In order properly to appreciate the dynamics of the present season it is imperative to understand the regnant self-perception of progressive Episcopalians (and their friends). It is easy enough to understand that 'the Global South' has a different self-understanding than the American one – making allowance for a vast region with different nuances and priorities. It is also critical to contrast the self-understanding of American Episcopalianism with what one finds in the Church of England, where one can of course see kindred concerns for new teaching on sexuality and where one can find allies with the Episcopal causes.
Progressive American Episcopal leadership understands itself as enlightened. It looks at the Church of England as old and fusty, and like a lot of things outside of America, it does not understand it very well when it comes to particularities and distinctive characteristics (it must be like us, the Presiding Bishop opines, and so is hypocritical in the area of 'Gay clergy'). The Church of England is something belonging to England, and Americans broke away from that and declared a confident independence. Progressive American Episcopalians, ironically, like to condemn American overreaching and boorishness (so they see it) in all sorts of ways in the political arena, but do not see the degree to which an enlightened, confident, indeed superior view of their own knowledge in the matter of human sexuality is simply assumed as self-evidently correct.
This supreme self-confidence can be seen in the public statements of Gene Robinson and the Presiding Bishop, and those who support and defend them. When it comes to those who do not share these views-whether inside the American region, or in the Global South, or in the Church of England-two stances are possible. One is aggressively to condemn a 'homophobia' that is perceived as running riot, and so to deride and challenge with all vigor interventions into the US from those in these unenlightened regions. The other is to treat those who are not enlightened in these matters of human sexuality and the interpretation of the Bible with kindness and condescension, on the view that just associating with them for a sufficiently long period of time will show them the errors of their ways. Should they leave, that is another way to keep the movement going forward and so no great loss. (Maybe later they will see and return).
This needs to be confronted as a reality lest the dynamics of the present season fail to be grasped. Traditional Christians should not assume they are the possessors of a Catholic faith and practice that is being challenged by a new view of things, albeit a new view with a lot of power and influence. Traditional Anglican teaching on the Bible and human sexuality, even granting a range of traditional views on exegesis and interpretation, is not in any position of authority or antecedence, so far as enlightened Episcopalianism is concerned. At most it is quaint and out of date, and need not be taken seriously except as one of several post-modern options. The idea of a range of catholic and traditional understandings of the interpretation of scripture, outside of which there is error and misjudgment, is not possible for even the most generous enlightened Episcopalian. All interpretations are more or less valid, because the truth of the matter is that in the area of human sexuality, anecdote and personal experience are the only arbiters. That is what enlightenment in the nature of the case means. Something is unequivocally true because progressive Episcopalians know this is the case. Everyone else is either an opponent, or someone lacking the proper time spent with the enlightened ones, or is ignorant and culturally backward. But an enlightened progressive will not usually deliver this last verdict publicly because it is more congenial to defer to post-modern accounts of everything being a possible interpretation, or the view that 'enlightenment' comes through shared experience and just more time with the knowledgeable ones.
Those who have noted how small the percentage of actual Anglicans in the world are represented by this enlightened Episcopalianism have been mislead into thinking undue influence is the result of money and power. That is true so far as it goes. American liberal Episcopalianism has a lot of money and so can exercise considerable influence, measured against the Global South or the Church of England. Anyone who has visited Lambeth Palace knows how remarkable it is that so much work gets done as does get done, even if one disagrees with what it does.
What is critical to take in is that enlightened American Episcopalianism is enlightened precisely because its views are capable of being described as a minority, within the vast expression of Anglicanism worldwide. Enlightened Christianity is in the nature of the case a minority view, because the enlightened are onto something new, something that may be widely represented in the culture but which was never able to be squared with the vast preponderance of Christians in the world, never before and not now. Americans understand themselves as on the forefront. To understand enlightened American Episcopalianism it is crucial to come to terms with what it means to know something is true whether anyone knew this before, and whether now it can be said to characterize what Christians have received as true. Enlightened believers do not receive things as true, they know things based upon personal experience of a very circumscribed sort. Here a fine line must be negotiated. On the one hand, one would like to hold up empirical studies and point to statistics in favor of new truth, but on the other, those who know what is true cannot really rely on empirical findings because empiricism and enlightenment are only accidental allies.
As we approach the Lambeth Conference it is crucial to understand that enlightened American Episcopalianism is entering a field where what it knows as true could come into conflict. Could, because it is entering a field of play where it is a large group but is not really on its home team pitch. In order properly to engage the enlightened Episcopalian it is imperative that one understand how entrenched this self-understanding is, and how very domineering it is. It speaks of spending a lot of time together, 'getting to know Gene,' but the awareness is meant to benefit the cause of enlightenment and never any other way. It may appear that one is just listening and adding things up and dividing by what is put out there, but that is not the way the enlightened Episcopalian thinks. The Bible is capable of myriad interpretations, but there is only one interpretation of the truth when it comes to this view of 'endless deferral of truth' interpretation, and only one never-deferred interpretation of the truth when it comes to human sexuality. If things do not go well, enlightened Episcopalians will simply have their views confirmed, and will return and carry on because they are right.
Consider this quote from Bishop Chane in today's Guardian. "I think it's really very dangerous when someone stands up and says: 'I have the way and I have the truth and I know how to interpret holy scripture and you are following what is the right way,'" he said. "It's really very, very dangerous and I think it's demonic."
Enlightened Episcopalians condemn interpretation of scripture when it indicates something like received truth, and deference to long-standing catholic teaching based upon this. Chane claims such views are totalitarian, but then he simply assumes his own view is unequivocally true and so declares the scriptural-catholic teaching 'demonic,' caricaturing the claims of those who hold it. This is the position of enlightened American Episcopalianism: it knows the truth through enlightenment, and all appeals to received truth and catholic deference to this are to come under domination of the Enlightened view. It speaks in terms it knows well (superior knowledge) and projects this onto opponents, but at issue is the nature of the knowledge of God's word and will for the Church. Enlightened Episcopalians know what is true by personal claim. American enlightened Episcopalians are right because they are on the cutting edge, at the forefront, whilst the rest of the world lags behind and must be instructed.
At issue is whether the rest of the Anglican world will recognize how entrenched and domineering this view is, where it is held, and so allow it to go its own confident way, detached from the burden of mutual subjection in Christ. Enlightened Episcopalians can wait out a lot of things, but maybe it would be best if they waited out the unenlightened rest of the Communion within the region of their own self-confidence and superior knowledge. What would be the harm in that? It is hard to see why enlightened Episcopalianism would object to this, except for the fact that it would expose just how singular and uncooperative they really are. But enlightenment thinking has before had to bear this burden and it ought not to begrudge that now.
A Recent Sampling of TEC Leadership Remarks:
Presiding Bishop Schori on homosexuality: "if this is how
people are created, then our job as a community of faith is to assist
people in finding holy ways of living in relationship, and, uh, that's
what we're about." (NPR interview, Nov. '06).
Presiding Bishop Schori on TEC's approach to homosexuality in
the Communion: in the "American church" we've reached a "reasonable
consensus" on ordination of partnered gays and consecration of bishops
(Time Magazine, July, 2006).
Bishop Andrus on why gay couples should be blessed by church;
"People are called to be in relationships, sometimes sexual
relationships" by God, and this is part of the "goodness of creation";
however, "We are emerging from 1700 years in the West of a deeply
distrustful stance toward creation and everything that creation
contains, including the human body and sexual relationships (even those
traditionally called "marriage")." (BBC interview, July, '08).
Christopher Seitz
The Anglican Communion Institute
