UK Bishops Bash U.S.

I’m not Episcopal.  I’m not British.  I’m not gay.  I’m technically not a Bishop.  So why does the unfolding saga in the Anglican church fascinate me?  In the slow-moving train crash of international Anglicanism, a decision taken in California has finally brought a large coach off the rails altogether. The House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church (TEC) in the United States has voted decisively to allow in principle the appointment, to all orders of ministry, of persons in active same-sex relationships. This marks a clear break with the rest of the Anglican Communion worldwide.

Who knew the American Anglicans were so progressive compared to those across the pond?

The TEC was formalising the schism it initiated six years ago when it consecrated as bishop a divorced man in an active same-sex relationship, against the worldwide Anglican leadership’s unanimous statement that this would “tear the fabric of the [Anglican/Episcopal Church] at its deepest level”.  In the words of the UK Bishops, the American Episcopal church has chosen to “walk apart”.

Interestingly, the American Bishops indicate a strong willingness to remain within the Anglican Church fellowship worldwide.  In their words: “we want to stay in, but we insist on rewriting the rules” which the UK leadership calls “cynical double-think”.

The UK Bishops fire back by saying that church tradition (within all faiths) concerning sexual issues has always been counter-cultural as well as counter-intuitive.  Our supposedly selfish genes crave a variety of sexual possibilities.  But Jewish, Christian and Muslim teachers have always insisted that lifelong man-plus-woman marriage is the proper context for sexual intercourse. This is not (as is frequently suggested) an arbitrary rule, dualistic in overtone and killjoy in intention. It is a deep structural reflection of the belief in a creator God who has entered into covenant both with his creation and with his people (who carry forward his purposes for that creation).

The UK Bishops state quite emphatically that paganism ancient and modern has always found this ethic, and this belief, ridiculous and incredible.  But the biblical witness is scarcely confined, as many often suggest, to a few verses in St Paul’s writings.  Jesus’s own stern denunciation of sexual immorality would certainly have carried, to his hearers, a clear implied rejection of all sexual behaviour outside heterosexual monogamy. This isn’t a matter of “private response to Scripture” but of the uniform teaching of the whole Bible, of Jesus himself, and of the entire Christian tradition.

It doesn’t stop at theology though, the bishops across the pond also consider this issue to be a practical one.  They say the appeal to justice as a way of cutting the ethical knot in favour of including active homosexuals in Christian ministry simply begs the question.  Nobody has a right to be ordained: it is always a gift of sheer and unmerited grace.  The appeal also seriously misrepresents the notion of justice itself, not just in the Christian tradition of Augustine, Aquinas and others, but in the wider philosophical discussion from Aristotle to John Rawls.  Justice never means “treating everybody the same way”, but “treating people appropriately”, which involves making distinctions between different people and situations.  Justice has never meant “the right to give active expression to any and every sexual desire”.

Still, unwilling to stop at that, they jump into the cultural fray as well.  They insist that such a novel usage would also raise the further question of identity.  In their estimation it is a very recent innovation to consider sexual preferences as a marker of “identity” parallel to, say, being male or female, English or African, rich or poor.  They contend that within the “gay community” much postmodern reflection has turned away from “identity” as a modernist fiction and so now we simply “construct” ourselves from day to day.

Further, the British bishops insist on the distinction between inclination and desire on the one hand and activity on the other.  They admit that we all have all kinds of deep-rooted inclinations and desires.  The question is, what shall we do with them?  Referring to one of the great Prayer Books, they remind the US church that we should be in the habit of asking God that we may “love the thing which thou commandest, and desire that which thou dost promise”.  That is always tough, for all of us.   Much easier to ask God to command what we already love, and promise what we already desire.

And with much grace, the leadership of the UK Anglican church notes that they should not forget the Episcopalian bishops, who, doggedly loyal to their own Church, and to the expressed mind of the wider Anglican community, voted against the current resolution.  Nor should be forgotten, in their words, the many parishes and worshippers who take the same stance.

What are your thoughts??

large portions excerpted/edited from: London Times Online