The Episcopal House of Cards

I spoke briefly with Father Time last night, and he asked me what my thoughts were on the recent election of a woman to the top leadership position in the Episcopal Church. Long-time readers will know that I have a unique perspective on the Episcopal Church, so I figure this might be a good time to get philosophical here at TSTF.

For those of you who haven't stayed informed on the issue (and if you're not particularly Episcopalian or generally Anglican, I can't blame you), the Episcopal Church of the USA elected Gene Robinson as its first openly gay bishop. Robinson divorced his wife in the mid-1980's, and began cohabiting with his current partner in 1989. For the record, if Robinson had divorced his wife and then either remarried a woman, or started cohabiting with a woman, it's highly unlikely that he would have been made a bishop; in fact, it's possible that he would have had his collar confiscated.

This week, the Episcopal Church (which is the American branch of the Worldwide Anglican Communion) made two controversial moves: they elected a female to the top leadership position in the denomination (BBC, AP), and they rejected calls from the Worldwide Anglican Communion for a moratorium on the consecration of homosexual bishops (BBC, AP). Father Time asked me my thoughts on this development, so here they are, in convenient bullets.

I make a point of remaining as neutral as possible when it comes to issues of homosexuality in politics and society; however, homosexuality within the church is another matter. The Bible is very clear in its denunciation of homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26).

Those who have no authority in the church (i.e., the laity), have the option of taking the Bible piecemeal; clergy do not. When a member of the clergy accepts such an appointment, they obligate themselves to follow the Bible whether they agree with it or not. Clergy are obligated by their office to accept the Bible as is, regardless of reservations, and to be repentant for any failure to completely follow those Biblical laws. Clergy should be holding themselves to a higher standard than the laity, not trying to subvert the Bible.

The ECUSA and its parent denomination, the Worldwide Anglican Communion, both claim to be Christian denominations. If Episcopal leaders want to ignore the Bible, they should convert to Unitarianism, which is no longer a truly religious organization. Christianity is a faith with rules, laws, and spiritual requirements; if you're not interested in following these in the first place, there's no point in calling yourself a Christian. The Bible defines our faith, and ignoring it, in whole or in part, negates any complementary effort.

The Anglican Church in America has been splintering for years, and the splintering isn't because the ECUSA isn't progressive enough. This is demonstrated by groups like the Anglican Mission in America. As the BBC article notes, ECUSA membership has been shrinking for years, and a quarter of ECUSA parishioners are over the age of sixty-five.

The Roman Catholic Church, which is similar in structure and worship style to the Episcopal Church, has experienced some atrophy in recent years (due primarily to the priest sex scandals), but the Roman Catholic Church is still thriving overall. The big difference between the two is that the Roman Catholic Church retains orthodoxy (well, Roman Catholic orthodoxy at least).

The majority of churchgoers aren't seeking a progressive social agenda; they're seeking moral accountability and traditional values. So-called "progressives" don't tend to be church-goers; if the ECUSA leadership is trying to increase membership by courting liberals with a liberal social agenda, they apparently haven't done enough research on their target demographic.

The Worldwide Anglican Communion took steps last year to censure and exclude the North American churches (1, 2) over their position on homosexuals in the church. The worldwide heads of the Anglican Church have said, in no uncertain terms, that the ECUSA's position is unorthodox and unacceptable, ultimately threatening their very association with the rest of the denomination; somehow, expressions of "deep regret" over the "effect on the wider church" from the ECUSA seem petty, arrogant, and myopic.

Now, this is all well and good, you might say; but what does it have to do with a woman being selected as the presiding bishop of the ECUSA?

Most of the Worldwide Anglican Communion has rejected the North American decision back in the 1970's to ordain women as priests. As normal as we may believe this to be, the Bible gives very little indication that this is an orthodox decision.

Personally, while I think that while social progressivism has little or no place in the church (legitimate morality should be timeless), a legitimate argument can be made for having women in some positions of authority in church. When I was an Episcopalian (before I became an Anglican-in-Exile), the deacon at my parish was a woman, and she was a great fit for the position. I believe there are certain roles in which women tend to be more qualified than men; working with other women, working with children, et cetera; men and women are fundamentally different, and there are aspects of church organization that women are probably much better at as a whole than men are. I might lean toward ordaining women up to the level of deacon, but not beyond that position.

Prior to 2003, the ECUSA had one contentious issue that the Worldwide Anglican Communion was willing to look past: female priests and bishops. With Robinson's consecration, the ECUSA had a second contentious issue that the Worldwide Anglican Communion wasn't willing to look past. If the ECUSA is trying to mend fences with the rest of the Anglican Church, this is at least poorly timed, and at most extremely unwise.

If the goal of the ECUSA is to ease strained relations with the Worldwide Anglican Communion, choosing this moment in time to elect a woman as head of the ECUSA is highly questionable. Since I highly doubt that nearly one hundred Episcopal bishops are nothing more than slack-jawed idiots, I must conclude that they're making a conscious effort to alienate themselves from the Anglican Church as a whole. Why a supposedly Anglican national denomination would want to alienate itself from its international parent organization, I do not know.

In America, if you don't like the government, you have two options: use democratic procedures to change the laws, or move somewhere (either another state or another country) where the laws are more to your liking. Religion is different: by its very nature, it is meant to be concrete, and if you don't like it, your option (at least in a pluralistic Western nation) is to simply not participate. If these Episcopal leaders care more about being socially progressive than they do about being orthodox and fulfilling the responsibilities of their offices, then they should be involving themselves in state and national politics, not theological debate and redefinition of dogma. And if the Episcopal Church truly wants to be a pioneer in forcing social progress in the religious world, they should take things one issue at a time; it's still unorthodox, it's still apostate, and it still won't work, but it's a more effective strategy than the one they're employing right now.

Thus saith the Fly.