A Covenant Haiku

seeking to be one
they cease to be what they are
and become nothing

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG
with proper credit to The Parmenides, and the good people of Babel

Unity at what cost?

Those who built the tower of Babel did so as a means to promote their unity and prevent their dispersal. The problem was that God was not at the heart of their plan, but a handmade "door to heaven." Those who sought a comprehensive unity ended with mutual incomprehension.

Meanwhile, in the Great White North it seems a Girardian game of "Scape the Goat" is under way. This is a familiar scene in tea-shop and schoolyard, where a cozy feeling of fellowship and commonality (and I dare say, communion) is engendered between two parties by tut-tutting about an absent third party. Sometimes a similar dialogue takes place between a self-acknowledged sinner and her God, "I thank you, God, that I am not as bad as _______." None of these is a very pretty sight. When, after all, does community become conspiracy?

I am growing weary of the manners and morals of the schoolyard.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

The Wrong Glue

Several sources report the Archbishop of Canterbury as having said he is looking for a more "cohesive" Anglican Communion.

And right there we have the nub of the problem. Cohesion is the natural process by which the identical molecules of a substance are bound together. It is distinguished from adhesion, in which different particles are held together.

It is an important distinction. The various provinces of the Anglican Communion, although sharing a great deal in common, are not simply identical units stamped from the same mold. Even on this continent, Mexico, the U.S., and Canada have their own distinctive character as churches, and are from from identical in many respects.

+Rowan has spoken time and again of his anguish lest the Anglican Communion be nothing but a federation. He really does appear to want a single unified world-church, made up of more or less interchangeable subunits. In his current remarks, he laments that the Anglican Communion as it was 20 years ago may not survive. That seems to me to be self-evident; but his proposal to move towards a more centrally organized entity than we had 20 years ago is not necessarily any more faithful to the Gospel, and involves as fundamental a transformation (if not more so), as a movement to a less centrally organized entity than we had 20 years ago. The movement towards networks less rigidly structured seems wise in trying times.

As I've noted before, there is a model for a world-church: the Roman Catholics have it down pat. As an entity, the Church of Rome is cohesive, bound by a single central canon law and government, a teaching authority, and all the rest that goes with it. Some four centuries ago the Church of England said No to this model, and set about to be a national church, governed within its own context — not without much pain. This reality brought to the larger church such things as the common cup and the vernacular liturgy — gifts the Church of Rome reluctantly and only finally accepted within living memory — as well as things like a married clergy and ordained women which she has yet to accept. And what has the world-church brought to Christendom in her role as the Sole Western Developer of Doctrine (as Newman saw it)? Papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption.

I hope the ACC, in its meetings this week, will not exchange the Anglican birthright for a "pot of message" — as C. S. Lewis once punned. Let them remember the motto of the Anglican Communion, inscribed around that precious compassrose: The Truth Shall Make You Free. (Emphasis mine.) It is for Freedom and in Truth that we bind ourselves together — in adherence to the Truth of Christ we shall be one, not because we are all the same (for the compass points in all directions), but because He is One, and we are One in Him.

Let Him be our Unity, not some man-made Babel of a Covenant, whose meaning is already shattering into a hundred tongues, and which offers cohesion only as adhesion by coercion.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Some thoughts on unity and division

Over at Jan Nunley's blog, there is a lively discussion between her good self and Matt Kennedy. It is the usual case of dueling Scriptures, but it seems to be going on in a good spirit, without recrimination. As I was cited briefly, in light of my forthcoming book on the subject (now in page proofs) I felt the need to make a comment, regarding matters raised, in particular regarding Leviticus 18 and Romans 1. The book addresses these things in exhaustive (and I hope not exhausting) detail. But in the world of the bite-size blog, I did want to approach my larger concern about how our current disagreements are affecting the church.

The Leviticus passage explicitly only applies to men, and at that only to Jewish men or those living in the Holy Land. That is what the text says. Broader application is reading into the text; which, of course, many have done. But then we move from sola scriptura to the authority of the church. I recognize the authority of the church in this regard, but, as an Anglican, also admit that the church can and has erred, even in matters of faith and morals.

Romans 1 is not about life-long committed same-sex relationships. It may or may not refer to female same-sexuality; some of the early church fathers thought not; a few and more later ones did. (Again this gets into the church as interpreter, rather than the text itself.) The text alone, taken as a rhetorical whole, is about the perils of idolatry: what happens to idolaters as a result of their idolatry. At that, the same-sexuality it describes is not that of commitment, but of lust, disorder, and orgy. The "context" does not apply to Christian couples.

I realize Matt disagrees with my interpretation of Scripture. But that is my freedom as a Christian, a member of the church, and I am far from being alone in my interpretation. Speaking personally, I take this to be a part of what Paul was addressing in Romans 14:14. I do not, by this, mean to be placing a stumbling block in anyone's way, and if my freedom is leading anyone to transgression in judging their brothers and sisters, I regret that. I can only counsel they consider that the creation of factions and divisions over disagreements as to what is right or not lies at the heart of Paul's concern for the well-being of the church; and the way forward, according to the Gospel, is to take an attitude of forbearance, and restraint of judgment of others, while leading a life of holiness in one's own understanding, without giving -- or taking -- offense, so far as that within us lies.

If I am mistaken in my understanding of Scripture, along with those who take Scripture as I do, I trust that God forgives me. I place my ultimate reliance not in my own understanding or performance, but upon the assurance that God forgives those who err, even when, perhaps especially when, they do not know their error. And I think that goes for others, too.

In the meantime, the question seems to me to be, What leads to peace and the spread of that gospel? -- the gospel that is not about works of righteousness through the Law, or careful observation of its strictures (which cannot save) but rather upon the mercy of God and the love shown to those who also bear Christ's name, and to those who do not yet know him. Are we presenting a face to the pagan world that would make them at all desirous of coming to know Christ?

So that, for me, points to the whole question of division and disagreement in the church. And that brings me back to the current mess in the Anglican Communion, and the quest towards greater unity through the establishment of a Covenant that will bind the churches closer together than affectionate means seem to have made possible. Christopher, ever insightful, has commented at his blog about the perils of placing any unifying authority in the place of Christ, who is the only legitimate head of the church. Not the Pope, not the Archbishop of Canterbury, not even the English Monarch. Seeking unity in some edifice other than God-in-Christ and Christ-in-us is precisely the error of Babel. It is the creation of a self-sufficient unity that has no real foundation. And the movement of Anglicanism away from its pilgrimage orientation (as C S Lewis said, as friends facing a common object of adoration outside of ourselves) towards preoccupation and infatuation with our own unified edifice, is an ecclesiastical error of the worst sort.

It strikes me that these two things go together: it is all about power over others, to make them conform to ones own understanding, rather than living under the grace that tolerates the misapprehension that befalls us all. The libido dominandi, in ecclesiastical form, will not bring us to Christ. The Law cannot save. We are called rather to accept that the kingdom of God is among us, realized in our love for each other in Christ, not in the structures and strictures we may connive to foster greater unity. There can be no greater unity than that which binds up the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit -- the ground of all being, the creator not only of this world, nor even of all worlds, nor even only of the universe, but of every possible universe that is or might be. If we are to be one as Christ and the Father are one, we must simply open our hands to recieve that unity, which is and always will be, not of our own doing, but a gift from God.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Thought for 07.08.08

Why is it that a group calling itself the ‘Global Anglican Future’ seems so intent on repeating the errors of the past? The history of the church is littered with the shells and remnants of purist and separatist movements, as is the world. From Babel to Utopia, from the Zealots to the Taliban, from the House of Shammai to the Sanctified Brethren — such efforts to lift and separate more often fall and dissipate. The church will always be a hospital for sinners, a field strewn with weeds and wheat; it is not the task of one sinner to judge another, nor the task of anyone to weed the field. We are instead called to grow and bear fruit — and it is the fruit that will be gathered in the harvest, not the stalks, be they weed or wheat.

Tobias Haller BSG

The web of possible relationships

Over at the daily episcopalian Jim Naughton has posted a short reflection on the impact of same-sex blessings in the Church of Sweden (now officially authorized and put in practice) on the fact that the Churches of England and Sweden are in full communion, though the Church of Sweden is not thereby a member of the Anglican Communion. Communion is not, to use the mathematical term, transitive. [Note, never having been very good at maths I used "commutative" here in the original post. A number of charitable folks have pointed out the error of my ways. I was always good at geometry, but numbers are not my friends...]

It strikes me once again that this might be a possible way forward for the Anglican Communion. It seems that one way or another, come the end of this year the Anglican Communion will in all likelihood be different from what it has been in the past. Either it will have begun to transform itself into a more tightly structured quasi-global church (or global quasi-church, take your pick) and hence be less "Anglican," or loosen its ties (the "bonds" of affection having grown tenuous) into a web of bilateral relationships, and hence be less of a "communion." In the interest of a possible later coming-back-together, I would counsel the latter course. It is no secret I have long opposed the almost Babel-like drive towards building a stronger, higher, bigger structure in order to ensure unity.

In this model, TEC might remain in communion with, say, the Church of Southern Africa, and CSA in communion with the Church of Nigeria, but TEC not in communion with CoN. Just like we have now with ELCA, TEC, the C of E, and the Church of Sweden. Would this not be a better, and simpler, way forward than the rush towards a covenant from which it appears some wish to see others excluded -- for if the covenant is "weak" enough to allow all the present parties to remain, what is the point?

As to Lambeth, to which in the past all of the bishops have been invited, there are two options that recommend themselves. Invite them all, including the Lutherans from our part of the world and the Scandinavian and Baltic regions, for a true time of fellowship; or perhaps give it a rest for a decade, as a number of people have suggested. Lambeth didn't meet in wartime -- perhaps our current troubles might also warrant a time apart? One thinks how many families might get along better were it not for enforced holiday parties...

—Tobias Haller BSG

Fear, Folly, & Disorder

Fear cloaked as courage, victimization masked as sacrifice, and disorderly expediency: these are the qualities that typified the dysfunction of the closing day of the General Convention meeting in Columbus.

Fear of fear itself

Our leaders spoke of not giving into our fears. But what were the fears they hoped we might set to one side? The only fears of which I was aware on the last day of the General Convention were fears we did not set to one side: fear that the Anglican Communion might split, or fear that we as a province might be excluded from the conversation. It seems very possible that in spite of the good intention, our action on the last day of Convention will not prevent the Communion from splitting, and though we may have provided Canterbury with the minimum to allow an invitation to the Anglican conversation pit, we no longer have anything to say.

How much better to have let our Yes be Yes or our No, No. How much better it would have been to tell those who accuse us of imperialism — within our church or in other provinces — that we have no wish or will to impose our views upon anyone, and are willing to take whatever steps are necessary to assure them of this willingness, including placing our future as part of the Communion in their hands. How much better to be excluded to the margins (or even off the page) for doing what we believe to be right: for Christ would be with us in our exclusion to the edge or over it, as he was always more comfortable in the company of those deemed sinners than in the synagogues of the ones who thought themselves righteous.

The sacrifice of the few for the many

I wasn’t a Girardian before this General Convention; but I have to admit I saw the Girardian principle of scapegoat-making in full play: as a few were selected to be the offering that would relieve the anxiety of the many. In the course of debate, a number of persons spoke of the sacrifice being made in the first-person plural; however, it was evident that very few of them were making any personal sacrifice at all. And while it is always permissible to sacrifice oneself, it is never so to sacrifice someone else.

As the day wore on I began to appreciate what it feels like to be the Sudetenland, as a little piece of paper marked B-033 offered the false promise of peace in our time. It is already evident this blemished sacrifice has been rejected by the augurs.

Disorderly Houses

On the last day of Convention, disorder plagued both Houses. The deputies had on the day before considered and rejected a resolution urging the church to refrain from ordaining any bishop, or blessing any relationships, that might provoke anxiety. The deputies also heard a substitute imposing moratoria à la Windsor — unconstitutional because the General Convention cannot abridge the rights and responsibilities of the various organs of the church except by amendment of the Constitution and Canons. I am happy to have pressed the point on the liturgical question, on the basis of Article X of the Constitution and the Book of Common Prayer, which gives bishops the right to authorize liturgies not provided for in the BCP; the President received my objection in good spirit and after further consultation ruled against consideration. The original resolution was rejected by a wide margin, and a motion to reconsider it similarly failed. So far the normal orderly procedures of the House.

It was on the following day that pressure began to be exerted, with the calling of a joint session in which the Presiding Bishop appealed to both Houses to pull the Episcopal fat from the Anglican fire. The Bishops departed to their chamber and adopted B-033, substantially the same as the first resolve that failed in the Deputies: calling on the various organs of the church to refrain from consenting to a bishop whose manner of life might add to the tension in the church. (We all know what that means, and to whom it refers, I assume.) In order for the Bishops to take up this matter, it was necessary for them to suspend their Rule XVIII, which forbids new legislation after the second day of Convention, and even more strongly on the final day of the session. I assume the Bishops took this necessary step prior to adopting their Resolution B-033.

In any case, this resolution was then sent to the Deputies, who had to suspend their Rule 28 governing the consideration of a matter once settled, and should likely have suspended Rule 31.b.7 on the reconsideration of a reconsideration without material change. (The Parliamentarian ruled that as the matter of B-033 did not include the resolve about rites that it was materially different.) After the vote on the second reconsideration passed, debate was engaged, into which was inserted an address by the Presiding Bishop-elect, concerning fear, swords and shields, and conjoined twins. I fear this action will cost her ministry more deeply than we can even begin to estimate at this point, and that B003 may not turn out to be so much a gift as a burden.

I remain concerned when such a scramble at accommodation combines with a helter-skelter setting aside of rules of order — rules not designed for their own sake, but to prevent this very sort of coercive (or, if you prefer) persuasive exercise of power: to protect the rights of the assembly and its many members. One of the things that could well be said of GC2003 — whether one agreed with its decisions or not — was that all canonical rules and regulations were followed scrupulously. The same, quite simply, cannot be said of GC2006: rules were not followed, but suspended.

After all is said and done, I do know one thing: Jesus is my friend. I thought the Episcopal Church was my friend, too — really. And B033 is not how you treat your friends.

In conclusion

Can good come of this? Yes, I do believe, in God’s good time and with God’s good grace. But expediency often shows itself to be inexpedient in the long run. Perhaps an icon for the Episcopal Church at this point might be the electronic voting system adopted for this General Convention. It was hoped that it would simplify and expedite our process. In fact it took up far more of our precious time together than was wise of us to expend, leaving us stumbling over ourselves in the closing hours of what I cannot call debate, but simply haste. When the means by which we do things (the institution of the church) becomes more important than, and draws resources from, the things we are called to do (the mission of the church) — well, we have made the error of Babel: as if the point was that we be united, that we not be scattered to bring the message to the world’s ends. The “unity” of Babel is the antithesis of the Gospel. Pray that God may restore the gift of distinctiveness that shatters the false unity of accommodation.

—Tobias S Haller BSG

---