July 27, 2003
Beloved in Christ,
I greet you in the Name of the Holy and Undivided Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit whose servants we are. I am certain that the Readings at Mass today have touched you deeply as we anticipate the upcoming General Convention of the Episcopal Church. It is important that we recognize that it is a general Convention and that it is a general Convention of one small part of Anglicanism which is an even smaller part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I say this to you because it is very easy for us to elevate our status beyond what it was ever intended to be. The Episcopal Church's general Conventions do not have the same authority as an Ecumenical Council, nor does it have the same authority (obviously!) as does that of Holy Scripture. As a convention its prime purpose is to order our life together in the small part of Anglicanism called the Episcopal Church, and does not have authority to change doctrine or the Holy Scriptures. It is important for all of us to remember this. This very costly gathering of Episcopalians that occurs every three years in origin was simply a gathering of the family and has evolved into a Convention that exceeds in size virtually every political gathering that exists in this nation. Indeed, its name alone "convention" carries a very different meaning than what our brothers and sisters in most parts of the Anglican Communion call themselves when they gather as a "Synod." The difference, by the way, is worth noting. We are convening a convention to transact business, not to change doctrine or dogma.
Certainly Protestant Denominations in the United States gather together with the authority to assess, evaluate, and change because they are, in many instances THE authority not connected in a worldwide sense and not in Communion with an historic See. In our case we are in Communion with worldwide bishops and with the historic See of Canterbury. The question is, does the Episcopal Church exceed its authority as one of many Provinces in the Anglican Communion when it revises doctrine, dogma, practice, and Holy Scripture? Indeed, we have heard often that parochialism and congregationalism are contrary to Anglican ethos. We have heard that "diocesanism" that is, unprecedented practices by a single diocese are contrary to the ethos of Anglicanism, and by implication so is "provincialism", namely unprecedented actions by one province without the consensus and cooperation of the worldwide Anglican Communion in conversation with ecumenical partners. The Archbishop of Canterbury has raised the question of what it means to be a Communion as opposed to being a Confederation of Provinces, and the same question can be applied to our Episcopal Church as to whether we are a "national church" or a confederation of dioceses. Virtually all legislation of late has reinforced a "national church" concept unlike our pre-1950's model, but only in certain cases, and in many instances, when it is convenient.
In the case of the New Hampshire election it has been noted by those who advocate the confirmation of the bishop-elect that each diocese has a right to elect whomever they wish. It is interesting to note that in 1994 many of those dioceses and bishops did not feel that way about the January 1994 election in the Diocese of Quincy, and thus the confirmation process took many months and the bishop-elect was barely approved because of one issue. There were notable exceptions to this rule, including the then Bishop of Newark and his Standing Committee. The confirmation of the bishop-elect of New Hampshire, however, will be center stage at general Convention, due to the canonical requirement that all elections held within 120 days of general Convention must be confirmed at the general Convention. Usually the "traditional" way during the rest of the triennium is for the name of the bishop-elect to be sent to all Standing Committees in the Episcopal Church and then to the Bishops after a sufficient number of consents have come from the Standing Committees. In addition bishop -elect rarely appear on television or in the secular newspapers, for they take a low profile and decline interviews that may prejudice the process. One must wonder why this post election and pre-convention process has been punctuated with an unusual number of personal interviews. The process now cannot be dealt with on a theological level nor a procedural level, but it is now all about a person. The public will make its own decision on a human rights level, and any theological debate that speaks contrary to the confirmation of the bishop-elect will be called a "homophobic reaction." What a shame that we cannot lovingly disagree without it becoming a personal issue and without labels being applied. Indeed, one might conclude that opposition to certain traditional perspectives is a matter of "paralabaphobia" that is, an irrational fear of tradition. But that is not necessarily the case, for there are often well meaning people drawn into both sides of debate.
Therefore, since this election has been placed into the center of media coverage it is not inappropriate to include worldwide bishops and theologians of the Anglican Communion who can remind us that this is not just a decision to be made by a single diocese, nor is it simply a human rights issue; it is a biblical, theological, and ecclesiological issue that cannot be determined by a vote. God does not change His mind on the basis of a vote, and to ask Him to do so on any subject is a bit arrogant.........
There is room for everyone in Christ's Church, but it does not mean that we canonize every perspective that is brought. St. Paul, the Patron of our Diocese, told us in today's Gospel that there is "one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all." There are not multiple lords, multiple faiths, multiple baptisms and multiple gods......
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
No comments:
Post a Comment