Let us be clear what the Taskforce’s approach entails in political terms: it is (d.), the Balkan Solution. The erasure of alternative views, and the proposal for a canonical change that will demand church-wide acceptance in dioceses, is one of enforced unity.
To be sure, the Taskforce does not speak explicitly to any of this. But the change of canon ”“ the only concrete element in the Report ”“ seeks to define (rather arbitrarily and counter-intuitively, in my view) the meaning of specific words in the Book of Common Prayer (and hence of Scripture itself, which the Prayer Book cites). The words “man and woman” and “husband and wife”, which will remain in both Scripture and Prayer Book, will now signify to Episcopalians “two people” or “two persons”.
First, this represents an imposition of linguistic transformation by fiat, demanding that very particular words that mean one thing in customary usage and traditional interpretive habit, will now mean another. (The change is very different, in this regard, from the understanding of “man” as including “male and female”, something that biblical usage itself engages, let alone normal English usage.) Second, this change deliberately opens the door to church-wide same-sex marriage rites; that is the stated purpose of the canonical change. Third, the change will as well open the door to the potential for attempts at nullifying diocesan and episcopal jurisdiction on the matter, and will significantly alter traditional notions of episcopal authority. Fourth, given that one conscience clause allowing priests to refuse to marry a couple on the basis of their individual views of the matter is left in “tension” with another existing canon that forbids discrimination on the basis of sexuality, the canonical change also opens the door to disciplinary and perhaps legal challenge to individual clergy who maintain classical views about Christian marriage. Finally, the proposal dispenses with the notions of consultation or mutual decision-making, especially at the Communion level: the proposal has not been shared systematically with Anglican bishops around the world, or with other representatives from international Anglican or ecumenical partners, and the few months that remain before GC cannot come close to providing an adequate time for response to the Report now released. Whatever “Christian communion” might have meant in the past, the Taskforce has made a decision about TEC autonomy that is decisive: we will simply go forward in the face of Anglican and ecumenical opposition elsewhere.
I believe that we need to be clear about the trajectory of this approach to divided views. Within the church, the Balkan solution has consequences that are analogous to those experienced by political societies where it has been adopted: conflict, litigation, disciplinary disputes, and exit. This is not idle speculation. In fact, each of these elements is already well-established in TEC’s profile over the past 15 years, a period in which litigation, disputed discipline, significant exit of membership, estrangement of relations with many other Anglican churches, and finally a general contraction of resources has piled up. In this respect, the Taskforce is expressing an established habit of thinking and acting, rather than pondering it critically. It is reflecting the past, not the future. And its Balkan solution must be seen as potentially another push in the direction of our church’s conflicted dissolution.
It seems clear that the “Balkan solution” Dr. Radner describes is the inevitable choice for TEC, as it has been at least since WO (and likely before).
TEC proponents are no longer capable of understanding the Holy Scriptures in classical, orthodox terms. They have been formed in an alien tradition which has now come to dominate and control the earthly side of TEC’s apparatus. With that rejection of Scripture as truly sacred, so must there be a rejection of all who still hold it as such. Those of us who seek to be faithful to the tradition and still reside in TEC have but a fixed time before we are forced out; even now, we survive in most places on sufferance. One should be prepared for some form of ejection in the next years.
In the near term, TEC will make apparently minor moves that actually allow it sweeping power to destroy anyone that stands in its way (as Dr. Radner has shown, this is what is in the works). When this stage is over, TEC will then finalize its complete revision of the Christian Faith. What occurs after that is beyond my imagining, though the lesson in the Daily Office from 2 Timothy 3 today gives a fairly clear picture on the micro- and the macro-scale.
Ultimately, this is all in God’s hands. He is the Master, we the servants: faithful, unfaithful, or (as in my case), poor and worthless but still calling on His Name and mercy. But no one should think that–barring a miracle–TEC will relent from its trajectory, or imagine that God is mocked. The consequences will be there, but will be exacted only as God sees fit. I cannot help but recall what the Scriptures say on a number of occasions: “He who has ears, let him hear!”