A Church in Conflict

Commentary by Robin G. Jordan

What we see going on in the Episcopal Church and in the Anglican Communion is a struggle to define the nature of what is happening, to define one’s self and one’s part in what is happening and to define the other parties involved and their part. These dynamics we see in troubled marriages and troubled families. One spouse or family nature will seek to force his or her perceptions of difficulties of the marriage or family upon the other spouse or family members and to persuade those outside the marriage or family of the legitimacy or rightness of his or her perceptions. Tension develops in the marriage or family as the other spouse or family members resist this individual’s definition of the difficulties of the marriage or family and offer their own definition of the marital or family difficulties. As well as there being conflict over who defines the difficulties of the marriage or family, there will also conflict over the part each spouse or family member plays in these difficulties. There may be conflict over whether there are any difficulties at all.

In a troubled family one family member may ally himself with another against a third family. Each spouse or family member in a troubled marriage or family may seek the support of sympathetic outsiders in the struggle over who determines what is happening in the marriage or family, who is to blame, who is the "victim," and who is an "innocent party." This dynamic is evident in the Episcopal Church. The revisionists seek the support of like-minded individuals and groups outside the Episcopal Church in the liberal community in the United States and other countries. The evangelicals and conservative Catholics seek the support of like-minded individuals and groups in the evangelical and conservative Catholic communities. Both sides appeal to the larger Anglican Communion and both have supporters in that body.

Let us take a look at the two sides in this struggle. This will give us a better idea of what is at stake.

[1] The theology of the evangelicals and the conservative Catholics in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion is determined largely by the Bible and Christian tradition. The theology of the "revisionists" is determined by humanistic values. What is happening in the Episcopal Church happened in the Unitarian-Universalist Society in the United States in the early second half of the 20th century. Humanism came to dominate Unitarian-Universalist thinking.

[2] Evangelicals and conservative Catholics, while they may disagree on how certain passages of the Scripture should be interpreted and how authoritative Christian tradition is, view the Bible as having a divine author. To them the holy Scriptures are divinely-revealed truth. The revisionists view the Bible as the work of human writers. Evangelicals and conservative Catholics recognize the holy Scriptures as having their own intrinsic authority. The revisionists only view the Bible as authoritative in so far as humans give authority to certain passages of the Bible. They therefore feel free to accept some passages of Scripture, to read their own meanings in others, and to disregard the rest.

[3] Evangelicals and conservative Catholics in the Episcopal Church define the denomination’s difficulties to include apostasy and heresy on the part of the revisionists. They point out that the revisionists have departed significantly from the Bible and Christian tradition in their teaching and have embraced beliefs and ideas that the Christian Church has historically viewed as dangerously heterodox if not out-rightly heretical. Revisionists, on the other hand, see what they regard as a need to make the Episcopal Church more "inclusive" of those whom they view as "marginalized" peoples and with this need what they see as a need for "fresh" views of the Scripture that are "friendlier" to these "marginalized" peoples. To this end they have come up with their own "alternative interpretations" of various passages of Scripture, interpretations that often ignore the plain natural meaning of the text, torture the text to make it fit their own particular brand of theology, and so forth.

Part of the impetus of the revisionist movement is an effort to redefine the Christian faith and the Anglican way to not just incorporate revisionist views but to make their views the prevailing views. Hence one hears revisionists like Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold asserting that their views represent authentic Christianity and Anglicanism. They talk about "reclaiming" the Bible and the mainstream of Anglican thought. They, of course, do not admit that the Bible and the mainstream of Anglican thought were never theirs in the first place. Those they dismiss as "extremists" represent authentic Christianity and Anglicanism.

[4] Evangelicals and conservative Catholics in the Episcopal Church see Anglican comprehensiveness as extending to non-essentials, to matters which have no bearing upon human salvation. Revisionists argue that classical Anglicanism has always embraced a broad latitude in doctrine and theology. They also define as non-essentials matters which evangelicals and conservative Catholics believe have bearing upon our salvation. They seek to redefine the boundaries of Anglican comprehensiveness and to include inside these redefined boundaries doctrines that are contrary to the Bible and Christian tradition.

[5] Evangelicals and conservative Catholics believe that practicing non-Christian spiritualities is incompatible with being a Christian. They point to those passages of Scripture that warn against worshiping other gods, encouraging and leading others in the worship of such gods, sharing the table of the Lord and the table of demons, and practicing various forms of occultism such as divination and witchcraft. The revisionists, however, see no incompatibility. To their way of thinking all religions lead to God. A number of revisionist bishops are leading advocates of syncretism—the combination of different forms of belief or practice.

[6] The evangelicals and the conservative Catholics in the Episcopal Church, while valuing Church unity, do not believe that this unity should be maintained at the expense of doctrinal truth. The revisionists have adopted the dubious position that "schism is greater than heresy." However, their view of schism is not Biblical. They frequently make reference to Jesus’ prayer that all believers should be one. They disregard the fact that those of whom Jesus is speaking in that prayer are those who believe in him through the message of the apostles. The revisionists reject the message of the apostles as not truly their message and substitute for that message a message of their own devising—the gospel of inclusivity. The revisionists label as "schismatic" the evangelicals and conservative Catholics in the larger Anglican Communion who, taking their guidance from Scripture, call for the shunning of the Episcopal Church due to its apostasy and its heretical teaching. These same evangelicals and conservative Catholics point out that the revisionists have already caused deep divisions in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion with their apostasy and heretical teaching and are widening these divisions with their intransigence. The revisionist with their doctrinal, theological and moral innovations are the actual schismatics. They are the ones who have chosen to walk separately from the larger Anglican Communion in fact if not by a formal vote of the General Convention of the Episcopal Church. The evangelicals and the conservative Catholics also point out that the votes of the Episcopal Church’s General Convention in support of the confirmation of the election of a practicing homosexual as the bishop of New Hampshire and the practice of blessing and celebrating homosexual partnerships was tantamount to vote in support of separation from the Anglican Communion. Those Anglican provinces that declared a state of impaired or broken fellowship with the Episcopal Church did so in recognition of what already existed.

[7] Evangelicals and conservative Catholics seek to maintain a distinction between Christian moral values and those of what the New Testament refers to as the "world"—the changing norms of wider society. Sociologists refer to this characteristic of movements or groups as "low-grid." The revisionists, on the other hand, seek to accommodate and even adopt these norms. This characteristic sociologists refer to as "high-grid."

Evangelicals and conservative Catholics have a strong corporate identity, make a clear distinction between ingroup and outgroup; maintain clear sets of boundaries separating the two; and have a clear set of normative symbols defining, expressing, and replicating group identity. Sociologists describe movements with these characteristics as experiencing "strong group." Revisionists have a rather nebulous group identity—very individualistic; make fuzzy distinctions between ingroup and outgroup—except in regards to evangelicals and conservative Catholics, both of which are regarded as members of definite outgroups; have highly porous sets of boundaries between interfacing groups and few or too many non-normative symbols defining, expressing, and replicating group identity. The revisionist movement can be described as experiencing "weak group." Their perceptions of Anglican Christianity reflect their particular characteristics as a religious movement. Evangelicals and conservative Catholics view the episcopal Church of England and the churches of similar faith and order in communion with it as historically embodying a "strong group" experience. The revisionists view Anglicanism as having been characterized by a "weak group" experience like their own movement.

Sociologists point out that successful movements demonstrate a high degree of "group strength" than less successful ones. Movements that do not maintain rigorous group boundaries tend not to be successful. Islam, despite its internal divisions, is an example of a movement with a high degree of "group strength." For this reason and other reasons Islam must be viewed as Christianity’s chief competitor in the 21st century. Most of the "group strength" of the revisionist movement in the Episcopal Church is focused upon the cause of homosexual inclusion. The movement maintains fairly open boundaries. The revisionists believe that their movement will prevail due to increasing secularization of the world. But is questionable whether it has enough "group strength" to compete with a resurgent Islam. Indeed, it may be contributing to the success of Islam.

This process of defining and redefining is going on at all levels in the Episcopal Church—at the national church level, at the diocesan level, and at the local level. We see it in the pronouncements of Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold. We see it in Bishop of Pennsylvania Charles Benisson’s dismissal of the Melnyks’ pagan involvement as harmless and his readiness to blame evangelicals and conservative Catholics for the controversy surrounding this involvement. We see it in the comments of various revisionist clergy published in new reports and articles. From a family system perspective the Episcopal Church is unhealthy and dysfunctional. It is an extremely troubled church. Those who see nothing amiss are like the spouse or family member who is in denial about their troubled marriage or family.

The Windsor Report itself reflects the struggle over who defines what is happening in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. This is why to many evangelicals and conservative Catholics the report does not go far enough in identifying the problems that need to be addressed or how to address them. Both the teaching of the Bible and Christian tradition call for disciplinary action against those who diverge too greatly in their teaching from the Bible and Christian tradition. This disciplinary action is not intended to punish them but to restore them to Christian orthodoxy. Without disciplinary action the Episcopal Church will continue down its present path. Except by divine intervention there is little likelihood of reform within. The revisionists are squarely in control of the Episcopal Church. They control most of the dioceses. They control most of the local churches. They control all but two of the seminaries. Turning back the tide of revisionism in the Episcopal Church is a greater task than the American Anglican Council and the Anglican Communion Network can imagine