St. Bartholomew's Episcopal Church

The bishops wrote a letter, and it was very nice. There were some promises that were appropriate, simple and clear.

I want to make a couple observations about rhetoric that I've been hearing. I have a more detailed analysis about the entire conflict that I'm slowly working on, but I want to parse a couple phrases.

“We can’t turn the clock back.” This is the statement by Bishop Bruno. American culture is generally moving toward openness - and bishops are moving in this direction as well, including the conservative ones. They recognize that Atheism, not only Islam, and Communication, rather than just law, are shaping the contours of contemporary Christianity in the West. The reasserters might consider why or how this statement works. Western culture has changed because of medical, technological and scientific advances that have ruptured the neat link of sex, property and death upon which church teaching is culturally based. TEC has recognized that things fall apart.

“Until an Anglican Consensus has emerged.” This is another perplexing phrase. What is consensus? And does the spirit move through a consensus? Sometimes. A consensus is also what killed Jesus. Everyone agreed he had to die. That is the power of the story. I wonder if the deeper challenge is about forgiving one another in the midst of conflict. The lack of charity, especially in the reasserting camp, is present for most disinterested observers who simply note that they can’t bear table fellowship with those who are agnostic about homosexual genital activity. God works through conflict. He invites us to forgive each other. Is there charity? In practice, I see little coming from the reasserting camp. I see demands. Jesus warned, but he left the punishment up to God. Well, that is unless we're discussing the apocalypse.

“This is about the authority of scripture.” Such a statement hides the most important actor: the reader. It seems to me that scripture is inviting the reader to place power not in scripture, but inviting the reader to reestablish a relationship with the Spirit. Scripture is our common tool. Perhaps it is the most important tool, friend, or map, but it does not replace the work, the journey or the territory that is our own lives. Scripture itself invites us to understand language [the word] differently than as a set of laws. We’d be much like Muslims, who do believe that God works through hard and fast laws, if we took the reasserting view of homosexuality. The problem is that many modern Christians don't find scripture convincing if we use sexuality as a litmus test for faith, just as we wouldn't use the bible's cosmology as a judge of a person's peity.

TEC is chastized, often, using a marriage infidelity metaphor. We've been "unfaithful." I'm not sure with whom. Clearly, the partners we claim - justice, openness, solidarity - are familiar with our... partner. If anything, the American church is claiming some integrity within the marriage. Sometimes in a marriage, when a partner differentiates, the other partner is offended and takes the growth personally. They get angry, emotional, frustrated and lash out, obsessing about the partner’s new ability to maintain a strong core. In our case, sexuality becomes the focus for a church that is deeply narcissistic and can’t engage rationally with people who think differently. TEC does not have another partner – we have simply learned that we are a church that cares deeply for gay and lesbian Christians. We are hoping that we can stay centered and not engage in the emotional trash that will be returned to us, in spades. Not all of us will, of course. All that happened is that we have a gay couple as a guest in our house.

To carry the analogy further, we've known that the gay couple for many years, but my wife suddenly realizes who they are. They used to cook for us. No longer. She might sometimes serve them, but she will never enter their house.

I get offended also. But who’s problem is it? The person who offends me, or my own? It’s mine. I deal with my emotions, I process them, and I try to find tasks to stop obsessing. The reasserters should stop obsessing about the direction of TEC, and do the much more important and harder work of being examples of truth, love and healing to the world. The TEC is trying hard to maintain integrity while maintaining connections - thus the mild language. Those opponents will obsess and make us a scapegoat for not taking the Stalinist path where bishops are busy punishing priests who are busy blessing relationships that aren't even acknowledged by the state. And when that happens, Anglican's instinctive Erastianism will become a problem for us.

Our role is to keep on the path, forgive and continue the slow work of building and maintaining connections. It might not be angry, irritated, frustrated bishops who want to control the minutiae of God’s blessings and fear those connections.

It might just be Anglican women who connect us.