From resignatio ad infernum (blog):
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Recently, in response to a post on the website of Canon Kendall Harmon, canon theologian to the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, and a leading voice against the ordination of gays and lesbians and blessings of same-sex couples, I wrote the following words:
"...as Canon Kendall has rightly pointed out in his comments on Bishop Robinson’s recent open letter following the New Orleans meeting of the house of bishops, many, including Bishop Robinson, are beginning to question the legitimacy of such a distinction between public and private. I myself share Bishop Robinson’s rejection of that distinction, and agree with him that it is unsustainable theologically and ecclesiologically.
To that extent, I would agree with both Gene and Kendall, who, as odd as it may sound, actually seem to agree that a forward movement for all of us will involve more boldness on the part of ECUSA bishops and dioceses in affirming openly public rites of blessing for gay, lesbian, and transgendered persons. That this will put us on a path of separation from the Anglican Communion (I’m tempted to call it a divorce, a word which as an Anglican, and not a Roman Catholic, I do not fear, but can see as having its own blessings and grace) is a consequence I think we need to accept.
Should such openness mean that ECUSA is not invited to Lambeth and is ‘disciplined’ as my friend Ephraim Radner has said, I for one would look forward to such discipline without shame or fear, and would walk boldly with Bishop Gene and others who will not shrink back from the decisions we have made toward full inclusion.
Honesty requires that we affirm publically what we believe in our hearts privately and what we have acted upon in good faith. That is the very essence of integrity, and it is high time the rest of ECUSA take the lead from folks like Bishop Robinson, and our brothers and sisters in Integrity and step out of the numerous closets that are binding us. I for one would like to celebrate in the church with open joy the many public covenants of my gay and lesbian friends without fear of recrimination.
I should be clear that this is, of course, simply my opinion, not that of the diocese of Rochester, its bishop, nor anyone else in an official position. I share it with gratitude to Kendall for his recent words regarding Bishop Gene’s recent “Open Letter to the LGBT Community from Bishop Gene Robinson”, which I will quote for those who did not see them. Canon Harmon wrote about Bishop Robinson’s letter: “I applaud this truthful witness, and what I believe to be an accurate explanation that the bishops were misunderstood. Why can’t we have more people in this church who are willing to tell the truth?--KSH.”
Though I know Kendall’s position is diametrically opposed to Bishop Robinson’s, it is to his credit that he sees that the way forward for all of us, re-appraiser and re-asserter alike, relies on a willingness to stand by our actions with conviction and honesty, and not by trying to satisfy all by political church-craft, which ultimately satisfies no one and is further weakening the ties that will hopefully remain after a blessed ‘divorce’ takes place.
Of course there will be the complicated issues of the terms of separation (property, etc.), but first both sides must admit that due to their own sense of calling, the ‘marriage’ is no longer life-sustaining on either side. I for one am ready to admit this to be the case, and my gut tells me that I may not be alone. I pray that honesty and boldness may lead us all into a new birth, where we may no longer be as intimate as we once were, but will be able to once again see each other as beloved children of Christ, regardless of our divisions.
Your brother in Christ,
Clark West
Priest Canonically resident in the Episcopal Diocese of Rochester
Geneva, N.Y."
Let me add a few more words of explanation of what I mean in this letter. Divorce, as those who have gone through it can attest, indeed can be hell. But so too can a marriage that is lived on the basis of a lie, fear, coercion, violence or threats of violence, etc. Divorce, as Anglican theologians have come to see, may allow integrity to return to a relationship that has become soured or even impossible due to deceptions and coercions named and unnamed.
Often we think of divorce as final, as a separation, as a failure of a relationship and its final ending. And yet, according to the canons of The Episcopal Church, a priest who solemnizes any marriage where one or both of the parties has previously been married and is now divorced is required to do the following:
"The Member of the Clergy shall have instructed the parties that continuing concern must be shown for the well-being
of the former spouse, and of any children of the prior marriage."
Anglicans, therefore, do not believe that divorce is ultimate separation, nor that it means ‘leaving the table’ forever. And as I have experienced it as a parish priest, and as I have had others attest, divorce, when done with integrity, solemnity, and a spirit of forgiveness, can in some cases lead to a new relationship between the divorced parties—not the intimate relationship of marriage, but nevertheless a relationship marked by a new graced spirit of love, understanding, and mutual concern for one another and the family that has been brought into being.
This is what I mean when I argue that I think it is time for a ‘divorce’ in the Anglican Communion between those who are committed to full inclusion for gays, lesbians, and transgendered persons, and those who are committed to the current position on marriage as it is outlined in the Book of Common Prayer and the canons of the church. Such a divorce, which is now being argued for on both sides of the issue, interestingly, need not, does not, I would say, mean that either side desires to ‘walk apart’ or ‘leave the table’ of fellowship. It does mean a new reality, one that will take some getting used to, as any who have been through divorce can speak to as well.
The image of the table around which we gather is for Anglicans, of course, the Eucharistic table. At the church I am currently serving, there is a reproduction of Da Vinci’s famous painting of the Last Supper. I am struck by a number of things as I look at it. Of course there is the reality that Judas, whom Jesus clearly knows will betray him, is nevertheless at the table. Radical hospitality is the core of our Eucharistic vision. Secondly, there is the vibrant sense of movement, even jostling, among the twelve disciples. Whispering, leaning this way and that, I can imagine that over the course of the meal, as over the course of the journey with Jesus to the site of his crucifixion, there were fights, passionate theological disagreements, intimacies gained and lost. Perhaps the two disciples now seated at opposite ends of the table were once side by side, but found that for the good of the whole, they needed a blessed measure of separation (blessed for everyone else, who undoubtedly will have become tired of their violent bickering!). In that scenario, which admittedly is my own ‘midrash’ on a painting, not the scripture itself, Jesus becomes a figure both for unity and blessed, healthy distance between two of his brothers in the faith who can unite around his mission, but not their own ideas of its implications.
Such is the image of the disciples around the table at which Jesus sits dispensing forgiveness, love, and his very body and blood of solidarity with us which I see when I look at the gospels, and Da Vinci’s brilliant portrayal of it. Would a divorce between the majority of the Anglican world and the Episcopal Church USA and its allies rend this image? My own view is that it would not. Rather, such a separation might well be the very means for us to stay at the table, united by prayers, mutual support, financial, spiritual, political and otherwise. Such a jostling of chairs around the table will clearly take some time to sort out, and we may find ourselves bumping elbows and knees in the process. But I am convinced that both parties, in this case, long for such relationship, because we sense that Christ is indeed in our midst, and that a ‘final solution’ to our strife will come not by our own war-like efforts to achieve victory and banish those we see ‘betraying’ like Judas, the faith handed on to us by the twelve. We may, like Judas, refuse the impurity of this table fellowship, and in a ferocious, maniacal attempt to purify ourselves of our own secret sins, real and imagined, commit acts of treachery and self-murder. This is, I am afraid, always a real possibility as long as we are free creatures, as we are promised we are.
But as I look at one of my favorite icons of Christ, with one eye burning through our illusions about our own attempts at purity, and the other embracing us mercifully with a forgiving, gentle love which we do not and cannot ever earn, my faith returns that no matter what happens to our beloved church, our historic Anglican Communion, God is faithful, Jesus is with us, the Spirit is, as ever, true and leading us to blessings for which we have not yet even imagined.
Your brother with a spark of hope,
Clark+
No comments:
Post a Comment