ordained by that church body to do ministry within that church and according to its rules and by-laws. Those rules and by-laws go by many names. We call them ‘Canons.’ Presbyterians know them as ‘The Book of Order.” United Methodists follow “The Book of Discipline.” Lutherans would refer to the “Confessions.” Other churches use other language, but the point is that when a person is ordained from within that particular church body, it is that specific church body which does the ordaining. Should a person make a transition to another group or denomination, the body to which they are moving may or may not accept their credentials; however, the body from which they have moved, following their own rules or order, then has every reason to remove them from the list of the ordained. That has recently happened with a number of clergy serving those congregations which have voted to leave the Episcopal Church. One might offer any number of counter-arguments to what Bishop Peter Lee has recently done in “inhibiting” or suspending their credentials, but our Bishop is simply following the path outlined by our canons, the ones in place long before Peter J. Lee became Bishop of Virginia. They are also the very same canons those same clergy once vowed to uphold. This is different from our baptism. All of us, as Christians, are baptized into the Body of Christ. That is a universal thing, and most everyone’s baptism is recognized by all other Christian bodies. There are some exceptions, of course, such as moving into a church which only baptizes adults, and which, as a result, may require a person to be re-baptized. We, and most other churches, recognize each other’s baptisms. One is only baptized once. That is primarily because we, as Episcopalians and Anglicans, believe that baptism is something God does, a claim which God makes, and is not dependent on the belief or even the understanding of the person being baptized. Ordinations, on the other hand, are a different matter. To be sure, we ordained folks are usually recognized by other churches as “ordained,” but we are recognized as ordained to the specific church which did the ordaining. When I personally made the transition from the United Methodist Church to the Episcopal Church, I was re-ordained and my United Methodist orders were ended. It’s similar to the way, in this country, one state recognizes another’s state’s driver’s license. But, should you move to a different state, you get to surrender your previous state’s license and are re-licensed by your new state. You are licensed by that state alone. Some within the church seem to think that once a person is ordained that means they are ordained everywhere. That is simply not so, and never has been. As to the broader scope of the current situation … I take issue with the idea that the current state of affairs is ‘all theological’ or has to do totally with the way in which Scripture is read. I take issue with the statement that our church “no longer believes the historic, orthodox Christian faith.” That is nonsense, plain and simple. Every week as a worshiping community, we profess our faith in the historic, altogether orthodox words of the Nicene Creed. Every time we baptize, we profess our faith in the even earlier words of the Apostles’ Creed. I take offense at anyone who would question my orthodoxy in matters of faith. I take offense strongly, and at bare minimum, I would say that my orthodoxy means precisely that I say those historic creeds of the church with a straight face and with no fingers crossed behind my back or a wink of my eye. We continually read, engage, study, struggle with, proclaim, and share the Living Word of God. Why? Because, “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work” (1st Timothy 3:16,17)” So, to those who would claim differently about us, I will politely say that they are profoundly mistaken. I would urge you not to believe those assessments. In the questions put before the recent candidates for Bishop Coadjutor of our diocese, the Very Reverend Shannon Johnston, addressed this issue in a statement of the traditional “Three-Legged Stool”* of our Episcopal/Anglican tradition. I wholeheartedly agree with him when he said, “I cannot accept sola Scriptura arguments; there is simply no such thing as ‘Scripture alone.’ While I do hold that Scripture must be the basis of all essential doctrine, I affirm that it cannot be read and interpreted without the presence of Tradition and Reason. Likewise, Tradition cannot justify itself theologically, and an appeal to Reason to override Scripture and Tradition is equally erroneous.” I wish I’d said that; but, the Bishop Coadjutor did, and I can only agree with him and give my “Amen” to what he said.
In summary, the what, where, and how of the direction in which all of this will take us is really known only to the Holy Spirit. Whatever shape, by whatever names and titles, it will take are beyond the knowing of any of us. But I am certain that the church will survive the conflict. In marriage counseling, I often use the analogy of a vase. (In that particular instance something, on the part of one or both of the marriage partners, that vase has been broken.) When the parties involved recognize that, pray for the guidance of God through the ordeal, and commit to doing what is needed to be done, … they will have a vase once more. It may not, likely will not, have the same shape, or be of the same size as before, but the vase will be intact and whole and able to hold water once more. I believe this will be the case with our church; but it remains for us to keep at, and expand as best we are able, the faithful discipleship to which our Lord Jesus has called us. As our nation, and our world, are much divided, so too is our church. What is needed now is precisely what is needed, and has been needed, since forever: which is, for the faithful—whether as Christian disciples struggling to remain faithful to our Lord and his will for us, or as dedicated citizens of a great nation struggling to help her once more regain a solid sense of balance—to hold to the faith we have received from those who have gone before, and to do so consistently even in the face of the detractors and defamers.
The other day, one of the clergy
from a departing congregation quoted Martin Luther in saying, “Here
I stand, I can do no other.” How strange and ironically
self-deceiving to think of oneself in the place of the great
reformer—though I suspect that is how he, and others, see
themselves. But then, I thought, perhaps that sentiment is shared by
everyone caught up in this most recent schismatic movement. As a
matter of fact, it is what I think and believe, too. “Here I stand,
I can do no other. God help me. Amen.” Faithfully yours in Christ Jesus,
David+
* The “Three-Legged Stool” represents Scripture, Tradition, and Reason—the three of which have formed the basis of our doctrines, beliefs, and policies for the practice of our faith within the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. |
