Schism in the Episcopal Church
Seven Episcopal congregations have elected to leave the Diocese of Virginia and become a mission of the Anglican Church of Nigeria over the ordination of homosexuals. This matters to me because until a few weeks ago, I was technically a part of that Diocese. I was confirmed in that Diocese. I was married in that Diocese. Our kids were baptized there. While I'm now part of the Diocese of Washington, D.C., I think the actions of the Virginia parishes--church homes to about five percent of the Diocese's communicants--are ultimately detrimental to all Episcopalians.
First, there's the simple matter of sheer folly. The parishes also voted to keep property belonging to the Diocese. Let's think about this. When I moved out of my parents' house after college, I took only those things that belonged to me and those that they gave me at the last minute because they were moving, too--and that was an amicable parting. For these congregations to believe that they decide whether to keep Diocesan property is simply silly. Bishop Peter James Lee has said that he will maintain Diocesan stewardship of that property, and I hope that this means that, probably after a long court case, the Diocese keeps all the property and the schismatic parishes get nothing.
And then, of course, there's the theology. The claim of the schismatics is that the Bible condemns homosexuality, and it does--in the Old Testament. There are a lot of laws in the Old Testament. One could get confused. From the ten laws provided by God, the number and complexity exploded as rabbis wrestled with such weighty matters as how many steps one could take without violating the Sabbath and how one could tell when the Sabbath began. Jesus, in whom the schismatics profess to believe, was asked which of the laws was most important, and he responded that there were two laws: Love God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself. On these principles, he said, the law depended. The schismatics claim that to argue the primacy of these principles is to accept moral relativism. In fact, it probably does mean an acceptance of situational ethics, which is somewhat different.
To understand that, we can look at Jesus's teaching that any man who looked at a woman with lust in his heart (or, presumably, any woman who looked at a man with lust in her heart) had committed adultery, even if there was no sex act involved. How could that be sinful? There were two points to be made. First of all, the definition of sin wasn't left to people but to God, and it had to do with what was in the mind and the heart. I'm pretty sure that the men in Jesus's audience were familiar with the current definition of adultery; they were sure that they knew. It seemed really simple to them: Do someone you aren't married to and it's adultery. So Jesus punctured that balloon, saying, in essence, that what people thought sin was really wasn't impotant. Second, if you're looking at someone and lusting after their bones, you can't be loving God with all your heart, soul, and mind. Presumably, if you could figure out how to look at someone lustfully while still loving God with all of your heart, soul, and mind, you'd be okay. The looking wouldn't be a sin.
So when people look back at Old Testament law as a basis for present-day decisions, they're overlooking the historical reality. Law could not be written in such a way that all laws would apply in all times and all places, and in trying to interpret, people would only muck it up badly. Thus, God established principles instead. They would last. And God would always know the hearts and minds and souls of his creatures.
The schismatics essentially set aside Jesus and his teachings when they return to Old Testament law; after all, on at least one occasion Jesus defended his followers for breaking those laws. They transgress when they proclaim with absolute certainty that they know what God's law is; Jesus made clear to his followers that they couldn't even define one of the simplest of sins as God did, and they certainly couldn't be sure when someone else was sinning because sinfulness lay in the heart, mind, and soul. Thus, the Christian prescription was simple but challenging: rather than quibbling over the commas, love God completely and do only those things that you can do while keeping that love foremost in your heart, mind, and soul.
I know homosexuals. They love God, and they love their fellow man, and God will decide whether they are sinners. God will also decide whether I'm a sinner because I love them as my brothers and sisters.
If I had been a member of one of the schismatic congregations--and my sister-in-law is--I could never have voted to leave the Episcopal church because I believe that the church leaders make their decisions prayerfully and genuinely want to do God's will. If I were a member of one of the congregations that voted to leave the Diocese, I would leave the church. I've been in situations where I could no longer, in good conscience, receive the Eucharist is a couple of other members of the congregation were present because I was appalled by their actions with respect to our rector. I think that some of the people who voted to leave the Diocese may someday find themselves in a situation very similar. It is a terrible feeling to be cut off from the Sacrament, and I will pray for them.
First, there's the simple matter of sheer folly. The parishes also voted to keep property belonging to the Diocese. Let's think about this. When I moved out of my parents' house after college, I took only those things that belonged to me and those that they gave me at the last minute because they were moving, too--and that was an amicable parting. For these congregations to believe that they decide whether to keep Diocesan property is simply silly. Bishop Peter James Lee has said that he will maintain Diocesan stewardship of that property, and I hope that this means that, probably after a long court case, the Diocese keeps all the property and the schismatic parishes get nothing.
And then, of course, there's the theology. The claim of the schismatics is that the Bible condemns homosexuality, and it does--in the Old Testament. There are a lot of laws in the Old Testament. One could get confused. From the ten laws provided by God, the number and complexity exploded as rabbis wrestled with such weighty matters as how many steps one could take without violating the Sabbath and how one could tell when the Sabbath began. Jesus, in whom the schismatics profess to believe, was asked which of the laws was most important, and he responded that there were two laws: Love God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself. On these principles, he said, the law depended. The schismatics claim that to argue the primacy of these principles is to accept moral relativism. In fact, it probably does mean an acceptance of situational ethics, which is somewhat different.
To understand that, we can look at Jesus's teaching that any man who looked at a woman with lust in his heart (or, presumably, any woman who looked at a man with lust in her heart) had committed adultery, even if there was no sex act involved. How could that be sinful? There were two points to be made. First of all, the definition of sin wasn't left to people but to God, and it had to do with what was in the mind and the heart. I'm pretty sure that the men in Jesus's audience were familiar with the current definition of adultery; they were sure that they knew. It seemed really simple to them: Do someone you aren't married to and it's adultery. So Jesus punctured that balloon, saying, in essence, that what people thought sin was really wasn't impotant. Second, if you're looking at someone and lusting after their bones, you can't be loving God with all your heart, soul, and mind. Presumably, if you could figure out how to look at someone lustfully while still loving God with all of your heart, soul, and mind, you'd be okay. The looking wouldn't be a sin.
So when people look back at Old Testament law as a basis for present-day decisions, they're overlooking the historical reality. Law could not be written in such a way that all laws would apply in all times and all places, and in trying to interpret, people would only muck it up badly. Thus, God established principles instead. They would last. And God would always know the hearts and minds and souls of his creatures.
The schismatics essentially set aside Jesus and his teachings when they return to Old Testament law; after all, on at least one occasion Jesus defended his followers for breaking those laws. They transgress when they proclaim with absolute certainty that they know what God's law is; Jesus made clear to his followers that they couldn't even define one of the simplest of sins as God did, and they certainly couldn't be sure when someone else was sinning because sinfulness lay in the heart, mind, and soul. Thus, the Christian prescription was simple but challenging: rather than quibbling over the commas, love God completely and do only those things that you can do while keeping that love foremost in your heart, mind, and soul.
I know homosexuals. They love God, and they love their fellow man, and God will decide whether they are sinners. God will also decide whether I'm a sinner because I love them as my brothers and sisters.
If I had been a member of one of the schismatic congregations--and my sister-in-law is--I could never have voted to leave the Episcopal church because I believe that the church leaders make their decisions prayerfully and genuinely want to do God's will. If I were a member of one of the congregations that voted to leave the Diocese, I would leave the church. I've been in situations where I could no longer, in good conscience, receive the Eucharist is a couple of other members of the congregation were present because I was appalled by their actions with respect to our rector. I think that some of the people who voted to leave the Diocese may someday find themselves in a situation very similar. It is a terrible feeling to be cut off from the Sacrament, and I will pray for them.
posted by amsterdr at 12:06 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home