Evensong for the Anglican Communion ["The Bible and the Church have both been wrong"]

¹Therefore, since it is by God’s mercy that we are engaged in this ministry, we do not lose heart. ²We have renounced the shameful things that one hides; we refuse to practice cunning or to falsify God’s word; but by the open statement of the truth we commend ourselves to the conscience of everyone in the sight of God. (2 Corinthians 4:1-2)

It is a commonly known and celebrated fact of history that St. Luke’s was the first Episcopal parish in Rochester, founded in 1817 by Colonel Rochester himself. This place is sometimes referred to as the “mother Church” of the Episcopal Church in Rochester because of this history and because out of it were founded so many congregations in the nineteenth century.

Of course, we always tend to tell the bright side of history, the part that looks brave, and noble, and true. We don’t tell the bits that remind us of our brokenness. This is often to our peril and at least one of the reasons why we are doomed far too frequently to repeat history.

The bits of the story of the “mother Church of Rochester” that are not remembered widely are the reasons for two of those early founding of churches from St. Luke’s.

One of those churches no longer exists, Trinity Church, Rochester, which was founded in 1845. The St. Luke’s parish history written in 1917 refers to its founding simply as “the project to establish a new church in the northern part of the city.”[1] The other founding was of Christ Church ten years later, in 1855. Again, the parish history lists the motivation being simply “the necessity of a fourth Episcopal Church.”[2]

In truth, the founding of both these churches was entangled in the story of a time of deep controversy within our then Diocese of Western New York, as throughout the whole Church. The controversy, in those days, was most frequently called “Puseyism,” after Edward Pusey, a priest of the Church of England and one of the leaders of what came to be known as the Oxford Movement. These were the days of the rise of “churchmanship” wars in the Episcopal Church as well as the Church of England, the evolution of “High Church” and “Low Church” parties. We think of these appellations now as “quaint,” but the division between them was serious and, often, bitter.

The General Convention of the Episcopal Church in 1844 was by all accounts a heated one, in which those of the Low Church party attempted to pass an official condemnation of the High Church movement, which was only narrowly defeated. A lesser resolution subjecting the General Theological Seminary to a visitation by a committee of Bishops to investigate the alleged tendency toward Romanism was passed. General was cleared, but trials followed of two bishops, the Bishop of New York, Benjamin Onderdonk, and the Bishop of Pennsylvania, Henry Onderdonk (who, by the way, was the priest who had originally officiated at the first Services of the new St. Luke’s in Rochester).[3] In the words of a history of the Diocese of Western New York, the times were of “bitter partizen (sic) hostility.”[4]

…there was, in many places, if not everywhere, a feeling of alienation and distrust, a wide-awake suspicion of the most rifling and innocent words and acts supposed to imply a ‘tendency towards Puseyism’…The Bishop [William De Lancey] was as gentle and level-headed as he was firm; but all his clergy were not equally wise or generous, and sometimes gave too much cause for irritation and suspicion among those, mostly laymen, who were making themselves ‘martyrs to principles which they probably did not understand.’[5]

Trinity Church, Rochester was founded out of this struggle when a new rector was called to St. Luke’s to replace the largely beloved Henry Whitehouse, who had resigned in 1844. Whitehouse had been a disciple of Bishop John Henry Hobart, who had been the primary introducer of the High Church movement in the Episcopal Church. Whitehouse’s successor here was the Rev. Thomas Pitkin, whom the aforementioned history of the Diocese of Western New York called “an accomplished scholar and faithful Pastor, but not in harmony with the ‘Evangelical’ partisanship which was gaining ground in that Parish.”[6] The result was a split of the parish, with the evangelicals largely moving to Trinity Church. It is said that those who remained at St. Luke’s referred to the folks at Trinity as “reformed Presbyterians.”[7]

Despite the split, Dr. Pitkin did not last long. The parish history says that he resigned “finding his health inadequate to the care of so large a parish.”[8] It is not hard to read between those lines! He was replaced in 1848 by Henry Lee, described as “more acceptable to [the Low Church] element in the parish.”[9] In 1855, Christ Church was founded as a High Church parish, originally made up mostly of St. Luke’s parishioners of that persuasion. It was probably no coincidence that the first Service of the new Christ Church was the same day as the first Service of Dr. Lee’s replacement at St. Luke’s. Again, it is not difficult to read between the lines.

I have given this history lesson in order to show controversy is no stranger to our Church. We have been partisan, bitter, and hostile to one another before the current day. Some will remember that time of hostility to have lasted more than 30 years and included a bitter dispute over the election (twice) of a “Puseyite” as a bishop (elections to which consents were not received and the person never took office) and schism, with the founding of the Reformed Episcopal Church by disgruntled Low Churchman in 1873.

It is “déjà vu all over again.” And a case could be made that our current dispute is simply the latest round in this same long war over whose theology will dominate in our church. It is no surprise that each episode gets a little more heated, helped along by the increased level of communication at our disposal. I have no doubt whatsoever that if the conflict that began in the 1840’s had today’s communication tools at its disposal, it would look almost exactly like the current controversy over human sexuality does today.

Ours has been a Church in almost perpetual controversy and crisis. We have a long, long history of being outraged by one another. That we have been able—by and large—to stay together despite the outrage has been one of our principle glories. But this glory is fading quite rapidly, it seems to me. We are rapidly losing our capacity to be outraged by one another while remaining in communion. It is my sense that if we do not regain this capacity, the Anglican Communion as we know it is not long for this world.

And, reluctantly, with a very heavy heart, I am wondering out loud today if that isn’t all right. And more than wondering, I have a developing sense of urgency that we must move on because our current state of constant warfare is simply too costly.

Personally I do not know why it is so hard for us to say clearly and simply, “We disagree and we are not likely to agree in the near future. We are often outraged by one another. Our communion with one another is deeply impaired and even deeply flawed. We do not know how to fix it. But we believe Jesus wants us to stay together and so we’re going to stay together and do as much as we can together.”

There are those, however, who seem driven by a need for purity of belief on the issues that divide us. Co-existence is not an option for them. “Guilt by association” is the sentence they impose on themselves and the rest of us. They will not rest until they have either changed our minds or broken up this family we call Anglican.

We respond with attempts to placate, give space and time, and accommodate their pain and disagreement. Our House of Bishops has gone so far as to suspend effectively all elections to the episcopate until the next General Convention, and to declare a personal moratorium among themselves concerning the blessing of same-sex unions. Blessings can go on, they tell us, but without episcopal authority, relegating them to the level of other things I bless without “episcopal authority,” like animals on St. Francis Day. We must at least appear reticent.

This fools no one. Conservatives know it is a ruse and it will not appease them. There will be no appeasing them short of their total victory. They have elevated this argument to the level of the Holy Trinity. There is no compromise they can accept.

We gay and lesbian people, in the meantime, continue to suffer through the constant suggestion from all sides that we are “the problem.” An Anglican Communion official said to me in January in London, “We are asking lesbian and gay people in the Church to wait for your full inclusion.” It was, at least, candid.

The time for reticence is rapidly coming to a close. The time for reality is upon us. Church, it is time for us to move on.

For years I, among many others, have been accused of being among those who have an agenda of the acceptance of the legitimacy of homosexuality. Guilty as charged. I am absolutely guilty of promoting the acceptance of the Christian lifestyle lived among all people, including homosexual ones. I have the agenda of the church approving and blessing same-sex love and commitment. I have the agenda of the Church proclaiming that sexual orientation is not a bar to Holy Spirit inspired ministry.

“Do you have the agenda of overturning centuries of Christian teaching about homosexuality, what the Bible says about homosexuals?” Pat Buchanan once asked me incredulously in a TV interview. I said something wonderfully nuanced. I should have simply said, “Absolutely.” The Bible and the Church have both been wrong. The Holy Spirit is teaching this to us. Jesus said she would do things like this and we shouldn’t be surprised when she does.

This Diocese, among many others—so many others I may just as say “this Church”—needs so badly to turn our energy to the healing of our cities, to profound and prophetic action regarding the racism and classism that deny the God-given dignity of millions of our fellow citizens in the richest nation on earth. It is a scandal of monumental—dare I say biblical—proportions what we have allowed to happen on our watch while we have been fiddling with what we imagine to be people’s sex lives. Think of the resources of time, energy and money this church has spent trying to figure out if John Clinton Bradley and I are a danger to the future of the Church and all humankind while the fox of the rich has been raiding the hen house of the poor at will. Oh, that we could summon the same level of outrage about the children who have no health insurance. Oh, that we could convene with such spectacular regularity, special meetings of primates and bishops to speak the Church’s word about the global war on the poor.

This Diocese—with its gracious history of working toward the full inclusion of lesbian and gay people in its life—needs to take the lead and say unequivocally that we are over this argument. Not all of us agree. Some of are even outraged by what the majority believes. We accept that as the way we must cling to each other in Christ. But as a Body we believe that neither the Scriptures nor the Tradition of the Church can be used to justify continued discrimination against lesbian and gay people, and there is plenty of precedence in both for us to say the Spirit has led us to this place. Gay and lesbian persons are among us as equal ministers, including in their relationships of commitment. We believe that Jesus has brought us to this place in the power of the Holy Spirit and we are not going back.

It is time for us either to call a truce, in which we remain truly outraged by one another but unable to let go for the common cause of Christ, or it is time for us to let go of one another so that the war may cease. If schism would be a scandal to the world and a betrayal of the Gospel, it is no more so than this current state of open warfare. We are now a scandal and betrayers of the Gospel. We cannot be any more so. The casualties are too great a cost to bear.

My own prayer is that we can remain in mission together even if we are not in communion. And my suspicion is that if we continue in mission together, communion will return. But communion is not going to return by playing the games we are playing with one another now. Perhaps the conservatives are right. We do need to repent. We need to repent of our lack of clarity, about clearly saying where we stand and acting with equal clarity. The truth will set you free, Jesus promises us. It is time for this Diocese and the Episcopal Church to tell the truth and not be ashamed of it. This Church is open to all. There will be no outcasts. We honor and empower faith, hope, and love wherever we find it. We will not hide as shameful things that are not.

If we cannot live with being outraged by one another, than Church, it is time to move on.

[1] Henry Anstice, Centennial Annals: St. Luke’s Church, Rochester, NY (1917), p. 33.

[2] Ibid., p. 37.

[3] The charges against both bishops (who were brothers and had both been ordained by Bishop John Henry Hobart) were actually “immorality.” Both were accused of public intemperateness. There has never been any doubt, however, that their churchmanship played a strong role in their trial. Henry Onderdonk resigned his See. Both were suspended from ministry by the court.

[4] Charles Wells Hayes, The Diocese of Western New York: History and Recollections, 2^nd ed., vol. I, p. 174.

[5] Ibid, pp. 175-176. The quote is from the Rev. Dr. C.S. Henry, and actually said of Bishop Benjamin Onderdonk.

[6] Ibid., p. 178.

[7] Ibid.

[8] St. Luke’s, p. 34.

[9] Diocese of Western New York, p. 178. Dr. Lee was later Bishop of Iowa.

[Sorry for the formatting. Some things are just too hard to clean up in a reasonable amount of time. --sionnsar]

Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.

FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this moderately high-volume ping list (typically 3-7 pings/day).
This list is pinged by sionnsar and newheart.

Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com

Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15

We have renounced the shameful things that one hides; we refuse to practice cunning or to falsify God's word; but by the open statement of the truth we commend ourselves to the conscience of everyone in the sight of God. (2 Corinthians 4:1-2)

The irony is breathtaking.

What is so astonishing is they do not even seek to hide it. They are so brazen these days!! Wouldn't it be more thrilling for them to wear a lightening rod? Of course that would not shock and offend near as much. I tell you the Catholic Church is doing a brisk business these days.

They are so brazen these days!!

And that is a very good thing. Those who claim to be conservative can no longer hide behind a deliberate misunderstanding of the code words used by liberals. If the so-called conservative Bishops remain in communion with folks such as the writer, they are confessing their own liberalism.

"If the so-called conservative Bishops remain in communion with folks such as the writer, they are confessing their own liberalism."

Liberal, conservative, who cares?! If any bishop stays in communion with other bishops who accept this, they are in communion with heretics and are thus heretics themselves. It really is that simple and so much more than being liberal, a word which really has very little meaning in this situation.

"If the so-called conservative Bishops remain in communion with folks such as the writer, they are confessing their own liberalism."
Liberal, conservative, who cares?! If any bishop stays in communion with other bishops who accept this, they are in communion with heretics and are thus heretics themselves.

I have to say Kolokotronis has an excellent point. The issue is clouded by the befuddlement of the redefinition of "communion" that's gone on in ECUSA, to where it now has elements of "ecumenism" involved.

The Rev. Dr. Peter Toon just published a somewhat similar issue, the "so-called conservative Bishops."

***The issue is clouded by the befuddlement of the redefinition of "communion" that's gone on in ECUSA, to where it now has elements of "ecumenism" involved.***

I think the conservatives in the ECUSA have accepted a shake peace with the liberals for so long that they have become much like Lot in Sodom - half blind to the perversion around them and in need of an angelic kick in the pants to get them out the door.

It speaks the heart of the problem right here;

Do you have the agenda of overturning centuries of Christian teaching about homosexuality, what the Bible says about homosexuals?” Pat Buchanan once asked me incredulously in a TV interview. I said something wonderfully nuanced. I should have simply said, “Absolutely.” The Bible and the Church have both been wrong. The Holy Spirit is teaching this to us. Jesus said she would do things like this and we shouldn’t be surprised when she does.

This creepy-crawlie isn't even a Christian, yet it wants to tell the church what to do.

RE: "The Holy Spirit is teaching this to us. Jesus said she would do things like this and we shouldn’t be surprised when she does."

SHE???????????????????????????????????????

That tells you something right there. As if more was needed. You know the funny thing is I have a few unorthodox questions about the role of women in Scripture that would NOT be defined as parochial in anyones books. As a recent convert to the Catholic faith from the ECUSA I have been reading the Books the Protestants have taken out and I have noticed a female spirituality and a shift in the Old Testament from a Male front and center spirit to a Female spirit. It is in the Protestant Bible as well but not as obvious as the Catholic. What it means I do not know but there is a spirit called Wisdom and is referred to as "she" or "her". But it is clear the Holy Spirit is referred to as "He" or "His" never in the female pronoun. What this all means I do not know but I suspect it relates to the Bride of Christ or maybe it points to Saint Mary as a personification of Wisdom. I do not know but I have noticed it but would never confuse the Holy Ghost with this female spirit Wisdom.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.