Meeting at Lambeth

I have long been taught that the foundation of Episcopal/Anglican teaching is compromised of three parts: scripture, tradition, and reason. This is sometimes referred to as the "the three-legged stool." As Anglican bishops gather at Lambeth Palace, England, to consider the controversy surrounding homosexuality, it seems to me that the conflict lies in which of these “legs” receives the most weight.

Heresy:

Mistaking a part of the truth for the whole truth.

One group would emphasize a traditional reading of scripture (which views homosexuality as a sin), while the other group would emphasize reason (which does not view homosexuality as a sin). While I am one of the latter group, I would affirm that an over-emphasis on any one leg may lead to heresy. 

According to the "Articles of Faith" as recorded in the back of the Book of Common Prayer, Episcopalians believe God inspired humans to write scripture.  Further, we believe that we understand scripture through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  Both of these tenets of our faith allow for the possibility of human error and prejudice.  Though some evangelicals resist a historical-critical reading of scripture, I believe this is the most valid way to read it.

If Christians were honest, they would admit that they do not abide by all the commandments of scripture themselves.
— Real Live Preacher

Once again, if you are interested in reading a detailed refutation of the verses commonly used to define homosexuality as a sin, I direct you to the work of “Real Live Preacher”.  Bottom line: the concept of sexual identity originated in the 19th Century, with Freud.  The idea of homosexuality, as we understand it today, would have been totally foreign to the writers of the Bible.  Additionally, as we prepare to condemn others for their sins, we are well advised to consider the log in our own eye first.

The conference did, however, welcome [people] that have broken away from the Episcopal Church in past decades because of revisions to The Book of Common Prayer and [the] decision, in 1976, to authorize ordaining women to the priesthood.

Is there any possibility of compromise?  Members of the American Anglican Council (AAC) would probably say no.  However, this group has shown little tolerance for compromise; they would not allow Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, or one of his representatives, to attend their meeting in Dallas last week.  But they did welcome former Episcopalians who have left the church in response to the ordination of women and the 1979 change in liturgy.  Which suggests that AAC's goals extend beyond the question of sexuality.

. . . as a body we deeply regret the actions of ... the Episcopal Church (USA) . . .

As I write this, the bishops (a.k.a. "primates") meeting at Lambeth have issued a statement, which says, in part, that the decision to accept the ordination of an openly gay bishop “jeopardize[s] our sacramental fellowship with each other.”  It goes on to say:

If [Canon Robinson's] consecration proceeds, we recognise (sic) that we have reached a crucial and critical point in the life of the Anglican Communion and we have had to conclude that the future of the Communion itself will be put in jeopardy. In this case, the ministry of this one bishop will not be recognised (sic) by most of the Anglican world, and many provinces are likely to consider themselves to be out of Communion with the Episcopal Church (USA). This will tear the fabric of our Communion at its deepest level, and may lead to further division on this and further issues as provinces have to decide in consequence whether they can remain in communion with provinces that choose not to break communion with the Episcopal Church (USA).

These seem very strong words, indeed. Yet, they are less than the strong censure AAC and the African Anglican Church were hoping for. Ultimately, this conference has referred the matter to two committees for review over the course of the coming year.

In the meantime, I hope individual churches and dioceses will host open dialogues where reason, tradition, and scripture may seek common ground.

So be it.