Is Fundamentalism Hastening the Demise of the Episcopal Church?

By Ladson Mills
Special to Virtueonline
www.virtueonline.org
April 8, 2011

Growing up in the "Bible Belt" of the American south, fundamentalists were very much part of the religious landscape. My own family were Episcopalians and although our rector was highly regarded within the wider community there were the occasional observations that we were nothing more than "junior varsity Catholics" We had a curious worship style which did not include neon signs with sermon titles. I became all too familiar with the bumper stickers that read "THE BIBLE SAID. IT I BELIEVE IT. THAT SETTLES IT."

The only time I can recall anything memorably negative in their regard occurred on Halloween night when I was twelve years old. I was trick or treating with my friends Terry and Dale Britton (yes I know we were too old) when we went by the local YMCA. There was a judo demonstration that night by students from Bob Jones University. During the break they became quite upset to learn that my friends and I had been out in their words "honoring the devil ". They witnessed quoted scripture and then strongly suggested we accept Jesus. My friend Terry gave in to their demand while his brother Dale promised to give it serious consideration. I immediately ran home to report it all to my father. What I most remember was his erupting into laughter when he heard my response to their question of did I regularly read the bible. I had responded that I was an Episcopalian and read my prayer book. My father laughed even harder when I informed him of their concern that I was probably going to hell.

Yet even this experience failed to give me much concern. They were part of the religious culture, I was not one of them and that as they say was that. That is why during my seminary days I was surprised to observe such strong concern about them. They were the object of my seminary dean's regular condemnation and required reading included "Fundamentalism" by James Barr. Even after reading this scholarly work by an Oxford Professor (and I use scholarly in the student sense of being barely understandable but attempting to hide bias through scholarship), it was obvious that fundamentalism represented an attempt to find simple answers to complex questions. I could see how combining this with a world-view based on wishes rather than reality could be lethal when mixed with evangelical fervor and religious zeal. I viewed this as hardly an attractive alternative to the "decency and good order" of the Episcopal Church and it did not seem any reason to be overly concerned.

I was wrong. To view how toxic this can be one need only to look at the results of the influence of Islamic Fundamentalism over the previous decade. Our world has changed dramatically and not for the better. It has been suggested that one of the major shortcomings of Islam is the lack of any school of scriptural criticism. To suggest that the Koran is not perfect is to be commit blasphemy; a sin punishable by death. There can be no room as for anything within the Islamic faith that fails to promote party line.

We have finally reached this point in the Episcopal Church, not in scripture as so many have worried, but in phenomena known as "Institutional or Episcopalian Fundamentalism". Its rise began in the late 60's and early 70's and is now the dominating force guiding our denomination. When I was growing up the creative clergy in our church were for the most part liberals. They cut their teeth in the civil rights movement because they believed that following Jesus demanded public stands on right and wrong. Conservatives stressed law and order and saw themselves as guardians of the institution. Somewhere along the way this changed. Today it is more likely that a conservative parish is creative in worship and outlook while the liberals seek to protect the institution. As I look back this was already coming into play during my seminary years 1977-1980.

My seminary dean was Urban "Terry" Holmes and it would be accurate to say that we initially had a uneasy relationship. He admitted to me during my first year at Sewanee that I represented to him many of the things he intensely disliked. I was conservative, southern, evangelical and military trained. Worse, however I was enthusiastically and unapologetically all these things. Strain marked our interactions. This changed however prior to my graduation in 1980.

Several weeks before graduation I made an appointment to see Dean Holmes. I had some things to say and at first he wanted to hurry the meeting along perceiving it as just another complaint session. After a few moments he looked at me and said 'this is serious isn't it?" He then came from behind his desk and gave me the time I requested. After I spoke my piece he looked at me with an expression of great pain and said, I think we may have been wrong. We bring students here and ask them to challenge their pre- suppositions and then we reward those who respond the way we want and punish those who challenge us back. You did right to challenge us back.

We only met twice more before he died but things were always different after that meeting. There was a mutual respect in our relationship that had been missing before and my admiration and appreciation for him has grown through the years. I would never presume to speak for Dean Holmes but I believe his observation acknowledges the institutional reinforcement of what has become "Episcopalian Fundamentalism"; a strict system that rewards those who parrot the party line while punishing those who have other opinions. It now pervades the church and dominates the highest levels of our denominational leadership.

Following the General Convention of 2003 I found myself in the minority of the diocese I served. I was not the only conservative priest but the most open in expressing my concern. I found myself in the position of being considered too liberal by the evangelicals of my parish who desired I pull us from the Episcopal Church while in tension another group who were appalled that I would even consider the direction of the Church to be in error and ill advised. As so often happens in a situation like this people perceive a need to do something. This resulted in the vestry considering resolutions to be presented to diocesan convention expressing our concerns. These were not terribly helpful resolutions and while I understood the desire to take a stand I cautioned a more measured and deliberate course. The vestry did in fact follow my lead but a group of concerned parishioners offered a resolution to be presented during the convention. The reaction from the institution was as violent as it was telling.

During a clergy meeting prior to the convention my bishop asked me if I would share the nature of the resolution since it was causing unease throughout the diocese. In an act of unsurpassed naivety I was totally unprepared for the vicious nature of the assault to which I was subjected. I explained that while personally against the resolution as it was offered I understood the reasoning behind it. This was essentially my last comment for the next hour. I was chastised for allowing this to happen. I was told that it was my duty to have squelched the resolution. One priest and the wife of a seminary professor informed me that the general convention of the Episcopal Church was my authority and the only authority I needed. My response that as an Episcopal priest that is certainly true to a point but my authority also comes from the Gospel of Jesus Christ was met an inability to comprehend my meaning.

As painful as that meeting was for me I was to learn later that it was a deliberate tactic and later used by this bishop on certain lay members of my parish after I departed. It was orchestrated, intentional and the message crystal clear. Opposing the organization will lead one to be cut off and ostracized. Any opposition even loyal opposition will not be tolerated.

This is the type of thinking that has led to the changes in Title IV of the canons. This is the mind set behind tactics being used against Bishop Mark Lawrence and the Diocese of South Carolina. I am mystified by the argument often offered by bishops and priest whom I believe to be reasonable that Bishop Lawrence is in violation of his ordination vows while Gene Robinson and Mary Glasspool are not. The institution will no longer tolerate debate and God help anyone who chooses to oppose the leadership at 815. We may speak of toleration but we model eradication.

Perhaps however all is not lost. Perhaps it is not too late to use these lemons to make lemonade. Instead of those nice blue signs that tell us "The Episcopal Church welcomes You," we might solve the budget crisis by selling lovely new bumper stickers that read, "815 SAID IT. I BELIEVE IT. THAT SETTLES IT."


----The Revd Ladson Mills III served as a parish priest for over thirty years. He is a trained Interim and currently serves as Scholar-in-Residence at The Church of Our Saviour Johns Island, South Carolina.