Nate Knows Nada

Here’s an interview with the Rev. Canon Gene Robinson on NPR’s Fresh Air.

To my regular readers: this is another discussion of religious issues. If that’s not your cup of tea, feel free to skip. I’ll talk about other things in a couple of days or weeks, when this starts to blow away or at least calm down.

Here’s a summary of what the conservatives in the Anglican Communion are up to, from The New York Times and the Episcopal News Service.

In essence it boils down to this: they are threatening to break the Anglican Communion apart if they don’t get their way. They are, to use their own words, “prepared to respond” should either Gene Robinson be approved as bishop of New Hampshire or if the Liturgical Commission is directed to prepare blessing/union/still-less-than-marriage liturgies for future approval of the church.

I’ll leave the discussion of whether they can actually break the Communion to far superior ecclesiologists, but from what I can tell, since we’re not in communion with them, but we are all in communion with Canterbury, it seems not.

When asked if they would care to inform the church what that response might be, the group responded, “We are trying to preserve an element of surprise. That is part of the strategy here.”

First, do the actions of a cabal (for the secrecy surrounding this group’s maneuverings are surely quite like a cabal) reflect Christ’s admonition to walk in light, not darkness? The statement that the group made was crafted in secret, over the course of two days. I don’t recall that Christ, his disciples, or the heroes of the New Testament plotted politics in secret. If we’re asking what Jesus would do, I have rather severe doubts that He’d act like this.

Second, for all their talk about love shown within the marriage and how this reflects Christ’s love of the church, where is the talk about God’s love for anyone else, especially those of us who are gay? Repeatedly, at Lambeth 1998, at General Convention 2000, and on other occasions (I can provide the list of you really want to see it), they have promised to engage with their Christian brothers and sisters on this issue and to try to at least understand. In this case, have they even talked the talk? Again, it seems not. No conferences, meetings, or anything of the sort has occurred. Even Jerry Falwell, loathsome fellow that he is, at least met with Mel White. Two faults in the reasoning seem to have occurred. First, these misguided souls seem to have concluded that the relationship of God to the Church is a reflection of Christian marriage, rather than that Christian marriage is a reflection of the spiritual relationship. Even though they use the language of the latter form, how can it be other than I say? In the relationship between Christ and Church, is there a male element and female element? What are the relevant points of analogy here? The relevant understanding seems to me that the relationship between Christ and his Church has nothing to do with gender, but with the self-sacrificial love each has for the other. Christ gave himself up for the Church, and the Church gives itself up to him. That’s the element that marriage reflects. Unless the Church is a woman….

Also, what’s the primary expression of Christian faith? It’s NOT marriage. The greatest metaphor and analogy comes in the Baptism and Eucharist. Mentions of gender or marriage? None, unless you count Christ’s maleness, which I can’t see as relevant here (but which might be relevant in a discussion on the ordination of women). Mentions of God’s extraordinary, selfless love for his people? Five in Baptism, and I find five in Eucharist. And you’ll find the same pattern throughout the “lesser” sacraments — the emphasis is not on institutions, but on love. Love — regardless of ascriptions — is and should be the central concern of the Christian faith.

Third, is this a threat? “Should these events occur, the majority of the Primates anticipate convening an extraordinary meeting at which they too will respond to the actions of General Convention.” I think it is. How “christian” (small-c intentional) is a threat? Are we supposed to work out our salvation in love or threat?

Fourth, in portraying themselves as the “mainstream,” these bishops engage in a lie, or at least a disingenuousness. There are 39 Anglican primates. Only six signed this statement, all of whom have stated their ideas on the record before. We know what they think. Of the 300 living US bishops, active and retired, only 15 signed; only 10 of those can actually vote on the matters at hand. They represent in number of communicants, less than 10 percent of the church. Most Episcopalians and Anglicans are probably much more middle of the road that either side would have us believe. This may make both “sides” uneasy, but I have hope that the majority are willing to at least start some sort of process of discussion, inquiry, and resolution.

Fifth, Archbishop Akinola. From his provincial website: “In the aftermath of the recent violent protests…resulting in many deaths, injuries and loss of properties, Most Revd Peter Akinola, has warned that repeated unprovoked attacks on Christians would be met with stiff resistance, warning that Christians have already turned the other cheek and there was no more they could turn….Akinola said if Christians are pushed to the wall, they would be forced to defend themselves.” My question to the archbishop: where would he be if Christ had taken that attitude somewhere on the Via Dolorosa?

Or what about this comment of the man of God? “‘I cannot think of how a man in his senses would be having a sexual relationship with another man. Even in the world of animals, dogs, cows, lions, we don’t hear of such things.

“‘When we sit down globally as a communion, I am going to sit in a meeting with a man who is marrying a fellow man,’ he added. ‘I mean it’s just not possible. I cannot see myself doing it.'”

Since we (GLBT people) are lower than cows, he won’t commune with us. Leaving aside the biology here (’cause he’s wrong about that too), let’s look at Akinola’s theology. Again, the dichotomy between the commandments of his faith and his bigotry cuts him off from others with whom he claims to share the love of God. Doesn’t seem like a very deep or transformative experience of God to me. Jesus ate dinner with whores, corrupt politicians, lepers and other designated untouchables, but His priest seems unwilling to do even that, at least by his comments.

What’s the second new commandment? “Love your neighbor as yourself.” No conditions, no clauses, no elisions. Perhaps the problem is that Mr. Akinola has very little love for himself. His friends might have the very same problem. From all we know, we don’t know.

Sixth, Archbishop Akinola is from Nigeria, for God’s sakes. I study international relations. I speak from some authority when I say that his country and church have got more serious matters to deal with than sexuality in the American church. Interreligious violence, the mass corruption that is endemic in Nigerian society, an AIDS pandemic, and several countries in the surrounding region that are “failed states”. And this is what he comes up with to spend a huge amount of his time on? (He’s been the most outspoken primate on sexuality issues.) Speck and plank, my friend.

Kendall’s site is a great one, and I have the feeling that we could have a great conversation about these issues and others. I don’t know that we would agree, but we certainly seem to both be willing to have the conversation and, I hope, to grow in love with one another.

(Ken, in light of what I wrote above about Akinola and most of the public statements that come out of his mouth, I’m a bit skeptical about what you wrote. “I was just with Peter Akinola for two days, and he struck me as a man of deep spiritual insight and authority.” But I’m open to belief that my mind can change. However, it seems to me that, at least in public, he’s got a lot of room to grow in these respects. At the very least, he needs to work at being less intentionally provocative and insulting. But I’m willing to have faith that since we’re both adherents of a transformative religion, he may one day be able to see I’m not lower than the animals, and I may be able see his insight and authority.)

I’m tired of this battle. I have been fighting it since I grew up evangelical, and I came to the Episcopal Church not because it was good about gays but because it seemed to me to be binding up the wounds of society and its members better than the conservative evangelical churches I experienced. And as long as we focus on sexuality, we leave hungry people to starve, poor people to suffer and die, abused people to die internally and externally, prisoners and prisonkeepers to treat each other violently, and all of us not to be ministers and minstrees of grace and love.

When we’re called to account for our sins, whether in this life or the next, the accounting will not be for whether we were right or wrong about gay sexuality. We’ll have to explain why we continued to be obsessed with our penises and vaginae instead of taking care of a world in need.

“I refuse to be shaken from the fold. It’s my God, too, my Bible, my church, my faith, it chose me. But it does not make me “chosen” in a way that would exclude others. I hope it makes me eager to recognize the good, and the holy, wherever I encounter it.”
– Kathleen Norris, Amazing Grace

…for more on the Anglicanism discussion than you might want to know, check out The Witness. This article by Bill Countryman puts the meta-conflict into great perspective.

One thing I might say. A friend wrote me this:”Thanks for turning me on to your web log: I enjoyed reading your comments on the current rather messy situation in–as the conservatives always say–“our beloved Episcopal Church.” I very largely agree with you. Unfortunately, the loud gay caucus will certainly try to push the issue of approved same-sex blessings, and, as you so rightly point out, that may well lead to Something Nasty.”

(This friend is gay, I might add.)

And I agree. Except for an additional point. If we see nothing in the next three year period between conventions, if the church continues to say and do nothing with regard to the issue of blessing gay people (which is as much a part of the baptismal promises for gay people as striaght), then I think I will be all for pushing ahead and letting the chips fall where they may. If it pushes people out, so be it. Those people, by their silence, are trying to push me out, and they would blackmail into silence me by threat of schism. So far, they have broken their promises to talk about the issue on every possible occasion. And if they are not committed to thinking the issues through and working them out, then I think we are better off without them.

Yesterday, in The New York Times, there was an article about the fracas engaging my church.

I don’t know if I have mentioned it in this forum before, but my religious affiliation is with the Episcopal Church. I’m a member in good standing (whatever that means), but I haven’t found a parish here in the Boston area that I’ve felt like I wanted to join yet. It’s been hard to give up my old parish, but I have grown to enjoy the monks here in Cambridge.

I converted about six years ago, from a childhood spent among conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists (which are different groups almost entirely). I was raised a Free Methodist (like Nazarenes, if you know what they are), attended schools run by the Southern Baptists and then the Christian Reformed Church. I left church for a few years, especially during college, and when I was becoming more and more aware that at the least I was not straight.

One of the reasons that I joined the Episcopal Church was because large parts of it are pretty welcoming to GLBTQ people. There were other reasons, equally important and which are theologically and liturgically based. In fact, the gay stance flowed from the theology and liturgy that I found so *right*, especially in comparison to the churches I grew up in. Two wonderful aspects of Anglicanism to me were the idea that church wasn’t something we made up that morning, that there was a sense of connection to some historic institution that stretched across the centuries, and second that the unity of the Church at large was the greatest goal that we as a religious body could achieve. The uber-Protestantism of my youth was pretty deficient on both counts. Church service was about doing what seemed most convenient or trendy at the time (for example, I believe that my old church has now adopted the “Southern California”, three praise choruses and a sermon model of worship services.). There was no sense that anything was any older than the oldest congregant. And on the second note, these churches had put the “Protestant principle” into full practice — when there was any doubt about doctrinal purity or interpretation, split up instead of trying to figure out how to live in love and peace with one another. Compromise was a greater “sin” than harmony.

Now we’re facing a big set of problems in the Anglican Communion. They’re two, fairly separate to my mind, but linked by the issue of homosexuality in the Church. Without going into the background (the NYT article above does a decent job of doing so), here’s my take.

First, the diocese of New Hampshire has decided by election to take as their new bishop an openly gay man who’s living in a committed partnership. (He was once married, but his wife and he parted amicably, and she remarried before he met his partner. Also, because it was the understanding at the time, he underwent “reparative therapy” twice a week before the divorce/annulment/whatever it was happened.) Anglicans reckon that each diocese is fairly independent from one another and that the people of a diocese are to be allowed independence in the governing of their affairs. We intentionally do not have a hierarch like the modern Roman Catholic pope, because that model is not our understanding of the best form of church government. Now, New Hampshire is not a diocese full of liberals or reformers — if you know anything about New Hampshire, you know it’s the conservative, libertarian part of New England. These are the people who have the motto “Live Free or Die” on their flag. After working with Gene Robinson for years, they went through an exhaustive search procedure, and they decided that he was the man God was leading them to select as their new leader. But 24 conservative bishops of the US Church, and several archbishops worldwide have threatened to break with the American church should Robinson be approved in the next couple of weeks. They have threatened to do the Protestant thing and split, rather than stay in bed with what they regard as a tainted church. (I might note that Anglicans generally consider themselves to be both Catholic and Protestant — we’re both and neither. So we have strains of both in our practice and theology. I think we tend to get in trouble when we fall too far to one of those sides or the other.)

Second is the issue of blessing gay unions in the church. In the ECUSA, we’ve come to recognize that gay partnerships have made a valuable contribution to our common life together as brothers and sisters in Christ. We have had no official, churchwide liturgies available to recognize the blessign of God on such unions, and one of the hot topics at the convention will be whether we should direct our liturgical body to develop rites available for use in this situtation, should anyone want them. It’s important to note that these rites would actually be for the use of people who want to have an ecclesiastical recognition of their relationship(s) that are not marriage, so it could be for male-female, male-male, or female-female relationships. It’s also good to recognize that no one will be MADE to perform or use these liturgies — they are simply optional.

So, unsurprisingly, I have two opinions here. On the first, I think the Primates of the southern hemisphere should get their noses out of New Hampshire’s business. Their threats made with the intent of dictating to the American and Canadian churches what will or will not be approvable behavior violates the Anglican understanding of church governance. Moreover, it’s a blatantly hypocritical move, as these churches have demonstrated problems of their own (polygamy, for example, including among a couple of bishops, which if we are getting picky, is expressly against Biblical injunction, whereas the case against homosexuality is much shakier and probably just the reification of prejudice) but have not seen fit to make a huge case out of them. “First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see fit to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” Bishop-elect Robinson is exactly right: he’s not the one splitting the Communion, these bishops are the ones creating the schism. If you’re asking me (and since you’re reading here, you are, in a sense), the greater sin is in the sacrifice of unity than in a matter that still seems up for debate and discussion. But rather than continue to discuss, which they agreed to do six years ago at the Lambeth conference, they would rather cut and run. (In addition to the ecclesiological problem, they may be committing a form of organizational suicide. From the anecdotal evidence that I have been able to gather, the southern hemisphere churches receive a great deal or money and support from dioceses and parishes that are overwhelmingly “liberal,” such as Trinity Church, Wall Street, in New York, about a block from the former World Trade Center (and this church did a lot of work in helping to support the relief work surrounding the terrorist disaster in Spetember 2001).) More important than “purity” (which actually smells a lot like a doctrine of legalism, rather than of love), we are called by God to work out our salvation in love with each other. So the threat to break things off with the intent of forcing others to follow your interpretation of God and His hopes for humanity seems far worse than perhaps (and how are we to know?) having the “wrong” person in one of many jobs. As St. Augustine said in one of his Sermons, “Since it is God we are speaking of, you do not understand it. If you could understand it, it would not be God.”

As to the move to approve liturgies for the blessing of non-marriage relationships, I think that we need to hold off for one more triennium. I fear that this will split the American Church in a far worse way than the above matter. I think we would sacrifice the unity of the church on an altar of our own making, and I think, again, that we must seek to preserve that Unity, not at whatever cost, but with a view toward understanding that this institution has existed for 2000 years, and we have only just the beginning understanding of what that means and how the church lives its common life. It will probably take another 2000 years to find our way back to one another, but I don’t think we should necessarily encourage splitting. Yes, we need these liturgies; yes, they are right and “all right”; yes, the church has moved too slowly on the issues of justice for us GLBT people. But let us drag the church kicking and screaming into the conversation about sexuality promised us three years ago, which has barely happened, and from there we will move forward to the liturgies we desperately need. This can be how we work out our salvation in love, as we are commanded to do.

I love God and I love his Church, because I’ve found a life in God through it. (I’ve found G-d outside the Church, too, but that’s another blog for another day.) I don’t want to see it receive another set of body blows that break it down.

So now I’m at home, listening to the “sacrilege” that is Leonard
Bernstein’s *Mass*. The screeds of the congregation and celebrant run
back and forth to despair and glimpses of the holy — it’s one of my
favorite pieces of contemporary music. Faith is revered, reviled, torn
down, built up, and reknown in the course of two hours.

What I
love about the “theatre piece” is that it’s full of contradictions that
enrich its artistic tapestry. The congregants celebrating the mass (for
the piece is based upon the Roman Liturgy, pre-Vatican II, so it’s
appealing to little pretty-high-church Anglicans like me) are sinners,
drunkards, prisoners, swindlers, tricksters, believers, and doers. The
words and music vary between the structure of the Latin rite and
near-nonsense streams of angry consciousness, between formal riffs on
traditional church music and Beethoven on one hand and West Side Story
and cacophony on the other. The Celebrant presides, using the authority
of his office, of his moral stature, of his possession of the
sacraments, and ultimately his faith is broken, and he smashes the
transubstantiated Elements to the floor, where they break and spill.
But everyone is brought back together in the end by a simple song, a
“Lauda, Laudete Deum” (Praise, Praise to You O God), that grows and
swells to the full power of the choruses and the orchestra, a simple
melody and theme that multiply like loaves and fishes to feed
thousands. The “players” are broken individually, healed communally,
and brought into Communion with one another. Even more interestingly,
this work that on its surface is so Christian was woven by a Jewish
composer. But he obviously understood the heart of faith so well as to
be able to transcend the restraints of specific religion to engage the
universality of life in faith.

It’s probably this piece and U2’s
*All That You Can’t Leave Behind* that are the best contemporary
musical representations of faith, doubt, love, and grace.

UPDATE — 30 July 2004, 11.33.PM:  I have added the very few posts from my brief Blogger blog to this blog.  They’re available here if you have any interest (although it’d be beyond me as to why…).