Glimpses of Grace

I hazard to answer my own questions. But when I confronted the Bishop of my diocese (Chicago) with how the Church intends to replace both the membership and the money that has left because of the decisions of the 2009 General Convention, he responded that this was "a conversation" that the American Episcopal Church was having with the rest of the Anglican Communion, and that it was only 36 years ago that the Church had decided to welcome divorced-and-remarried persons into its fold (or re-welcome them). Hmm. Thirty-six years ago our current bishop was not an Episcopalian, and certainly not in the ordained ministry. I have no present recollection of the debate that he describes (it was undoubtedly eclipsed by those surrounding the "new liturgy" and ordination of women), but am certainly aware that divorce within the Anglican communion is a hot topic (Henry VIII, Edward VIII and all of that). Divorce and remarriage within the church should be a matter of concern for all Christians who view marriage as a sacrament and a partnership in all virtue. But the comparison (I hazard to call it an analogy) is meretricious for three reasons. First, any religion worthy of its name should recognize that persons are prone to sin, and a divorce is one of the most telling proofs of that. The prospect of remarriage within the church, however, is not only the triumph of hope over experience, but the church's recognition that grace eclipses sin. But this is key: the remarriage should only receive the church's blessing after a period of repentance and reflection on the forces that caused the "original sin" and a resolution that it not re-occur. If the non-celibate homosexuals who seek holy orders are united on one thing, it is that their sexuality is not sinful. They claim that they cannot help to whom they are attracted. They are not looking for grace, but for an entitlement. The Church should not be in the business of measuring entitlements, like some politician shilling for votes. Second, remarried persons accepted within the church are not looking for positions of leadership within the body of their fellowship. A pastor is necessarily a spiritual leader, and at some level must present a moral example accountable to his flock, measured against God's revealed word in scripture. A non-celibate homosexual in the clergy must therefore explain away not only the specific injunctions against homosexual conduct in both the Old and New Testaments, applicable to all believers, he must explain how, despite these injunctions, he is prepared for, even called to leadership. For many believers, that is too much cognitive dissonance to hold in the "creative tension" that the apologists for ordaining non-celibate homosexuals claim is the key to the Anglican communion. To paraphrase Judge (later Justice) Cardozo, the hazards of embarking on such a path call into question whether the premise is wrong. Third, the comparison highlights an unspoken but nevertheless ever-present divide within the American Episcopal Church, between the urban elite and the exurban plebians. Divorce and remarriage hits the body of believers regardless of status, location, race, or (near and dear to Anglicans) churchmanship. The non-celibate homosexuals in the clergy are invariably if not overwhelmingly drawn from the urban elite. By casting its lot with this latter group, the American Episcopal Church has chosen not to stand with sinners of all stripes, but with a narrow swath of those who do not view themselves as sinners. Full disclosure. I am divorced (but secured an ecclesiastical annulment). And I was confirmed by a bishop who likely had homosexual inclinations, but has never gone public with them. His silence on the issue speaks volumes to those faithful who are prepared to accept sinners as one just like themselves, but don't want it shoved down their throats.

Glimpses of Grace

Am I the only 50-something year old cradle Episcopalian who cannot stand the direction that the Church has taken the last 25+ years? Am I alone in thinking that the so-called leaders, who have taken vows to protect the Church from heresy, have failed in their trust? Am I consigned to a life of moral anomie by supporting (and attending) a Church that has turned its back on two millennia of teaching by not only condoning, but advocating the "consecration" of non-celibate homosexuals to all ranks of the ordained ministry? Must I leave the church of my upbringing, the church of my profession of faith, the church to which I have introduced other believers because it has re-defined what is sinful?