In the News

I am responding to the editorial cartoon in your paper depicting the current controversies in the Episcopal Church. It shows an Episcopalian championing a reprise of what many will remember as the Clinton administration's policy regarding gays in the military: “Don’t ask; don’t tell.” The point of the cartoon is to suggest that the Episcopal Church's recent House of Bishops’ meeting produced a similar policy regarding gays in the church. I write primarily to put the bishops' actions that are satirized in the cartoon in historical context for your readers.

The Episcopal Church is the American branch of the worldwide Anglican Communion. The Anglican Church, the Church of England, was among the last of the national churches to renounce papal authority over Western Christianity during the Protestant Reformation(s) of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The Anglican Communion is the global network of churches established by the missionary efforts of the Church of England.

Following successions of monarchs and internal turmoil after its break with Rome, the Anglican Church found its Christian identity in the interplay of Scripture, Tradition and Reason. Richard Hooker, the theological architect of this foundation, clearly envisioned these pillars in a hierarchal arrangement: Scripture first; then, if Scripture does not speak clearly to a current issue, Tradition (of the “undivided” church of the first five centuries of the Christian era) is to be determinative; finally, if neither Scripture nor Tradition speak clearly to an issue, human reason must decide. The significant questions that are begged in this scheme cannot be addressed here—such as the fact that there never was, nor can be, an absolute distinction among these sources of authority. For example, which of the many and varied Christian writings of the first and second centuries were to be the “canon” of the New Testament was decided by the Tradition of the early church; and who would want to argue that these decisions were unreasonable?

As time marched on, Hooker’s hierarchy of authority was leveled. It is here that our current problems were born. Each of the now more-or-less equal authorities of Scripture, Tradition and Reason developed its own fan base, so to speak. The "Evangelicals" in the church emphasized Scripture; the "Anglo-Catholics" emphasized Tradition; the “Liberals” emphasized Reason.

Beginning with the Enlightenment and accelerating through the scientific age, the “Reason” strand of the three-strand rope of Anglicanism gained strength. Indeed, it is not unfair to say that this element of the Anglican synthesis is at the political helm of the Episcopal Church today. In any case, this state of affairs has led to the impasse in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion with respect to the characterization of homosexuality and the place of gays and lesbians in the church.

Some Episcopalians today would argue that reasoned analysis suggests that homosexuality is a given, rather than a (perversely) chosen, sexual orientation. Further, they argue, this contemporary understanding was not available to the Christians of earlier ages who were responsible for the establishment and interpretation of the authorities of Scripture and Tradition. Consequently, they would say, the church’s various Scriptural and Traditional condemnations of homosexuality need to be revisited. Advocates of the determinative authority of Scripture and Tradition are not convinced by this argument.

In its 2003 national convention, the Episcopal Church consented to the election of a partnered gay man as bishop, and it opened the door for ministers to bless same-sex relationships. The convention took this step in the face of protests from (most of) the rest of the Anglican Communion. Subsequently, the rest of the Communion told the Episcopal Church to repent and not do it again.

After several years of discussions, the Episcopal Church’s definitive answer to the Communion’s demands was to come at the September meeting of the House of Bishops in New Orleans. By most accounts, the bishops’ statement was equivocal. For example, while the bishops said that they would not authorize rites for same sex blessings, and that they would not give official permission for them to occur (if asked), nevertheless, and as everyone knows, these blessings occur regularly in some dioceses with the bishop’s knowledge (but not official permission). This is the point of the “Don’t ask; don’t tell” cartoon.

Why has the church caught itself in this duplicitous tangle? While not particularly edifying, the answer is simple: the Episcopal Church wants to remain a member of the Anglican Communion and not do what the leadership of the Communion asks it to do (or at least do it in its own way, which many will perceive as not doing it). So, apparently the strategy is to appear to be doing what the Communion asks, while in fact not doing it...in some dioceses of the church, at least.

While this strategy may be unprincipled, it is based in principle. That is, many in the Episcopal Church truly believe that it is their calling to advocate for and protect the dignity of human beings who are of homosexual orientation. Moreover, many of these people believe this to be a justice issue.

Frankly, it is difficult to defend the church’s strategy. If the church hopes that this is the way to remain in the good graces of the rest of the Communion, I suspect that it will soon find itself disappointed (The rest of the Communion is to access the adequacy of our response shortly). However, in spite of what some in the church consider to be an error of judgment with respect to Christian proclamation and/or ecclesiastical strategy, at least the Episcopal Church is facing the real issues of Christians today. It is not hiding its head in the sand, but addressing questions that reasonable—and dare I say, faithful and courageous—people are asking today. Whether or not it has come up with an equally faithful and courageous answer…well, that is the question.

Finally, a question about the paper's editorial decision to run the cartoon: When was the last time the paper ran a similarly sarcastic cartoon about other churches in the area?