WHERE DO I STAND !

When I retired from teaching at Longwood College (now University) in 1997, I decided to find a way to get back to Parish Ministry which I had missed and from which I felt that I had been unfairly pushed out. (that is another story for another time) and I made myself available for interim parish work in the Diocese of Southern Virginia. I found myself in a Church which was very different from that in which I had been brought up and which I thought I had known in my parish ministry before 1972. The whole situation was very disturbing and upsetting to me. I had paid relatively little attention to the inner working of the church as I was fully occupied in teaching and research into Geography and the Earth Sciences for some 25 years prior to retirement. So in February of 2000 I sat down and asked myself just where I stood in the whole matter of the Christian Faith as I had known it and where I stood relative to what was going on in the Church and particularly in the Episcopal Church to which I belonged and of which I was still a Priest in good standing. Reading over what I had written at that time I find that it still expresses how I feel so, with a little updating to December 2009, I have written it out again and decided to put it on my blog this time. So, here goes!

Sometimes I find myself asking, “Where does an alien go to register? “ In the Episcopal Church today we appear to be dividing more and more into two camps over issues which, while important, are not central to the Gospel nor to our fundamental task of witnessing to the Love of God in the Life, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Also, while I find myself in agreement with some positions of both camps, I disagree strongly with others. Writing this in the first person singular sounds terribly proud and pretentious. I do not mean it that way but rather, I truly do not know whether my position is in any way valid within the Episcopal Church in AD 2009, or that there is any “we” to accompany my “I”. Is this simply my own personal hobbyhorse ridden blindly to some sort of oblivion? Would it not be well for those on all sides, liberal or conservative or whatever else, to take seriously Gamalial’s advice to the Sanhedrin? “If this plan or this undertaking is of human origin, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them . . . in that case you may even be found fighting against God.” (Acts 5:38b-39)

Does God really want women in the Priesthood and in the Episcopate? Certainly, this change in the Episcopal Church and perhaps in other parts of the Anglican Communion (the Church of England is currently in turmoil over this issue) has been a huge change in the tradition of the Church which has, from the Apostles’ time, ordained only males. Yet, if God., in His wisdom, wishes women priests and bishops, why not? More, should not honest and devout differences on this issue be matters of earnest prayer and loving concern, not of denunciation or of legislative tyranny? I personally rejoice in the loving pastoral concern that some have expressed over this and pray that many others will see their way to follow suit.

Homosexuality had become the besetting problem of the 1990’s, (and has so continued into the 21st Century) not only in the Church but in our society in general. There have always been human beings whose sexual orientation has been toward the same sex rather than toward the opposite sex. Is this an inborn or genetic trait? Or is it a socially and culturally conditioned situation? I do not know and I have not seen any convincing evidence either way. I am well aware of the scriptural condemnation of homosexuality in Leviticus 18, Romans 1, and other places in the Bible. Should Homosexuals, who are not celibate, be ordained? I am personally in a quandary over this. My reasons are this. As a priest for 45 years (now 55 years) and having grown up in a rectory, I have been around clergy all my life. I am sure, from observation, not direct experience, that some of the clergy I have met and been associated with were homosexuals and, possibly some may not have been celibate that is not the sort of question one asks. These were single men, though certainly not all single men are homosexuals, who had a close and continuing relationship with another man. They were also good, devout, and faithful priests who served the Church and the congregations to which they were called with love and concern. They were not pedophiles nor were they in the habit of propositioning others. They lived quiet lives with no open or public scandal. But, some complain, they were sinners! Yes, but then aren’t we all? St. Paul reminds us that “All have sinned and all have fallen short of the Glory of God”(Romans 3:23). The vocation to the priesthood is not one of sinlessness. If it were, the clergy shortage would be far more severe than it is. I do not know whether openly gay men or women should be ordained. But I cannot help but feel that the issue has assumed a position of centrality in the minds of many church people, clergy and lay, which is not in accord with the Gospel. We must remember that our Lord was tempted in the wilderness, not to do something bad, wrong, or evil; but to substitute secondary things in place of the Cross and the redemption of mankind. As important as sexual orientation may be, it is secondary it is not central to the Gospel.

Should the Church bless same sex unions or marriages? Personally, I am totally opposed to this. My reasons have nothing to do with homosexual practice but with the purposes for which God instituted marriage which include the formation of a family necessarily involving both sexes equally and into which the next generation is born and within which it is nurtured to maturity. We are all aware that marriage within American society and probably western society in general, is in deep trouble. About half of all marriages end in divorce so that our society has become one, not of monogamy, but of a type of serial polygamy. The Church continues to try, without a good deal of success, to uphold the Christian standard of marriage as a life-long union while trying to deal with pastoral compassion with the reality of divorce and remarriage. To bless homosexual unions as marriages (regardless of what you call them, this is what they will become), would, I am afraid, doom any continued maintenance of the ideal of Christian marriage and the family as a significant unit of society.

So, what about homosexual people who are Christians, have accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, and are members of the Church? Must we relegate them to some sort of second class status, kick them out as sinners, or insist, as some do, that they must change their orientation? I confess I have no answer. Legislation, either way, is not the answer. The resolution on sexuality from the Lambeth Conference of 1998 opened up the can of worms, or, perhaps better, called our attention to the can which was already open and Lambeth 2008 has, if any thing, opened it wider. Since Lambeth 1998 there has been a great deal written and said on all sides of the issue with much heat and little, if any, accompanying light. The liberal side apparently wants to ram through legislation that will force the “homosexual agenda” on the Church while the conservative side threatens in a snit to leave the Church, (many have already left and are busy forming new “Anglican” entities). None of this does anything to further the Gospel of Jesus Christ in a world becoming increasingly secular and more than ever in need of the Good News of Jesus Christ.

Then there is Prayer Book revision, or more of it. Neither Liberals nor Conservatives, particularly those on the extreme ends of the spectrum, are happy with the 1979 Prayer Book and want either to abrogate it because it went too far, or radically revise it because it does not go far enough. I must say that, for my part, I generally like the “79” Prayer Book. The provision of Rite I and Rite II for Morning and Evening Prayer and for the Eucharist, provides a good balance, though I do not personally care for Rite II Morning and Evening Prayer, because I find much of the phrasing, particularly in the canticles, awkward and not very uplifting. Perhaps it is just that I prefer the cadences and flow of the more traditional versions. I appreciate Rite I Eucharist as it is close to what I was brought up with in the 1928 PrayerBook and includes some changes, such as the placement of the Gloria at the beginning of the service, which are more in line with Catholic practice. I also like Rite II Eucharist, particularly its inclusion of the whole congregation in more of the service. I find that I can use either rite with ease and fulfillment for my own devotional and theological needs. I wonder why we need further revision, particularly at this time when the Church is having so much difficulty and contentiousness. I shudder when I think of the proposals put forward in “Enriching our Worship” (published by the National Church) particularly since we, in the American Church, seem to have such a penchant for forcing liturgical change on people. While it would be much too simplistic to blame the loss of about 1/3 of our membership on Prayer Book revision, the way in which the 1979 Prayerbook was forced certainly did not help things. Lets cool it and live with what we have for a while.

Then, there is Bishop Spong and, I am afraid, a significant number of others in the Church’s leadership, who seem to more or less agree with him or whose convictions about the Christian Faith appear to be lax enough so that they will not stand up to him. If Bishop Spong is substantially correct, and I do not believe that he is, then I have wasted my life as a priest of the Church. What is left after all his denials and revisions is not worth the commitment. Having said this, I believe that it is not enough to denounce Bishop Spong. From what I have learned from the two of his books that I have read, (“Saving the Bible from Fundamentalism” and “Christianity must Change or Die”) his opinions reflect, to a significant degree, the opinions of American secular society concerning Christianity and its meaning. I believe that the Bishop is honest and sincere in his opinions and angry condemnations will not accomplish anything. The answer to Bishop Spong must be positive, intelligent and loving witness to the truth of the Gospel.

If we are to continue in this society to fulfill our Lord’s commission to “Go and make disciples of all nations . . . “ then we must be able to go to our world with our creedal faith, as expressed in our Baptismal Covenant, strong. Philip Turner, in “A Rule of Life for Congregations” says that we must “change the common life of the Episcopal Church in ways that make the Baptismal Covenant, in fact and not just in theory, the identifying mark of both the congregations of our Church and each of its members.” (page 4) He also suggests that the 1979 Prayer Book can be used as the primary instrument of reform (page 12) to make the Church again an effective instrument of the Gospel. The Holy Scriptures must again become central to worship and life, giving the Congregations “informed and regular access to the most basic source of the Apostles’ teaching and to one of the two most basic sources of their fellowship, the other being the Eucharist.” (page 16). If the Christian Church in general and the Episcopal Church in particular is to have any continued significance in the 21st Century, it will be through a strong and living affirmation of our faith in Almighty God, our Creator, who, in Jesus of Nazareth, His Incarnate Son, by His death on the Cross and Resurrection, redeemed us from our sins and by his Holy and indwelling Spirit, empowers us, His Church, to continue to bring the Good News of God’s Love to our world.

Well, there it is; such as it is. If anyone reading this might have a comment, positive or negative, I would appreciate it.