The Archbishop's Advent Letter
The Archbishop has written a letter. Rob, a parishioner and scientist, asked me what I thought. He'd read it as reported in the NYTimes.
So I've read it.
A few things to note. He is trying to articulate the mind of the communion. He's not really making a theological statement, nor is he trying to move things forward other than by identifying where we - as a communion - are.
He begins by arguing that we recognize each other when we are "standing underneath" scripture. He says, "But the deeper question is about what we believe we are free to do, if we seek to be recognisably faithful to Scripture and the moral tradition of the wider Church, with respect to blessing and sanctioning *in the name of the Church* certain personal decisions about what constitutes an acceptable Christian lifestyle. Insofar as there is currently any consensus in the Communion about this, it is not in favour of change in our discipline or our interpretation of the Bible." Others will, its seems, not recognize us as Christian. I have some questions about what "recognizability" means. I think we can recognize who we want to recognize. I don't think he is wrong - but then, the next question is use of the word "narrative."
The Archbishop then condemns the flying bishops who are attempting to save those who cannot recognize the reexamining side (the ones agnostic about homosexual sex), from their souls stating: "It does not appeal to a clear or universal principle by which it may be decided that a local church's ministry is completely defective. On the ground, it creates rivalry and confusion. It opens the door to complex and unedifying legal wrangles in civil courts. It creates a situation in which pastoral care and oversight have to be exercised at a great distance."
The Archbishop has a charitable tone: he shies away from repeating the echoes of the frustrated and recognizes the integrity of TEC, acknowledging that there is a difference between the way Bishops understand their power in different provinces. Then he talks about Lambeth - when all the bishops meet internationally.
He states: "It is not a canonical tribunal, but neither is it merely a general consultation. It is a meeting of the chief pastors and teachers of the Communion, seeking an authoritative common voice. It is also a meeting designed to strengthen and deepen the sense of what the episcopal vocation is." Can we handle our conflict? Can we care for each other?
He continues, responding to those who those conservatives who refuse to attend Lambeth with TEC: "Some reactions to my original invitation have implied that meeting for prayer, mutual spiritual enrichment and development of ministry is somehow a way of avoiding difficult issues. On the contrary: I would insist that only in such a context can we usefully address divisive issues. If, as the opening section of this letter claimed, our difficulties have their root in whether or how far we can recognise the same gospel and ministry in diverse places and policies, we need to engage more not less directly with each other. This is why I have repeatedly said that an invitation to Lambeth does not constitute a certificate of orthodoxy but simply a challenge to pray seriously together and to seek a resolution that will be as widely owned as may be."
The ABC then suggests professionally facilitated conversations between TEC and its haters. Professional facilitation would be much better than blogging - because the conservatives are very angry.
Sometimes I wonder if we are arguing about a medium - the printed page. Television and the internet have ruptured the printed page as our rulebook. Instead of "is it in the bible" people will ask "is it in the movie?" Scripture is simply becoming less relevant.
We have also seen a change in what constitutes a list of Christian virtues or rules. Scripture is clear there is a litany - as there has always been. Do not steal. Do not envy. Do not mate with goats. It was all one set.
But the list has gone through a change. The rest of the world puts gay people on the cross, as people who threaten the social order. That is a narrative revealed by scripture. It was once that one was a traitor of one's country, a slanderer, a sodomite. All these were part of a general litany of bad things. But that list has been ruptured by the challenges to all relationships altered by capitalism.
We believe we are following the recognizable narrative offered to us by scripture. But we have not rendered it into a list. We have not made scripture into a law. We have read it for the purpose of encouragement and edification. We will not let the world put on its list of Christian attributes crucifiers of gay people.