Consensus and the Spirit

My big fat dictionary lists “unanimity” as the first definition for consensus (Websters 20th Century Unabridged 2d edition). This reflects a spiritual connection between the words --- “one in soul” and “together in feeling.” It is in that “feeling” part where I think we might talk about a kind of consensus in which people feel as though they can get along with each other.

The hallmark of formal consensus — which is the Latin word for consent — then, is the lack of polarization, the lack of significant opposition to or dissent from a decision. And that, I think, is why it is fair to say that the former consensus on sexual morality no longer exists.

The emergent consensus of feeling, however, (such as it is) is represented by a moderating position in which people should be able to get along with each other. This kind of consensus is not about the hot topics themselves, but about how to deal with the hot topics. The Bishop of South Carolina spoke eloquently at GC2000 about the process of collegiality on the committee that framed GC2000.D039 even though in the end he voted against it.

After all the debate, the resolution was adopted by an overwhelming majority in the House of Bishops (119 to 19 with 4 abstentions) and by the House of Deputies (noting that the controversial final resolve on beginning to authorize liturgical same-sex blessing was narrowly defeated in the lay order, the remaining resolves were overwhelmingly adopted without resort to vote by order). Not unanimous, by any means, but clearly a common mind for all but the ten percent who simply could not go that far.

How far were they asked to go? The “emergent consensus” should be that we can agree to disagree; but at the very least, as the resolution put it, to “acknowledge that while the issues of human sexuality are not yet resolved, there are currently couples in the Body of Christ and in this Church who are living in marriage and couples in the Body of Christ and in this Church who are living in other life-long committed relationships; and that we expect such relationships will be characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God...” The resolution also acknowledged that this is a departure from “the traditional teaching of the Church on human sexuality” and that some people will “in good conscience...act in contradiction with that position” but that all of us “on various sides of controversial issues have a place in the Church.” (D039) No one is going to be cast out for agreeing or disagreeing: we will get along.

So: this is the non-unanimous consensus of the Episcopal Church at this point. It offers a partial answer to the question so often posed as to the “standards of holiness” required for ordination — that the overwhelming majority of our church’s leadership believe that same-sex relationships can embody “holy love” even if they are not yet officially “blessed” by a liturgical rite. This recognition (which did not enact a reality, but expressed a feeling — a “sensus” or perception) is in part what makes possible the affirmation of the place of persons living within same-sex relationships in all orders of the church’s ministry. At this point, there is no consensus that such relationships are equivalent to marriage — but there is an “emergent consensus” that at least some of the truly moral values inherent in a good marriage may also be present in these relationships.

It is true that about ten percent of the Episcopal Church (to judge by the bishops vote, anyway) does not accept this “emergent consensus.” We do not have unanimity on thissubject within the Episcopal Church, far less outside it. The question is, can we get along with this lack of unanimity, or must there be division?

And what of the Spirit?

A significant vocal minority does indicate a lack of consensus; but I don’t believe it tells us anything one way or the other about the Holy Spirit. Some people will not recognize the Spirit no matter how manifest it is: even on Pentecost some in the crowd dismissed the Apostles as drunkards. And there can be perfectly amicable and trusting gatherings of folks sharing a common mind — and deeply, horribly wrong! So consensus tells me nothing about rightness or wrongness, spiritual or secular.

This is one of the reasons I am not a complete fan of Gamaliel, even though following his advice is often an advisable best course. As I once remarked to Archbishop Runcie from the floor of the Trinity Institute, after he had just observed on the matter of the ordination of women, “If it is of God it will survive” — “Given that a great many things we know to be of God have not survived, and many things demonstrably not of God have flourished, is Gamaliel’s approach truly an effective way to determine the rightness or wrongness of an action?” His response, “Not always.”

And I agree. It is still a way to preserve peace, but it is no guarantee of “correctness.” However, we are called to peace, not to be correct.

At the present time it appears to me that the greatest harm to the church is not coming from NH or CA, but from the reactions thereto. People need to take a chill pill, and a bit of responsibility for their own actions and reactions. Dean Zahl has just published yet another screed seeking to put all responsibility — even for his travel expenses! — on those “unscrupulous” liberals; and stamps his feet that it “isn’t fair!” But it is specious to state that GC2003 or California “forces” this reaction — it is a matter of free choice. (Of course, as a good Calvinist, Dr Zahl might pick a bone with me about that, too!)

No one needs to be “touched” by these matters unless they choose to be bothered by them. Generous provision has been made for the minority view — some quite out of keeping with our historic polity, and most of them not ample enough to please. All the Episcopal Church is asking for is the kind of independent right to elect its own bishops that the conservatives within the Episcopal Church want for themselves — maybe the whole Episcopal Church can be seen, in the communion, as being under a sort of DEPO, if need be, and let those Episcopalians who want to have a direct line elsewhere have it! How’s that for a proposal?

— Tobias S Haller BSG

---

Making Sense of Consensus

The Church of England Newspaper(Feb. 24) reports on Archbishop Rowan Williams as responding to the news of the release of the list of nominees for Bishop of California as follows:

Dr Williams stressed his opposition to the move. “If there is ever to be a change on the discipline and teaching of the Anglican Communion [on homosexuality] it should not be the decision of one Church alone. “The Church must have the highest degree of consensus for such a radical change,” he argued, adding he was very uneasy about the way in which change has gone forward in the American Church over this issue.

The newspaper doesn’t indicate the source of these quotations, presented as I show them with that odd floating quotation mark. Were these from a letter, an off-cuff comment, or what? [FLASH: see first comment below; these quotations came from comments made in Porto Alegre on February 17th, three days before the California nominations were released.]

Whatever the format or forum, I continue to be confused by Archbishop Williams’ asssertions concerning consensus and change.

As I have noted before, this is not the way intellectual, social, or religious change actually works in the real world. Things happen locally, and then gain acceptance (or not) more broadly. They don't “become true” when a certain critical mass of agreement is reached. Truth (or rightness, or any other reality) is not established by majority rule, nor rendered false because held by a minority.

It strikes me that Williams’ approach to the process of truth-determination in ecclesiastical polity is similar to Receptionism in sacramental theology (the elements “become” the Body and Blood based on the positive reception by the communicant) or Adoptionism in Christology (that Jesus “became” the Son of God at some point, such as his baptism, crucifixion, or even resurrection). Just as truth (or moral truth) is not contingent upon who receives it, so too the eucharist is the real presence of Christ, and Jesus is the Christ even as an infant at his mother’s breast.

From a practical perspective, this “none can act until all agree” approach would have meant the death of the church before it was born. Had the apostles heeded the Council’s warning, and stopped proclaiming Christ, and had not Gamaliel intervened and argued for restraint and tolerance for this minority opinion, we wouldn’t be here today. Had the Church of England not taken its unilateral step against Roman hegemony, we might be here, but we wouldn’t be Anglicans.

At the present time, it can be said with certainty that there is no longer a consensus on the question of the ordination of persons living in same-sex relationships. There may be a large majority who oppose it, but there is no longer a consensus.

Nor is there a consensus on how best to achieve consensus: I argue for the process of tolerance and reception, which seems to be the way the church accepts changes over time. Williams appears to think it will somehow happen in a vacuum or a flash.

The scandal of God’s truth is that the Word was made flesh in the person of a Jewish carpenter, at a certain place and in a certain time. He came to his own people, but they rejected him. But among them, and elsewhere, were those who accepted him, and they became the children of God — not born of the flesh or by the will of man, but of God. This is how the Truth of God marches — step by step. May the church keep pace....

— Tobias S Haller BSG

---

The Misuse of Scripture

Scripture has often been mangled, twisted, and abused to support positions in debates on many issues. The current debate on sexual morality that is raging in the Church offers many sad examples. Here are some of the commonest misuses of Scripture, and suggested ways to counteract them. Many of these errors are honest and unintentional; others are deliberate.

+++

The first errors involve the text itself.

Misquote and misattribute: a constant abuse. You can’t possibly interpret the Scripture if the text is corrupted by faulty memory. And check the origin: was it John the Baptist or Saint Paul? or was it Isaiah? Don’t trust your memory: look it up; and read, mark, and inwardly digest!

Translations: Always using one translation can give you a very narrow view. All translation involves a degree of interpretation. Check different versions and, when possible, study the text in the original language.

Reading: Sadly, clergy often leave regular intensive Scripture reading behind once they graduate from seminary. If your only contact with the Bible is through the lectionary, you will miss two things: 1) You will completely miss any text not in the lectionary. Important portions of the Old Testament will remain unread (The Song of Songs, for example). 2) You will also be reading most texts in half-chapter or smaller chunks. Besides losing the context, this destroys, for example, the sense of urgency in Mark’s Gospel, and renders much of Paul’s writing incomprehensible. His point-counterpoint technique of argument sometimes spreads over several chapters, and if you read in smaller sections, you can easily lose track. Look at the first eight chapters of Romans, for example. So, in addition to any liturgical reading, read through entire books, or at least read several chapters at a sitting.

+++

The next errors involve context.

Prooftexting: using isolated quotations which seem to support a point of view. This is a technique used by both conservatives and liberals. It is this abuse that causes people to believe “you can prove anything from Scripture.” Several correctives need to be applied: examine the textual and situational placement of a statement, and never build a case on an isolated quote.

Anthologizing: This is an editorial process in which everything you don’t like about the Scriptures is excised, or everything that appeals to you is gathered into a neat little packet. It’s another form of prooftexting. This produces the “gentle Jesus, meek and mild” half-gospel. Just don’t do it!

Ignoring the Old Testament and the synoptic references: Many New Testament texts are in fact quotations from or allusions to Old Testament sources. For example, using “You always have the poor with you” (Matt. 26:11) as a defense for lack of charitable outreach ignores the fact that it is an allusion to a text in Deuteronomy (15:11) which ends, “you shall open wide your hand...to the poor.” Use a version with good cross references, and make use of concordances and harmonies of the Gospels.

Failing to take the spiritual / emotional context into account: One often hears people discount a passage on the grounds of what they call “social context.” They will say, “Paul was writing in a different sort of world.” While this may be true, the social context is less important than the spiritual and emotional context. For example, the Pauline statements on marriage and celibacy must be seen in the context of Paul’s belief in the impending eschaton (see 1 Cor. 7:25-40). Think of Paul as rather like a father driving home after a day’s outing with his children: they’re about a mile from home, and the kids start complaining that they have to go to the bathroom. What does he say? “Can’t you hold it! We’re almost there!” So, keep the spiritual world view in mind.

+++

The last set of abuses are brought about by tradition.

Tunnel vision: This happens when a tradition is so set in concrete that it is difficult to see a given text in any other light. Tradition is meant to illuminate, not to blind. This narrowing is especially dangerous when it is enshrined in the translations. The text is then, in effect, conditioned by the tradition, rather than the tradition being informed by a fresh look at the texts. Translations are usually done by committees, and committees are usually conservative by virtue of the need to compromise. Be open to alternative interpretations, and again, return to the original texts whenever possible.

Dominicalizing: This happens when a traditional teaching or view is placed into the mouth of our Lord. It may be a teaching which is in itself sound, but the attempt to bolster its authority by attributing it to Jesus should be avoided. Watch out for statements beginning, “Our Lord taught that...” or “Jesus said that...” when they can’t be supported with citations.

Phantom Scripture: This is similar to dominicalizing. A tradition is imputed to be of biblical antiquity and authority when it is in fact completely postscriptural. Much of what we think of as “traditional” is in fact rather late; much of it doesn’t predate the Reformation, and some of it is pure nineteenth century! Be wary of “The biblical tradition of...” when it isn’t supported by biblical references.

+++

As Anglicans, we accept the Scriptures as a source of authority. But, if we are truly to embrace the Word of God as it comes to us through fallible human minds and hearts, we should make every effort to have as clear and accurate a vision of it as possible. The final question must be, Will we be able to accept the authority of Scripture if it turns out that it doesn’t say what we always thought it did?

Tobias S Haller BSG

---

This article was originally published in The Servant #111 (June 1987) and in Spanish translation in Anglicanos 17 (Enero-Marzo de 1988).

Costly Freedom and the Clash of Symbols

Over the last few weeks, violent reaction to the publication of political cartoons featuring the Prophet Mohammed has led to considerable property damage and the loss of several lives. Before we Americans and Christians become too comfortable upon our high horses, clucking our tongues at what we are tempted to see as the over-reactions of religious fundamentalists, it might be well to recall some of our own behavior when cherished symbols are abused or defamed. Recall, if you will, the reactions to the burning of the American flag, and the legal efforts to defend this symbol as if it were more than fabric — as if it were the fabric of our country itself. Or recall not so many years ago how the figure of a crucified woman, exhibited in the Cathedral of Saint John the Divine as part of the UN Decade of the Woman, was denounced as blasphemous and monstrous — to some it seemed almost as bad as the willfully offensive crucifix in urine or the Madonna with elephant dung that hung in a New York gallery and museum.

Symbols no doubt are powerful. But when we give them this power, and react in this way, do we not violate the purpose for which the law against such symbols was given? The voice from Sinai spoke against the making of images — to the end that they not become the objects of worship. When the Muslim rages at the insult to an image of the Prophet, when the patriot protests the burning of the flag, when the Christian seethes at the sight of the sacred symbol defaced or defamed, have these things not become, to some extent, idols? Is this the reversal of dulia — the honor given to an icon — turned upside down, so that the insult to the thing of paper, wood or cloth is somehow transferred to the sacred reality which cannot be portrayed? Or is it a dangerous overstepping into a twisted form of latria — have these physical representations themselves become so sacred that we dare not offer them an insult?

In his novel, Silence (Chinmoku), Shusaku Endo describes a Portuguese priest in feudal Japan forced to make a terrible decision. In order to prevent further torture and execution of the converts in his flock, the magistrate demands that the priest, the leader, publicly defame an image of Christ — a bronze plaque expressly created for that purpose — by trampling upon it. This will show that he has forsaken his faith, and sap his authority in the community. As he gazes on this image of Christ lying at his feet, he weighs the matter in his heart and mind. It is not a beautiful image as conventional beauty goes: it is the ugly face of the crucified one. He regards it in all of its vulnerability, until finally, he chooses to save the flock at the cost of his own position as a leader, perhaps even as a Christian. As Endo puts it:

The priest raises his foot. In it he feels a dull, heavy pain. This is no mere formality. He will now trample on what he has considered the most beautiful thing in his life, on what he has believed most pure, on what is filled with the ideals and dreams of man. How his foot aches! And then the Christ in bronze speaks to the priest: “Trample! Trample! I more than anyone know of the pain in your foot. Trample! It was to be trampled on by men that I was born into this world. It was to share men’s pain that I carried my cross.”

Who is our God? What is our nation? Who are our prophets? If they cannot bear an insult — or if we cannot bear the insult given to their shadows — are they what they seem to be, and are we? Have they become idols and we idolators indeed?

God in Christ bears the shame heaped upon him by those who know not what they do; God in Christ bears the pain inflicted upon all of his images — not the ones of wood and copper, of pigment and plaster and paint, but of flesh and blood: the brothers and sisters demeaned and defamed day by day in this fallen world of idols. As we do it to the least of them, we do it to the one whose image they bear. May God help us to turn from wrong and insult, towards mutual respect, forbearance and righteousness.

—Tobias S Haller BSG

---

A Case Not Proven

Over on the House of Bishops/Deputies Listserv a contributor posted a note that I think well summarized the traditional position on sexuality. In it, he asserted that the Bible accords great and consistent significance to the fact that human beings are created male and female, and that this consistent scriptural testimony, as a “practical implication,” rules out the blessing of any other sexual relationship than that between a man and a woman in the context of lifelong, monogamous marriage.

I am grateful for this succinct summation of the core of the difficult disagreement in which we find ourselves. However, I do not see the disagreement in quite the polar form that some might assume. For instance, I concur that human beings are created and exist (the rare exceptions duly noted) in a basic gender polarity of male and female. This takes physical form as a biological dimorphism (less extreme in human beings than in some species, but nonetheless abundantly demonstrable). Finally, and most importantly, I agree that this is indeed significant. That is, it is capable of signifying to us something beyond a mere biological reality. This aspect of human life was seized upon quite naturally by Israel and the Church as a symbolic “map” for the relationship between themselves and God, and the Holy Scripture testifies to this symbolic significance. So far I dare say we are in complete agreement.

Where we begin sharply to diverge is in the next step, the “practical implication.” Here he asserts that this particular human relationship, attested to in Scripture, is somehow thereby possessed of a unique status that also renders any other relationship (however like it in depth of commitment, fidelity, and charity — but lacking the single element of sex-difference) utterly and completely inconceivable, and gravely defective morally.

My question is, How do we go from A to B? Because X is normative and allowed, must Y therefore be utterly condemned? How precisely does the use of heterosexual marriage as a “map” for the relationship between God and humanity (or a portion thereof) acquire a legal significance, as well as a poetic one?

My objections include the following:

This sort of imagery is not unique to the Jewish and Christian traditions. The Greeks mapped heterosexuality onto Father Sky and Mother Earth (Uranus and Gaia) in their version of the Creation story, but we know what the Greeks also got up to when it came to human relationships! So wherein lies the practical implication? Must this poetry be read as if it were prose, and a law code at that? When, and how, does the implicit become explicit?

Male and female exist in most animals and many plants — why, when speaking of human relationships, elevate and focus solely on the aspect shared with the plants and animals, at the expense and diminishment of the truly human capacity to love which we share with God?

Other images for the relationship between God and humanity are attested in Scripture. For example, the image of king and subject, or master and servant, is consistent from Genesis to Revelation (and far more frequent than the imagery based on marriage). On this basis, the Stuarts advanced the notion that Monarchy alone was the divinely willed form of government. Surely this is a similar example of taking a symbol to literal extremes.

So, all in all, I have to conclude that this syllogism from the tradition must be marked “not proven.”

Tobias S Haller BSG

---

My $0.02 on The Book of Daniel

All in all I'm willing to give this series a second viewing next week. Yes, it had some annoying "mistakes" (that could easily have been avoided with a bit of "consultation" -- where's Archbishop Eames when you need him!) but that wasn't my greatest concern. It was the impression of a cast of cardboard sinners about whom it was difficult to care very much.

I say that acknowledging that opening episodes tend to be overpacked with exposition -- as this surely was. I did find myself, by the middle of the second hour, beginning, however faintly, to care about the characters -- I suppose it was the rather cold-etched portrait of "The Bishop's Wife with Alzheimers" that did it. In general, first episodes tend to want to pack in so much exposition that they use cliches to "flag" certain personality traits; there are some decent actors here, and I hope they will be provided with the material to flesh out the persons within the roles (actors can only do so much, after all!) -- most especially Jesus, who needs to be more than kind and clever. And I really do hope the local RC priest turns out to be more than an offensive caricature.

If things don't start to ripen and mature in the next episode, I'm afraid this series is headed for the footnotes.

I say all of this admiting, even I, that I hated the "pilot" episode of "Star Trek The Next Generation" -- which suffered from many of the same flaws as the writers tried to tableau each character in somewhat annoying succession, giving none of them sufficient depth. It took a few weeks for the characters to grow into the third dimension -- and they had the advantage of warp drive!

So I'll be back next week to take another look.

A Global South View Rebutted

Tobias S Haller BSG

Dr Roland Chia’s article posted on the “Global South” website represents a good summary of the arguments asserted against the church’s recognition or legitimizing of same-sex relationships.⁽¹⁾ That being said, the article suffers from the usual faults of such reassertions. I will highlight two.

The Argument from Scripture

The use of Scripture is unsophisticated and sub-critical, without achieving the wisdom of the pre-critical Rabbinic or Patristic readings. For example, the relevance of the “Sodom” story to male homosexuality (apart from assault) has surely been widely debunked — even among reasserters.

More problematical is the casual mixing of the two creation accounts in a way that fails to acknowledge that in the second account there is no sexual congress until after the Fall. The procreative and unitive functions are therefore clearly separable: human society requires procreation for its propagation, but unity for its well-being; nor does the church forbid marriage to those incapable of fertility, nor does it terminate marriages at the onset of infertility. It is also clear that the command to multiply, which is also given to the wild creatures in Genesis 1, is supplemented and crowned by the command to loving society established in Genesis 2, which endures in the absence and beyond the cessation of any capacity to procreate; and which indeed also allows for the recognition of celibacy as a legitimate way of life, contrary to the explicit command of Genesis 1:28.

The use of faulty translations for key proof-texts is also telling. For instance, Jude 7 nowhere mentions “unnatural lusts” in the original; the text refers to going “after different flesh.” This is a Middle Eastern idiom for slander, analogous to our contemporary idioms “chew someone out,” “backbiting” and “dishing” — which is in keeping with the overall tenor of the Epistle. Moreover the reference to purported “sexual immorality” in the same verse uses a verb form that means “prostituted themselves” (ekporneusasai) — hardly a possible description of homosexual assault if that is what Sodom was about! — and most likely refers figuratively to idolatry and greed — in keeping with the use of this verb elsewhere in Scripture, and also far more in keeping with the rest of the Epistle, and indeed the other Scriptural references to Sodom.

More importantly, this condemnation of “going after different flesh (sarkos heteras)” — were it to be understood to refer to sexuality — would also go contrary to the whole idea of “complementarity” asserted by the good Doctor, in which he states that it is the purported “difference” between male and female that gives the proper license to sexual relationships!

The Flaw in the Premise:
Ontology recapitulates misogyny

This “complementarity” argument is also a weak point in the reasserter case. First, it does not meet the Scriptural standard: the Genesis 2 account is rather specific in stating that Adam’s joy in Eve is not because she is “different” from him, but rather because she is like him “at last”: bone of his bones and flesh of hisflesh (unlike the animals -- God’s first attempt to find a suitable companion (ezer k’ngdo; homoios auto, similis eius) -- who were made not from Adam but from the earth. Eve is “of one substance” with Adam. As Hincmar of Reims would later say, “Eva ipsa est Adam.”

This notion that Eve is of the same substance with Adam is important as a theological point later on: the doctrine of the Incarnation insists that Jesus is of one substance with humanity solely through his mother, Mary: if woman was “missing” something that could only be supplied by a man (which is the ordinary dictionary definition of “complementary”) then the Christ could not be fully human — which is heresy.

The fallback argument that male and female are only complementary “functionally” fails to recognize the separation of the unitive and procreative functions in creation and in reality. Clearly male and female are complementary at the level of the gamete, in order to provide for sexual reproduction and procreation. But as we have already seen, sexual relationships between men and women are not restricted to those capable of procreation. With the removal of the procreative function from the picture we are left with an assertion that “something” complementary still remains. If this is only a purported anatomical complementarity of plugs and cavities there is nothing to distinguish human sexuality from most of the animals; and the argument of divine intent on this basis is unpersuasive and less than satisfying.

So this view still appears to rely on an underlying gender essentialism or ontology that is out of keeping with the orthodox understanding of the Creation and of the new Creation in the Incarnation. As I have noted elsewhere, this realization is leading some Orthodox theologians to reevaluate the tradition barring women from ordination; and I suggest it is also important in reevaluating the tradition on same-sex relationships, seeking a corrective to what I regard as a tragic cultural bondage (not to contemporary culture, but to the culture of a particular portion of the ancient Near East), towards a deeper and better understanding of God’s will that is comprehensible in relation to Scripture, Reason, and the best and deepest and most meaningful theological bases of Tradition.

---

Note 1. At least between men. He restricts his comments against lesbianism to his reading of Romans 1. Perhaps he recognizes the silence of the Hebrew Scriptures on such relationships, and as he is keen to stress a “whole Bible” argument, realizes the weakness of his case on that score. As noted in the critical literature, that Romans 1 refers to lesbianism is by no means sure; nor has that always been the reading of the text in the Tradition; Augustine, for example, thought it referred to women doing “unnatural” things with men. [^]

Art for the Seasons

Happy to report that one of my paintings, Walsingham Windows, has been included in the current "show" of The Episcopal Church & the Visual Arts: Venite Adoremus. All the richest blessings of this holy time of year be yours.
Tobias

On the Plainness of Scripture and What to Do with It

as a Rabbi might put it...

That which is plain to you
— and concerns you —
do.
That is righteousness.

That which is plain to you
— but does not concern you —
do not demand of others.
That is judgment.

That which is not plain to you,
study,
and pray.
That is wisdom.

Tobias S Haller BSG
And I think you know which Rabbi I mean...

The Anglican Triad

Anglicans are familiar with the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral: the statement of four doctrinal and ecclesiological principles that chart out the boundaries for dialogue between churches wishing to join in closer common purpose and mission. The Quadrilateral thus describes the essentials, from an Anglican perspective, for church union or reunion.

I would like to suggest that alongside the familiar Quadrilateral we consider another structure that for want of a better term I will call the Anglican Triad (with apologies to those who use this term for what is often known, incorrectly, as “Hooker’s Three-Legged Stool.”) This Triad consists of three elements which are particularly characteristic of Anglicanism — not necessarily unique to to it, but together constituting a unity which I fear is at present very much under assault.

For shorthand I will call these three elements Humility, Provinciality, and Variety. They stand in the via media between Humiliation, Provincialism, and Chaos at one extreme, and Pride, Centralism and Uniformity at the other. All three are well attested in foundational documents of Anglicanism (The Articles of Religion, the Prefaces to the English and American Books of Common Prayer) and in the work of those who first focused the Anglican vision, such as Richard Hooker. I’ll limit my citations here to the Articles themselves, by number.

1. Humility: “The church... hath erred.” (19,21)

The admission that the church makes mistakes is profoundly revealing of the nature of the church as we understand it. It reflects the Pauline judgment that “our knowledge is partial”; and it asserts an attitude of faith and hope — and one hopes, love — rather than of certainty and judgment. This admission of uncertainty renders all but the most fundamental dogmatic matters to some extent provisional. It has been called by the rather high-falutin’ title “epistemic humility,” but I think that plain old humility says it just as well. Understood in this way, Humility is not a weakness, but a strength. It stands between abject humiliation and overweening pride.

This acknowledgment that the church makes mistakes is followed by a corollary: mistakes can (and should) be corrected. The church is not trapped within an immutable legal structure such as that attributed to the Medes and Persians. This is why Anglicanism can embrace and advance the development of doctrine and moral theology. This does not mean that every development will necessarily be correct — as the principle notes, the church makes mistakes. But the ability to admit to mistakes is the first step in correcting them. (Those familiar with 12-Step programs will at this point I hope recognize a resonance with the Serenity Prayer. It is very easy for the church to become addicted to the need to control, especially to control others through the claim of unassailable infallibility of judgment — to which Humility is a counterpoise and corrective.)

Humility stands as a meek (which does not mean “weak”) witness against domination by so-called consensus. As the Articles testify, since individual human beings may err, there is no guarantee that an assembly of such errant beings will not also err. (21) Humility points out that even an overwhelming consensus can be quite profoundly mistaken — Galileo can testify to that! So consensus by itself cannot form a term in an argument when a given proposition is being reexamined: this is simply a form of begging the question. Consensus, after all, means a “common mind with little or no opposition” — so the moment opposition appears, consensus ceases to exist, and the new proposal must be examined on its merits against the possible errancy of the formerly unchallenged position. (This is, by the way, why Hooker rejected tradition as an authority in and of itself.)

Anglicanism thus humbly rejects concepts of inerrancy and infallibility; even the Scripture itself is “sufficient” for the end for which it was intended: salvation (6). Human understanding, even of the Scripture, is fallible, and subject to a constant review as the church bears its responsibility as the “keeper of Holy Writ.” (19)

Humility also stands as a warning against the tendency to adopt unanimous statements for the purpose of apparent unity, in spite of serious disagreement with one or more parts of the adopted document. This sort of curate’s-eggery produces the appearance of agreement that cloaks underlying division. Better humbly to acknowledge the division, as the collect for the feast of Richard Hooker puts it, seeking comprehension for the sake of truth instead of compromise for the sake of peace. For as solutions such as Lambeth 1998.1.10 and the Primates’ Communiqué from Dromantine show us, such peace will be no peace.

2. Provinciality: “The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England.” (37)

Few things could be clearer than that the Church of England reasserted its ecclesiastical independence from Rome at the Reformation. It thought itself competent to do this, and believed it was returning to an ancient principle that had been more successfully preserved among the Eastern churches than it had in the West: the basic unit of the church is the national church or province. (It is sometimes suggested that the diocese is the basic unit of the church; however, a diocese cannot be self-sustaining in terms of the episcopate, and requires the participation of the bishops from other dioceses in order to maintain its existence. The diocese is an organ in the body of the province, and cannot subsist on its own.)

In Anglicanism Provinciality is expressed through provincial autonomy. Now, autonomy has gotten a bad name in some circles recently. It does not mean being able to do anything one likes. True autonomy should be understood in terms of the rights, powers and responsibilities exercised within and for a national church in terms of its ability to govern itself. It relates to the concept of subsidiarity: things should be done at the lowest level at which they can be accomplished. Thus priests are ordained by the diocese for the parishes; bishops by the province for the dioceses.

Provinciality is tempered by Humility, in that while each province asserts that it is fully the church, yet it does not assert itself as the only church. Rather than a “Branch” theory, this represents a more holographic understanding of the nature of the church’s fullness: it is complete within each province, as Christ is fully present in every eucharistic celebration, and in each fragment of the broken Bread. The external divisions between Christian churches constitute a scandal in that they impede the mission and work of Christ, and a failure to recognize that we do indeed share one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism; but it is not necessary that a single world-church institutional structure take the place of a fellowship of independent and self-governing provinces. Instead of a human-instituted system of authoritative government, the provinces are called to a work of service and mission, in the recognition that the church is already “One” through its faithful response to the dominical command to baptize all nations. It is to be hoped that all Christians may one day recognize this baptismal unity, and remove the various obstacles they have set in place that prevent our sharing in the one Bread at one Table. This unity in the two dominical Sacraments forms an essential element of the Quadrilateral.

Humility and Provinciality taken together reveal the process by which development is both possible and limited within the Anglican Communion. Newman believed that development of doctrine could only take place under the watchful eye of the Bishop of Rome — and this in spite of Rome’s demonstrable errors! Anglicanism broadens the scope for the source of correctives to the whole communion, the various national churches and provinces themselves being the determiners of what and how things are to change or remain the same: each determining for itself those matters that concern it. If I can offer an analogy: the Roman Catholic Magisterium is like a boarding house where you eat what is set before you or go hungry; the Anglican approach is more like a restaurant with a finite but various menu from which to choose; and the fact that I like mushrooms and you like asparagus should not keep us from eating at the same table.

Provinciality means that changes and developments may be made within a province that have no direct effect upon the governance of any other province. One example of this was the decision of the Episcopal Church to move forward with the ordination of women to the episcopate. No other province was forced to recognize or approve this decision, and it had no impact upon the governance, rights, privileges, or responsibilities of any other province. As time passed, other provinces chose to adopt — or not adopt — this innovation: this is the process of reception, and it is not complete even now: there is at present no Anglican consensus on the rightness (or wrongness) of the ordination of women to the episcopate. In the meantime any difficulties that arise — such as the inability to license a visiting woman bishop to function as such in a province that does not ordain women to the episcopate, or to license or transfer clergy ordained by a woman bishop — are readily dealt with by the canonical provisions already in place within all of the provinces; it is a matter of record keeping that need engender no ill will or severance of communion, and the evocation of Gamaliel’s advice to the Council can avoid excessive friction.

The principle, What touches all shall be decided by all, upon which I’ve reflected elsewhere, comes to play under the rubric of Provinciality. “Touches” does not mean, “having an opinion about” or “creating a situation which might lead to difficulties with a third party.” The legal principle, as Althusius pointed out, is about rights, privileges and authorities of each province that can only be restricted by each province’s individual consent. Thus, Lambeth 1998.1.10.e would be seen as overstepping its bounds if it were worded as more than the advisory that it is, since it would place a restriction on the right of provinces to ordain and bless whom they choose — and these are rights pertaining to each province that must be explicitly foregone by each, and which cannot be takenaway even by all of the other provinces combined. All, save even one, is not all.

Provinciality thus provides a balance and a means to implement development in conjunction with Humility: it allows innovations to be tested locally before anyone considers implementing them globally. This is, of course, how the church has generally functioned through the ages. One could note, for example, that the adoption of vernacular liturgy by various national churches at the Reformation finally after several centuries had impact upon the very Roman Catholic Church that so bitterly opposed the development. Going further back in history, the emergence of the Gentile church began in isolated communities, and it took some while — even after the conference of the Apostles in Jerusalem — for the church more widely to accept this innovation. After the collapse of an old consensus due to the action of the church in one place or a few places, a significant period of reception will be necessary before a new consensus is established. Ultimately, this movement from particular to universal is reflective of the Incarnation itself.

3. Variety: “Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish Ceremonies or Rites of the Church ordained only by man’s authority.” (36)

It must be admitted that Anglicanism has always experienced tension between uniformity and variety; however as another example of the importance of Provinciality, this citation from the Articles demonstrates (and a reading of the Preface to the 1549 Book of Common Prayer will support) that the concern is for uniformity within a national church, and permitted variety among them.

The matters currently causing distress in the communion concern rites and ceremonies: in particular ordination and marriage, neither of which “have any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God” (25), and so appear to fall within the rubric of permitted change. It will quickly be pointed out, however, that the limit on Variety in this regard is established by “God’s Word written” (20,36)— and some contend that the present innovations have crossed that boundary.

The question is, Who is to make that determination if not the national church? If the rites and ceremonies in question concern only a given province and its governance — for any other province is free to reject or refuse these rites and ceremonies, in principle or in the persons of those who take part in them — then as with all such matters the error is limited to the province which has erred. Are rites and ceremonies — even if errant — matters over which to break communion — as a number of provinces have done, not just with the individuals immediately representing the innovations, but with any who even approve of them? Are these matters over which to shun Christ’s table, as some have done? I believe not; and hope that there is yet time for them to reconsider their breach of communion.

Tobias S Haller BSG

---

More on those herrings...

I suppose my greatest confusion in this discussion of the propriety of divorce and remarriage is the argument (or perhaps I should say assertion) that the existence of two narrowly stated exceptions to the general prohibition against divorce (infidelity and paganism) somehow open the door for other exceptions as well.

This seems to me to be a very odd way of thinking. I mean, look at the situation as described in Matthew 19. The Pharisees ask Jesus if divorce is permissible for any old reason at all (which the Law permitted). Jesus says, no; the only reason is infidelity. To transform this restriction into a license hardly appears to be taking the “clear meaning of Scripture” very clearly — or seriously. It strikes me as something like saying, “Cars may only use the left-hand lane for passing; and since they can use the left-hand lane (for passing) they can use it just to drive in, too.”

So this “exceptions” assertion strikes me as deeply flawed. In fact, it reminds me of the caricature of the progressive position on sexuality concerning Leviticus, dubbed “The Shellfish Argument” by Canon Harmon of South Carolina. As he describes it, “You have noted that Leviticus is against same sex practice, but Leviticus says we should not eat shellfish. So how could we possibly listen to Leviticus?” This is, as I say, a caricature; the real argument of the progressives is not that we need pay no heed to Leviticus at all, but that we need to look at Leviticus as a legal code containing some laws that are no longer relevant, and determining which are which.

It is also argued that the existence of the two exceptions for divorce played a large part in the debates and discussions leading to the gradual liberalization of the Episcopal Church’s marriage law. This does not seem to bear up under close examination. This is laid out in White and Dykman’s Annotated Constitution and Canons, pages 399ff. A few tidbits: The 1916 General Convention joined most scholars in seeing (as most still do) that the “exception” in Matthew is not likely from Jesus (being an inclusion on the part of the redactor), and thus was not relevant to determining Jesus’ thought on the subject, which admitted no exceptions in the Gospel parallels. The report to the General Convention of 1937, rather than citing the “exceptions” argued that Jesus’ teaching against divorce representated an ideal, which many fell short; so a pastoral solution should be provided. The mechanism by which these changes ultimately were made was exactly on grounds of “fairness” and “not punishing the innocent” — beginning with the allowance of remarriage to the injured party — all in all a pastoral response to a difficult situation. (One can agree or disagree with this very loose handling of Jesus’ teaching, but this appears to have been the process, in spite of claims to the contrary.)

Finally, let me raise two more parallels that I did not include in my earlier list.

1. Some appeal to the “clear teaching of Scripture,” the historic tradition of “what we have always believed for 2,000 years,” and the unity of Anglicanism: yet surely they realize that on the subject of divorce and remarriage the Episcopal Church was innovative and “unilateral.”

2. Some decry the idea that “local option” should be allowed on sexuality matters; yet this is precisely what we have with divorce and remarriage: it is up to the local bishop to determine if a divorced person can remarry in his or her diocese, and the bishop is free to use whatever rationale seems right — a bishop could forbid any second marriages, or allow them all, and no one could gainsay the decision.

You know, I would perhaps not have raised the relevance of the divorce and remarriage issue to the broader sexuality debate were it not for the fact that so many of the traditionalists cite the passage from Matthew 19 as if what Jesus was addressing was homosexuality, rather than divorce. In this, it seems that the assertion is intended as a protective against accusations of inconsistency at best, and hypocrisy at worst. When I see the “reasserters” more generally reassert the traditional doctrine (as some, such as Dr. Peter Toon, have actually done), and call for renunciations that might well deplete their ranks of some of their most ardent spokesmen, then perhaps they will be taken seriously in this regard.

Tobias S Haller BSG

---

No Red Herring

I would like to respond to a recent comment I heard, similar to one that I’ve heard before: that the way the church has responded to the issue of divorce and remarriage is entirely different from the way it should deal with blessing same-sex relationships — and that to raise divorce/remarriage as a parallel is to serve up a very large red herring.

I disagree, and would like to offer the following bare-bones schematic as a rationale for why I see the issues as related.

Jesus says, divorce violates God’s will for sexual expression in humanity by putting asunder that which God has intended to remain united.

Some say, same-sex relationships violate God’s will for sexual expression in humanity by seeking to unite that which God never intended to be united.

Jesus says, marriage after divorce is equivalent to adultery, a capital offense under the Law of Moses, and a violation of one of the Ten Commandments; so that the blessing of a marriage of a divorced person constitutes blessing sin.

Some say, same-sex sexuality is a capital offense under the Law of Moses, so that the blessing of a same-sex couple constitutes blessing sin.

Jesus says, the sole exception for allowing divorce is infidelity.

Some say, this sole exception opens the door for other exceptions, including marriage for those divorced.

I say, since the only biblical law (strictly speaking) concerning same-sex sexuality is limited to Jewish males, lifelong monogamous same-sex relationships between Christians may be taken as an exception.

I hope this helps explain why I see the matters as related.

---

Again no surprise

Elvish


To which race of Middle Earth do you belong?
brought to you by Quizilla

More from the Global South... and Less

Please visit Thinking Anglicans for some interesting byplays of the Global South's response to Archbishop Rowan's visit.

Seems the letter signed by 14 of the Primates, with three absent before the signing, has now to be reduced by one, as Archbishop Hanford of Jerusalem has said he did not sign, nor is he sympathetic with, much of what appears above his name.

Also important to note is Canterbury's response to the Global South Primates' apparent belief that the case is closed. What the GSPs do not appear to realize is that +Rowan does _not_ consider the sexuality matter closed or settled: nor does the Windsor Report. While some may hold to belief in an "Anglican Consensus" it is a consensus in the process of collapse or at the very least reexamination. The Lambeth Response to the "Letter of 17, er, 16... uh, make that 13" is a clear warning shot across the conservative Primates' collective bow:

Begin
17th November 2005
Lambeth Palace has issued the following statement following the publication of a letter from Primates of the Global South to the Archbishop of Canterbury:

'The Archbishop of Cantebrury has made it clear since before the time of his enthronement that neither he nor anyone else has a mandate to change the teaching of the Church by fiat. He is committed to the process to which all the primates committed themselves and their provinces in the Primates' response to the Wondsor [sic] report, contained in the communique following the meeting in Dromantine.

"If this letter is a contribution to that process of debate, then it is to be welcomed, however robust. If it is an attempt to foreclose that debate, it would seem to serve very little purpose indeed."
End

Tobias S Haller BSG

The Myth of the Catholic Church

Some weeks ago I came across a comment on an Internet blog that has been rattling around in my head ever since. It was made by a former Episcopal priest who has since departed our pleasant quad for the more open expanse of the Roman campagna. (Even having set his hand to this particular plow, he spends a great deal of his time looking backward.) The substance of his comment was that if one truly wants to be a catholic one must either be in communion with Rome, or in communion with the sees of the East. The problem, of course, is that exceptional monosyllable or.

The Roman Catholic Church declares that the church subsists in those who are in communion with the heir of Peter. The Eastern churches make a similar claim. Neither of them would, within their own doctrine and discipline, recognize that monosyllabic exception: it is not a question of either/or — and certainly not both/and. Rather each of them claims, ultimately and separately, to be the institutional incarnation of the body of Christ on earth. It is true that their language has cooled since the days of the Great Schism, and has even waxed fraternal; but when it comes down to institutional structure, and most importantly that evocative but ephemeral word communion, the gap is as wide as ever it was. They are not in communion with each other.

It continues to amaze me as I read the comments of various Episcopalians set on jumping what they wrongly perceive as a sinking ship, weighing the various advantages and disadvantages of these two options for purported catholicity, without recognizing the inherent contradiction in being able to make such a choice. These are competing claims: both cannot be “the catholic church” — either one is and the other isn’t, or as I believe, neither of them is, at least not exclusively. This Katholic Kafeteria (with its sparse menu of only two items) is a perversion of what it means to be catholic.

And so I come to the myth of the catholic church: no single institutional church can rightly claim that title. One can’t even make those little lists of “branches” so dear to Anglo-Catholics of a former age, who clung to the myth of short-list catholicity: Rome, Constantinople, and Canterbury — the latter somehow desperately clinging to the fringes of the formers’ garments, as they might rightly say, Who touched me?

No, my friends, this is not where the church catholic subsists. The church catholic subsists in the body of all the baptized, for the church is one and holy as well as catholic and apostolic. There is only one holy catholic and apostolic church — and all the rest are just denominations, just the promontories and peninsulas of the mainland, the denominated seas of the boundless ocean, even Rome and Constantinople, and yes Canterbury too, and for that matter (on this the feast of Willibrord) Utrecht, and Geneva, Wittenberg, and Uppsala and Calcutta and Tokyo and all the countless places where the word has been preached and the bread has been broken, and the water splashed, and the voices raised, and God glorified. This is the catholic church — that curious and contentious caravan of wayfarers who though they fail to recognize each other, will one day discover they are long-lost children of one Father in heaven.

---

More on that idea

Picking up on a comment I made in the discussion on slavery with Todd Granger:
Obviously the parable of the origin of human sexuality (as the Jewish culture understood it) had greater impact on the course of the Jewish experience than did the story of Noah and his sons in terms of Canaanite slaver — at least for Jews. As you noted, this myth became a driving force for American slaveholders and racists.
I by no means speak as an expert on this subject, but my impression is that a greater “mandate” is attached to the commandment, “Be fruitful and multiply” from Genesis 1, than to the more plainly etiological story in Genesis 2. The commandment from the first chapter is regarded as “the first commandment” and is one of the reasons that celibacy is generally deprecated in the Rabbinic tradition. It is also one of the reasons advanced by the Rabbis for mandating the divorce of a sterile wife. (Mishnah Yebamoth 6.6) Neither of these teachings would find support in the Christian tradition, and represent a significant departure on Jesus’ part. In his teaching against divorce, Jesus appears to favor the importance of the permanence of the unitive function of the interpersonal relationship (Genesis 2) over the procreative function and law of Genesis 1.
Moreover, one of the striking features of the Genesis 2 story is that for the most part in the Jewish tradition, men did not in fact leave their parents’ household and join themselves to their new wife, but rather brought the wife into their household. (The operative Hebrew word for marriage, as still present in our marriage ceremony, is “lacach” = “take”). Some have suggested, given the overall apparent archaicism of the Genesis 2 narrative, that this represents a relic of an earlier age in which matrilocal marriage was the rule. In any case, I am not aware that this passage, unlike the earlier one, gave rise to much Rabbinic discussion. While Genesis 1 comes up a number of times in the Mishnah, Genesis 2-3 are passed over. This may reflect the fact that the passage in Genesis 1 is seen as a commandment, while the passage in Genesis 2 is seen as descriptive.
I suppose at the end I am forced to conclude that the material in Genesis 1-4 does not represent, as is commonly suggested, a strict mandate for “God’s plan for human sexuality” but rather an etiological reflection by a particular community upon its social origins and customs, assembled from various sources by various hands, not without certain tensions and contradictions, and more importantly, interpretations (some of them also at odds with one another) down through the ages.
If I can also take the opportunity to highlight another problem text, Romans 1: it is vitally important that this chapter of Paul’s letter be read in the context of Wisdom of Solomon 12-16, a Hellenistic Jewish reflection on the evils of idolatry and its consequences. One of the consequences of the Jewish linkage of male homosexuality with idolatry was a tendency for the Jewish community to blind itself to the presence of same-sex affection within its own community. As the Talmud says, “Israel is not suspected [of this kind of behavior]” while Gentiles universally are. This sort of cultural blindness is a well-known phenomenon even to this day; certain communities vociferously deny the existence of same-sex relationships within their population, and either render them invisible by calling them something else, or insisting, when they do become evident, that they are foreign intrusions, or an aspect of an “alien culture.” My point here is that Saint Paul carried this cultural bias as much as any of his fellow Jews; he no doubt saw any same-sex sexuality as a sign of corruption and degradation attendant upon an abandonment of God: because that was the only place he saw it.
—Tobias S Haller BSG

Slaves to an Idea?

An interesting discussion has been talking place over on Brad Drell's blog, concerning the place of slavery in Scripture and church history. I commend it to your attention. Here is my closing comment as of today:

A brief further comment: I certainly see your point about [the curse of Canaan in] Genesis 9 being an etiological myth, i.e., This is why the Canaanites are suitable as slaves. But the generation of such myths is, if I can express this in sociological terms, one way in which a culture justifies its behaviors -- essentially giving itself a kind of "historical mandate" whether as a command from God, or as in this case, an ancient curse from the (second) progenitor of all people.

But let me press the matter a tad further, bringing it to issues of more note (and division) than whether slavery is wrong or not. If Genesis 9 preserves an etiological myth, what about Genesis 2-3? Certainly that is a reading common among OT scholars: we are not reading literal history, but rather a parabolic (I prefer that word to mythic which some folks find upsetting) explanation for "Why things are the way they are." Why do men leave home and set up households with their wives? Why is childbirth such a difficult and painful phenomenon? Why do we die? Why do we experience shame? Why do we have to work so hard? and so on.

The problems we are facing at present in the Anglican Communion, I would humbly suggest, come in part from asking the wrong questions of these parables; or perhaps asking questions they were never intended to address; or accepting them as universal answers to all questions globally, rather than as particular reflections (within particular cultures) on a limited range of concerns as those cultures understood themselves and their world.

My brain... no surprises here

Your Brain's Pattern

Your brain is always looking for the connections in life. You always amaze your friends by figuring out things first. You're also good at connecting people - and often play match maker. You see the world in fluid, flexible terms. Nothing is black or white.

What Pattern Is Your Brain?

Wisdom from Wales

Archbishop of Wales Barry Morgan has a number of very well thought-through things to say about Scripture and Sexuality. In particular, he offers a more nuanced look at Lambeth than is common in the midst of the heated discussions going on. I commend this long and thoughtful essay.

The Discontinuing Church

Fascinating article on a meeting of the various fragments of what calls itself "The Continuum." It is amazing to see how people can clothe pride in the mantle of abject humility, and endow chaos and obdurate contumacy with the corona of obedience and fidelity. I can only hope that this group takes the advice of Mr. Moyer:

Asked what can be done that has not been done before to unite orthodox Anglicans, Moyer said leaders of the various bodies should "seclude themselves in fasting and prayer until it is accomplished."

Please.