|
 t
is a delight to encounter, in “Wounded in Common Mission: The Term of
Inter-Christian Divisiveness,” an Anglo-Catholic perspective, and one
not simply focused on women’s ordination. Whereas I hardly resonate to
all that is said in this essay, the ideas certainly have to be taken
into account if we are to claim the comprehension of Hooker that I have
commended elsewhere. Of course, the view offered by Christopher Wells is
also an ecumenical one, which, although it does not clearly simplify the
decisions we are called to make, alerts us to wider issues that we may
face “down the road” or might even provide context or considerations
that can be of some use now.
“Wounded” does not come from the extreme wings of either the
Evangelicals or the Anglo-Catholics, which, in these times, is surely a
blessing. It is devoid of the threats, deadlines, and non-negotiable
demands that we have become increasingly used to hearing. Its temperate
tone encourages engagement, study, and further discussion. It is
rational and well informed. Would that all the pronouncements being made
in this difficult period manifested the thoughtful calm seen here. If
this essay fully represented “the other side,” those who see their job
as defending and protecting the Episcopal Church would, I suspect, be
more inclined to negotiate, and even compromise, than they currently
are. Unfortunately, the angriest elements of the Anglican Communion
confronting our church are Evangelicals. They raise different
theological problems, and their behavior at last year’s Anglican
Consultative Council meeting (inter alia, as Wells would say) suggests
that graceful concessions now would be answered by remorseless
exploitation and ever increasing demands in the future. “Wounded” does
not address directly what we are to make of this, and this is a weakness
of the paper, at least if it is to provide useful guidance in our
current situation.
Other general characteristics of “Wounded” are to be commended. The
essay views neither Scripture nor doctrine nor polity in simplistic
terms. In particular, it takes Scripture seriously and does not view it
as fixed, immutable, and obvious to anyone who will only consider it
honestly. In spite of other assertions and rhetorical strategies that
cause me reflexively to raise my defenses and adrenalin level from time
to time, “Wounded” is a welcome change from what passes for theological
discussion in my home diocese of Pittsburgh or on certain Web sites,
where “provisionality” (even if encountered in close proximity to
“penitence”) and “evolving discernments” are not often encountered, much
less the Hooker trio of “Scripture,” “tradition,” and “reason.”
I appreciate Wells’ wanting to place discussion within a “scriptural and
theological frame,” something I have been accused of being guilty of
failing to do. (In my defense, I would note that my writings have most
often been about the bad behavior of religious partisans—arrogant
bullying, misrepresentation, and flagrant violation of established
rules—that most readers would recognize as such without reference to a
list of biblical footnotes.) Whereas I do not always agree with the
inferences drawn, the essay uses Scripture with integrity, which is not
a given in much of the argumentation we have seen in recent years.
A similar integrity can be seen in the presentation of facts, which
appear here without the distortions and misrepresentations that many
have come to expect. For example, it is plainly acknowledged that the
Windsor Report represents the Anglican Communion as some wish it to be,
rather than as it is or has been. Likewise, Wells frankly acknowledges
the liberal wariness of “the putatively Romanizing tilt of The Windsor
Report.” He demonstrates a sanguineness I do not always share—I do not
view the Roman Catholic Church as being as accommodating as he suggests,
for example—but we perhaps interpret the evidence differently.
In Section I, “Banishing Fear: ‘Anglican’ Evocations within Earshot of
the Church Catholic,” Wells writes of how our dialogue is normed by past
decisions. This is certainly a very Anglican observation, although our
past can be both a blessing and a burden. I am cheered, nevertheless, by
his speaking of “evolving discernments,” and not of “the faith once
delivered to the saints,” which tends to preclude further discernment.
His willingness to use such a phrase might encourage Episcopalians to
view “until a new consensus emerges” (quoted in the essay from the
Windsor Report) as something that might actually be allowed to happen.
Alas, the pressures being brought to bear on the church from the
Anglican Communion are not coming principally from those sharing Wells’
point of view.
Even when I do not share the conclusions in “Wounded,” I sometimes smile
in recognition when reading Wells’ analysis. I do indeed fear “the
prospect of over-centralization” in the Communion and appreciate that
others may fear “the prospect of doctrinal incoherence.” As a logician
used to dealing with a more formal notions of “coherence” in logistic
systems, however, I am hard-pressed to name a religion that could ever
claim “coherence” in the more scientific sense. Christianity would do
well to continue to emphasize faith over coherence.
In one context or another, “accountability” occurs several times in this
essay. I was struck by the phrase “accountability to all our sisters and
brothers,” for example. “Wounded” caused me to think more about
accountability and the notion of “accountability to other Christian
churches.” As a church, I believe we do have to explore this notion
further. To begin with, if “accountability” is not simply to be a proxy
for “subjugation,” the accountability must, at least, be mutual. If we
are, in some sense, accountable to the Church of Nigeria, then surely
the relationship must be symmetric—the Church of Nigeria should be
accountable to the Episcopal Church. “Accountable” suggests a
requirement that behavior be explained (as our church did at the 2005
Anglican Consultative Council meeting, for example), not necessarily
that the explaining party be answerable to a higher authority. Is the
“Anglican Communion” becoming a higher authority? To what is it
answerable? There is more than meets the eye here.
I admit to being somewhat perplexed by Section II of the paper, “Terms
of Engagement.” Although I think I gained little insight into the
“grammar of recognisability” here, the story told by Wells would be
viewed in a positive light by nearly all Episcopalians, I think. I am
unconvinced that the story necessary leads the reader to find an
“urgency” in “not separating Christian unity from Christian mission.” I
can imagine myself on the mission trip described, yet I can envisage a
different trip with different people and different understandings that
would seem to me no better and no worse at ministering to our neighbors
on this planet.
Whereas this essay is intended to be about what I find useful (in a
broad sense), I cannot resist objecting to Wells’ call for us “to return
to a common reading of Scripture,” as he does in Section IV, “Wounds in
Communion.” (When I read this sentence, I wrote in the margin of my copy
of “Wounded”: “No! No! No!”) I cannot completely understand this
assertion in the light of what I see elsewhere as a less doctrinaire
attitude toward Scripture. I do think that more discussion about how we
read Scripture is indicated, but the traditionalists are probably
correct when they identify this as the greatest divide between them and
other Episcopalians. I can imagine our living with this divide, but not
our bridging it. In any case, we need to foster biblical
literacy—through education, not indoctrination—among both laypeople and
clergy.
There is much in “Wounds in Communion” and in the next section, “Finding
Ourselves in Scripture,” that is thought-provoking, but there is
insufficient space to discuss it fully here. The “wounded” metaphor is
helpful, I think, though it invites further discussion. As one whose
journey has taken him from the belly of Protestantism to the Episcopal
via media, I would have hoped for more talk of joy and less of sacrifice
here, which can become tedious after a while. I personally believe that
our wounded unity is more about how we behave toward one another than
about differences in our beliefs. If we had a reliable way to discern
Truth, mandating doctrinal unity would be appropriate. Alas, Truth
(capital T) is not so easy to discern, and Wells seems to admit this in
the first paragraph of Section VI, “A Holy and Acceptable Sacrifice,”
where he speaks of the fond desire for mechanisms “that enable us to
extract the truth-as-we-now-accept-it from its extraneous husk.”
It is in Section VI that we, at last, get to the issues with which
General Convention must deal, to what Wells calls “the most difficult
decision before American Episcopalians.” Can we not commit to respecting
1998 Lambeth I.10 as the Christian standard regarding human sexuality
even if we believe its assertions to be untrue? And can we implement
moratoria “until a new consensus emerges”? If the only context for these
questions were internal to this paper, the answer could perhaps be yes.
As I said earlier, however, the Episcopal Church is not responding to a
communion of Christopher Wellses. Those who are demanding affirmative
answers to those questions, both within the Episcopal Church and in the
wider Anglican Communion, have not always acted in good faith. Acceding
to their demands may simply be encouraging their continued sinful
behavior. Alas, the answer to Rodney King’s question, “Can we all get
along?” is not easily found.
Previous: Introduction to the Dialog by Christopher Wells
Next: The Spiritual Exercise of “Saving Anglicanism” by
Christopher Wells
|
