There is something terribly sad about the fighting between the Anglican Church and parishes that wish to break away over the issue of same-sex unions. The fact that people of a shared faith, facing a world with so many physical and spiritual challenges, are wasting time, energy and money in the courts sparks both despair and anger.
Our editorials, as a rule, don’t enter into debates of faith. Those are matters for those directly involved to resolve. And beliefs are not subject to the kinds of arguments editorials usually make.
But this division has become more than an internal debate over religious doctrine. The battle for control of St. Mary of the Incarnation Church in Metchosin brings all religion into disrepute.
The editorial obviously doesn’t have a good grasp of the underlying issues and what it means to be faithful. But it does show that the world is watching. So the way in which we resolve these matters will have an impact on our witness.
[i]Our editorials, as a rule, don’t enter into debates of faith.[/i]
Based upon this editorial, they should remain that way.
This editorial is entirely correct: this whole affair is messy, ugly and sad, undermining the critical message and purpose of the Church. However, what the editorial board thinks concerning “narrow issues of doctrine” is entirely besides the point. Their secularist approval of “bestowing the church’s blessing when two of its members have made a life commitment to each other” has absolutely no bearing whatsoever upon the proceedings. If anything, it only highlights their own lack of understanding the issues involved.
If the editorial board wants to chastise people for un-Christianlike behavior in protracted legal battles, that’s fine. I would tend to agree. But if the board sees fit to pass judgement on matters of theology, then they had best be prepared to reconsider their own prohibition against becoming involved in matters of faith.
I wrote this to the editor:
Regarding the editorial, “When churches lose their way.” The writer is incorrect on many points. For example he states,
“The dissident churches believe that blessing same-sex marriages contravenes those laws. The Anglican Church of Canada disagrees. We see nothing wrong with bestowing the church’s blessing when two of its members have made a life commitment to each other. We also recognize that some will disagree.”
The synod passed a duplicitous resolution that the blessing of same sex unions (SSUs) did not violate core doctrines (in the sense of creedal). Of course, there are no Christian creeds that state, “We will not bless SSUs.” The synod members knew full well that the parenthetical qualifier would be dropped. Indeed, Mr. Ingham was touting the parentical-less resolution the following day, I believe.
The writer tries to state the deplorable actions of Bp Cowan put all churches in a bad light. No, Bp Cowan appears bumbling and mean spirited. The members of St Mary’s Metchosin look like oppressed faithful, which is what they are.
Regardless of the article’s ability to navigate the roiling seas of Anglican discontent, I think there’s a larger point being made: Christians have no business going to lawyers and the courts when the disagreements are among themselves and within their ministries. The public witness is terrible, likely to be misunderstood, and will probably just end up feeding anti-Christian bias anyway. And the demonic laughs in delight …
Brian
like so many non-Christian reporters, this commentator just doesn’t ‘get it’. without understanding what Christianity is, he/she should not be making judgements about anyone’s actions. the lack of understanding is just appalling and grievous.
Mag,
But that’s the rub; this commentator may or may not “get” Christianity, but the legal wrangling has left the church open to this sort of public scrutiny. No wonder the biblical material tells us NOT TO ENGAGE in it.
I am not a member of TEC or the Anglican Communion. I am, however, a lead pastor of a significant congregation that is an ecumenical partner of TEC. This continuing display by TEC and the Anglican Church in Canada is harming ALL of our ministries and because the dysfunction within those two bodies is leading to these sorts of articles, my level of anger at TEC and our Canadian friends continues to rise.
Brian
The question of when Christians should have recourse to the secular courts against other Christians can be a difficult one when there are questions about which Christians may reasonably differ, e.g., should ACoC and ANiC congregations share space until a solution to their property disputes are resolved, and when all sides show good faith.
But a case like this is much clearer. If you do not want to see Christians in court against other Christians, then do not take illegal and oppressive actions, as Bishop Cowan did.
If all this were about was the blessing if SSUs, then I would be on the same side as the editorialist. However, SSUs are only the presenting issue. The underlying issue is one of authority. Is your authority internal or external? Does a congregational, diocesan, or provisional council have the authority to change the teaching of the Church? Even deeper than that is the existence of absolute truth. Does Truth exist or do we find our own way and make our own truth? If truth exists, then how can we know it?
The Christian believes that Absolute Truth exists and that it has been revealed by God either in nature (natural law) or in revelation (Holy Scripture and Tradition). While our understanding of that revelation may change, the revelation does not change.
There are those who call themselves Christian, but do not accept the concept of Absolute Truth and do not believe that we can know it or understand it. They believe that truth is relative and can be changed according to custom and the dictates of society.
The two “versions” cannot long coexist.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
“The focus on such a small difference in dogma…”
I don’t think this is a “small” difference. Two very different world views colliding is more like it!
In the matter of Christians taking other Christians to court:
That would be only possible if BOTH sides of an argument believed the Scriptural injunction or thought the Bible held some kind of authority.
However, what we see in the U.S. and in Canada is that one side obviously does NOT believe this, which is why ONE SIDE is bringing secular lawsuits against the other side.
I guess the only answer would be for the Bible-believing side to opt out, roll over and play dead to the other side, and that IS an option, but the question of fairness in the legal system then comes in to play. It would be a great witness, as it was with the Roman Empire, but a lot of blood was shed. Too bad we can’t look at the bloodless triumph of Chrisitianity in Ireland as an example instead.
What’s the answer? Peter said “Be at all times ready to give a defense [i](apologia)[/i] of your faith to all who ask!” Perhaps that is the right answer: we are taken to court to give a defense of our faith to the unbeliever and the heretic.
“When you have done all that there is to do, stand firm!”
Peace
Jim Elliott <><
Perhaps the editor doesn’t “grasp” the issues. But what it demonstrates is that we’ve, by and large, undermined ourselves. The reappraisers have the better PR in spite of leaving the Church’s tradition about sexual complementarity.
What they see are two groups of Christians who are calling each other names. They seem to think that we aren’t very Christ-like toward each other.
We disagree with them, and then we continue our little civil war. And the world watches us and is glad they aren’t a part of it. We can even claim we have biblical truth: and they see that it just means more conflict. We get lumped in with all religions: eager for war, with only the secular state in our way.
That “small difference in dogma” is actually a vast difference in perceiving and obeying the authority of Jesus Christ demonstrated in Scripture. What appears to be a piffling piece of arcane trivia to the editorial board is actually nothing less than a serious dispute over the authority of Scripture versus the authority of cultural experience or preference as it were. Which shall stand in judgment over the other?
Too bad the editors fail to see that issue. It would make a great set of editorial posts from time to time to awaken their community to the role of religion in public life.
If the question of SSB or ordaining non-celibate homosexuals were indeed only a “small difference in dogma,” then the obvious thing to do would be to drop efforts to alter the traditional teachings of Anglicanism on the subject. After all, why would you drive so many traditionalists out of the church and split the Anglican Communion if all we were talking about were a “small difference in dogma.” But it is clear that to the activists trying to change what the Anglican church has historically taught about homosexual behavior, no price is too high for the Anglican Communion to pay over the issue. It’s plainly not a “small difference” to such activists, or to the Anglicans on the other side who are willing to break communion over the issue.
To the non-Anglican world in the US and Canada, however, it is a small difference. They don’t really care whether Anglican churches have or don’t have SSBs, gay bishops, or whatever. They do know that the changing locks, lawsuits, expulsions, depositions, etc. is something they don’t want to be a part of, whichever side is correct. It would be in the long-term interest of both sides to conduct themselves as Christians, even if that means either conceding property to dissident congregations or for dissident congregations to walk away from property, but that doesn’t seem possible in many cases. The result in the end will be two (or more) battling and splintered bodies that have difficulty attracting new members and that will have transferred much of their wealth to lawyers.
#11, 12, and #13 et al. My Episcopal Church did not suddenly begin losing its way in 2003. SSM, SSU, are not the real points, but diversions as a way to secularize our church by deifying radicalism using strong arm tactics.
The turning of its collective back on God started a long time ago when those now Bishops were students or young priests who chose radical secularism as a way “to change the world.†I won’t bore you with a long list of actions leading to today’s unfortunate actions by +KJS, but urge each of you to make a list to “Read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest†them per instructions found in BCP 1928.
+KJS, a child of those days of radicalism certainly must think that strong-arm tactics in the HOB give as great an adrenaline rush as walking the picket lines in the 60’s and 70’s.
Nothing will stop +KJS et al from wresting control of our church away from God’s Will for us. She can’t and our Bishops can’t stop their politics for it is too engrained in their nature to even consider how far they are walking away from God’s demands on our branch of His Church that is called the Episcopal Church.
#13:
[blockquote]… two (or more) battling and splintered bodies that have difficulty attracting new members …[/blockquote]
One doesn’t need a “church†to do good works. One might want to have a club to do their good works and feel really good about it. You may find these people on both sides of the rift. If you want to attract people into a church because you are trying to follow the Great Commission, then there has to be a benchmark as to what is believed and the an ideal behavior to attempt. That is why we have the Scriptures as a guide. Most of the people I know that joined my parish in the last decade did so knowing that we were biblically orthodox. We are healthy. Now if we lost our building, that would make it difficult to readjust. We would, but may lose some people to other denominations during the transition. That would be just fine with TEC.
The thing that bothers me the most, I think, about KJS’ defense of her draconian legal strategy, is its dishonesty. She has been called out even by (a few) secular reporters on the clear violation of NT teaching in taking fellow Christians to court. Her response is:
Now that’s preposterous. What she is saying is this. “Well of course I’d like to have a gentle and amicable seperation. Of course that’s what I want. I’d like to let these dissenting parishes leave with their property intact. But see, the Christian people in long ago times made those gifts hoping that one day we’d be using their money to promote gay weddings, as in the express desire of one of our male bishops to be a June Bride. They were also hoping we’d use their money one day to cast doubt on most of the articles of the Nicene Creed. They were especially looking forward to me as Presiding Bishop preaching about Mother Jesus and a Jesus who didn’t rise at Easter. So, you see, much as I’d like to give away this property, I can’t. It wouldn’t be right, since the donors would have wanted my side in this conflict to have it.”
The editorial made me think that maybe the focus on this particular battle is good – it shows to the world what Christians really are, deep down.
It’s good for the world to see what the church is really about underneath all that supposed love and compassion.
The church has no way of settling property disputes. Going to civil court is not only inevitable, it is necessary. Schori has not use for all this property, of course; it is simply an enormous financial liability. But she can’t allow the dissidents simply to walk because this will encourage many more congregations who would have hit the road except for the property issue. This issue is crucial after all; you don’t just give up your home and walk away with a shrug and a toss of the head.
Inveighing against going to court because it is unChristian is idle. It is inescapable. When the stakes are high, you fight, and the dissidents and Schori are doing precisely that.
And the SSM is not merely a presenting issue nor is it a minor point of dogma. This issue alone is a matter of the greatest importance because it calls into question whether the Bible is to be believed or not when it speaks clearly and unequivocally. And it is more than that. This is also a power struggle with large numbers of people and staggering sums of money at stake.
Again, SSU and its related issues is a massive social issue that, if unconditionally won by the liberals, will make all the subsequent war with the liberals – a bloody all-out war that must be fought – much harder for the conservatives to survive. The stuggle is therefore not merely for power, but for dominance. American culture has been dominated by the liberal establishment and the Intellectual Cultural Elite for 40 years. and Shori is one of its children. We have not fought equally, and we are now paying the price.
The newspaper is not merely ill informed, it’s patent bias is a measure of how badly we need to arm and take the battle to the enemy. Larry
Dear me, will someone remove t hat offending apostrophe in “its”?
L
There is something of Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness in the slant of this editorial…just drop this ‘small matter’ and you can transform the world and be popular and loved. As my old rector used to say…beware when the church is popular…ask yourself if the Gospel is really being preached.