On Sunday, 22 September, I listened to the programme on BBC Radio 4 entitled 'Sunday'. It is the weekly BBC religious affairs programme and goes nationwide to presumably millions of listeners in Great Britain and abroad.
The Bishop of PA and David Moyer were interviewed as were also two other 'experts' who commented on the Rosemont affair and its relation to the Anglican Communion.
The Bishop said in a clear matter of fact way that he had followed the Canons of the Episcopal Church and that, as he understood them, it was his duty to follow the path they lay down. He had no alternative and these canons took their course with the result of the removal of David from the Ministry.
David Moyer said that he had advised the Bishop not to come to his parish but that he had not forbidden him. He explained that if the Bishop had turned up on a Sunday he would have invited the congregation to go with him into the church hall for 'Mass' and leave the church to the Bishop and whoever stayed. When asked, 'Why?' he replied that he regarded the Bishop as NOT a Christian. Later he accepted that he had wanted at least in part to create a crisis and bring to a head the deep problems in the ECUSA. Thus the Rosemont affair was a kind of microcosm of the whole Church in crisis.
The statement that the Bishop is not a Christian is very puzzling to most British people - at least if the people I know are representative.
In old respectable British society, Christian - Gentleman. Anyone who plays cricket and does not eat his peas at dinner off a knife is necessarily a Christian - so for David to say that Bennison is not a Christian might well be translated here as "He is no gentleman"! Yet such a viewpoint is rare these days. In the modern multi-religious society people ask, 'If the American bishop is not a Christian is he a Muslim or Hindu or Sikh or Jew or is he an Atheist or an Agnostic or something like that?'
I think that David is choosing the wrong explanation by saying the Bishop is not a Christian. The Bishop was baptized in the Name of the Holy Trinity and confirmed in the same. He was validly ordained as a deacon and presbyter and probably also as a bishop. So by all the outward signs (and what else can one go by when speaking in a secular yet multi-religious and multi-ethnic society) he is a Christian and furthermore he believes and says that he is. Any law court would assume that he is [i.e. at least a nominal Christian].
What David means, I presume, is that he is a nominal Christian who does not confess the basic tenets of orthodox Faith and Morality (David told the BBC that the Bishop does not believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus and the Bible as the inspired Word of God etc.). Now there have been many liberals who have held such views in all the Churches; but, in terms of a contrast with Muslim and Jew they are Christians in that they have been baptized and they do not leave the Church. So they are heretics or backsliders or apostates according to traditional orthodox standards. Yet in the modern Church, especially the ECUSA, heresy & apostasy are normal for much of the
time and for many people, and so it is not wise to call them heretics or apostate in public for it makes little or no sense there.
The point I am making is that to say the Bishop is not a Christian is not the kind of statement that makes much sense - in fact it sounds preposterous - in a secular context. As far as the world is concerned there is an internal dispute in the church amongst its members between those who believe this and those who believe that.
If our stories from within ECUSA are to be taken to the secular press (in contrast to Christian radio stations) and if we are to be willing to be interviewed (for it is our choice whether we are) then we need to find a way to state the problem which makes sense in the secular context. If we cannot it is best I think to keep quiet.
The more I ponder this story & dispute, the more I realize that it is nearly impossible to make sense of it in secular terms, other than a fight to the end of two men, both of whom have strong views, one of a traditional kind and one of a radical liberal kind, and one who is very critical of the new religion of ECUSA and one who has embraced the new religion of ECUSA. At the human level the Bishop is seen by many as justified for it is well accepted that the CEO a manager cannot tolerate indefinitely one who does not keep to the company rules.
Since I share much of what David believes, teaches and confesses I heartily sympathized and continue to sympathize with him. Yet I think his explanation that the Bishop is not a Christian is not helping his cause at least on THIS side of the great Pond.
He needs to say - we need to say - in simple terms that the Bishop has said and done things which by their very nature make him into a person whom it is unreasonable and impious for priests to obey. But to do this in a Radio Interview may be impossible due to time factors. The case of Bp Bennison is so much easier to present in a short time - here is a disobedient priest with whom I was patient for a long time and in the end I had to apply the canon law to him.
The Revd Dr Peter Toon Sept 23, 2002
No comments:
Post a Comment