The first source, the “fundamentalist” source, or “F”, provides a limited commentary on the canons of the Episcopal Church utilizing a rigid literalist hermeneutic that bespeaks a rather primitive, unscientific worldview. Take this passage:
As it has in the past, Integrity expects General Convention to follow canonical procedures to the letter-giving consent to the bishop-elect if there is no justifiable impediment to his/her consecration. The canons clearly state that, “No one shall be denied rights, status or access to an equal place in the life, worship, and governance of this Church because of race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, disabilities or age.
Notice that “F” suggests applying the canon in question according to “the letter.” Why no attention to context or metaphor? The “F” source seems utterly unconcerned with nuance or historical setting. What was going on in the canonist’s community when this canon was written? Do we really know the mind of the author or the struggles within her social context?
To the modern reader, familiar with contemporary hermeneutical principles, the canon itself reads like a polemic of some sort directed toward the canonist’s rivals. It seems to have much more to do with the social dynamics and struggles within the specific context of the canonist’s particular people group than those facing the Church today. Of course, contemporary readers also know that the task of interpretation is more like that of a conversation. The reader brings her truth to the truth contained in the text and somewhere, in the reconciling tension between two truths, a new deeper truth emerges. But the “F” source seems to have no inkling of modern interpretive techniques.
Moreover, the “F” source’s mechanistic understanding of human behavior betrays a deep pre-modern ignorance of human psychology. The document reads as if there is no space for the human will between “orientation” and behavior. For “F”, if a non-celibate candidate were to be rejected on the basis of his or her homosexual behavior, it would be the same as a rejection based on his or her sexual orientation. A person’s sexual behavior is, according to this document, utterly determined. Such an unsophisticated assumption indicates a pre-critical understanding of the human mind.
And yet the document is not dominated by the “F” source. In the second half of the document, the redactor seems to have found a post-modern source. We’ll refer to this source as “P”.
“P” displays the characteristic postmodern proclivity for deconstruction. Take, for example the following passage:
…it must be remembered that the Windsor Report is a set of recommendations with no binding authority.
There are actually two options here. “P” was either written before the Windsor Report (WR) was received and approved by the primates, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the ACC, at a time when indeed it was simply a list of recommendations, or it was written afterwards. In which case, it is simply one more example of the postmodern ability to create pluralities out of absolutes. Since “P” is embedded inextricably within a section of the document that deals with the current nominees, I tend to favor the second option.
“P” knows that the Episcopal Church could in fact be suspended and ultimately expelled from the Anglican Communion if it chooses not to comply with the WR as received and approved by the primates.
But “P” chooses to obscure that that truth by substituting an unrelated truth: the WR does not “bind” the Episcopal Church to any course of action. This is true. But it is also irrelevant. The Episcopal Church can, clearly, choose to proceed with absolute, unfettered, freedom, but the result of ECUSA’s unfettered choice could be expulsion.
In all, the redactor has done a creative if incomplete job of bringing together two inherently contradictory sources. I suspect that later redactors will attempt a fuller and smoother integration of “F” and “P” but this manuscript provides crucial insight into the process of modern revisionist redaction and for that all historical/critical students of IntegrityUSA are rightly grateful.
Comments:
Matt, your critical deconstruction is priceless and deadly accurate. The canonical fundamentalism of those who denounce others that they perceive as “biblical fundamentalists” has never ceased to amaze me. Thanks for responding so well.