The recent Lambeth Conference reminded me that as an Anglican/Episcopalian, I am a member of a rich community with a great respect for intellectual and theological engagement. Why do I say this? At Lambeth, I observed the wider communion finding a way to avoid division and affirm that different Provinces hold varying views on marriage while also affirming that the vast majority of Anglicans still affirm that marriage is intended as a sacrament between a man and a woman.
In a wider sense, I am speaking of the way Anglicans think through such issues and the way we Episcopalians used to think through such issues. In the late 1960’s and early 1970, my seminary sent me to observe two General Conventions. While women’s ordination was on the horizon as a hot issue, the major one at this moment was the preparation of a new Prayer Book. Here is how the Convention delt with the issue of the proposed Baptismal Rite.
Before any action was taken, there was a presentation from the Liturgical Commission on the proposed rite and the issues around it. There was an open evening presentation, and all deputies and visitors were invited. The session began with a brief introduction of the topic and the introduction of the three presenters that evening. The speaker that evening was a prominent Episcopal professor of Liturgics. He spoke for 20 minutes on the rite and how it had evolved especially in the effort to return Baptism as a public Sunday service and the need to restore Baptism as “the primary “identity Sacrament.” The force behind these changes were the growing influence of the Oxford Movement in recognizing the importance of Baptism. For those who do not know, most baptisms of that era were held in private and had become quite frankly a “nice family ceremony.” Hence Confirmation was being treated as the way of membership and the public profession of faith.
After this presentation, two scholars give a response. Both had read the presentation and had prepared a written response. They had 10 minutes. I listened to the manner of the response. Both began by affirming where they agreed with in the initial presentation. Then, they added their “and” or “but” to what was being presented. This procedure allowed the debate which was tense at moments to proceed with mutual respect. After the presentations which were quite outstanding, the floor was open to the public for questions of any of the presenters. Note, it was not open to their opinions although some questions implied this.
This is how all the liturgical rites in the proposed new Prayer Book were handled. It represented a Church of respect for intelligence and civility even in disagreement. It is the DNA of Anglicanism. This too was the way that such issues as the ordination of Women was proposed and debated. By the way, the crucial issue debated was whether a male priesthood was a part of the doctrine of the Church or it’s discipline. As Cranmer had so eloquently written in the preface to his Prayer Book, doctrines of the Apostolic Church could not be changed, but issues of how we worshipped and ordered our common life was a matter of discipline and could be altered, amended, or thrown out altogether. The theological viewpoint that prevailed was that maleness of the priesthood was not a matter of doctrine but of discipline. This opened the way for women’s ordination to be allowed by vote of two General Conventions. Of course, there were outspoken leaders of the Church who vehemently disagree with this action, but they proved to be a vocal minority.
I want you to notice the value given to reason and understanding through all this. This too is very Anglican. Also, the degree to which a disagreement was allowed to be discussed. It is true that a small number of dissenters left TEC over this issue, but many who did not accept women clergy were allowed to remain.
Contrast this to a presentation in 2003 over allowing Gene Robinson to receive consent as a Bishop and hence for the opening of marriage as possible beyond the traditional view of for a man and women. There was a evening session. The Commission Presented the issue and then all who wished to speak were invited forward. There were two microphones at the front. One marked “For” and one “against”. As you can imagine, the lines were long. and each person was given only two minutes to comment. I remember the forlorn look upon the face of one of our seminary Deans who make his way forward looking at his watch. What could this academic of great credentials say in two minutes. This wasn’t a debate and far less a theological exploration, it was one person’s opinion after another. Most people left after about three hours.
This is the way that TEC’s General Convention does its public discussion today. Predictably it has become what I will call “each member is an expert.” And life in the Church following controversial issues has become majority vote, and if you do not like it leave! And many have. Little or no attention is paid to allowing dissenters to remain. And when they left, they were blamed for leaving.
I have little hope that the Church can be restored to a more gracious and broad community where genuine intellectual and theological engagement is foremost. Lambeth did show us that most Anglicans remain this way. For TEC where we either have winners and losers, the remaining winning people are by the process largely of one mind. Losers can leave or comply.
What I lament the most is the regard once held by the Church of theological and Intellectual understand and thus diversity of thought and conscience. Now we have made such values submissive to the whim and will the majority. Notice that the vote for same sex unions (or more accurately “marriage equality”) was done without any serious theological debate. It was in the end reduced to Bishops and Deputies opinions on the matter. Once the vote came, there was no tolerance for dissention and no allowance for those who conscientiously disagreed. Is it any wonder that the community of a once large tent has become a committee of likeminded individuals?
I may be a dissenter on these issues and in the minority, but I remain a member of the wider Communion that continues to live as a community of intellectual integrity that resists those who passionately want to have a Church of the “Either/Or.” There was a time during our division when leaders of the Progressive side of the Church used to scornfully say, “Schism is worse than heresy.” Little did we realize that what would remain would be both.
You may well ask, as many of my friends have, why do I remain? I remain because I am clear that I am an Anglican. It is not clear that the current leaders of TEC are. That is what I believe the recent Lambeth Conference demonstrated.
