I have a great deal of respect for Fr. Timothy Fountain. I almost always agree with his posts on titusonenine and I am fed and instructed by his keen insight. He’s definitely one of the good guys. It is, therefore, with great respect and admiration that I pen this first part of my critical response to his article The Broad Church, The Orthodox, and GLBT’s; How Can the Minorities Live with the Majority published two days ago on Brad Drell’s site.
I disagree, rather vehemently, first with Fr. Timothy’s premise: that the “fuel” for our current divisions flows from a core sense of insecurity that plagues both revisionist and orthodox parties; and second, with his prescription: that this insecurity can be dealt with by a series of mutual compromises designed to create relational space or pastoral safety zones, enabling both sides to remain actively engaged and the Church to remain institutionally unified.
Here is his premise:
The orthodox and LGBT dominate diocesan and General Conventions with irreconcilable claims. Broad church efforts to accommodate, balance or temper these demands are seen as “fudge” – a denial of justice from the LGBT perspective and lack of fidelity to Christ from the orthodox point of view…I am convinced of two factors relevant to our denominational agony: 1. Both LGBT and theologically informed, orthodox Episcopalians are minorities in the denomination. 2. Much of ECUSA’s conflict is fueled by these groups’ efforts to establish their security in an environment that is (and might always be) ambivalent (or even hostile) toward them.
Fr. Timothy has framed this debate in relational/pastoral terms rather than doctrinal. The fuel for this fire from the orthodox perspective is not self-preservation or “safety” but the defense of the faith. It’s not just that we want a safe place for ourselves in the wider community, the freedom to be orthodox. Rather, we want the wider community to be a wider Christian community.
That identification has been thrown into doubt by ECUSA’s official repudiation of biblical and traditional teaching and practice. This repudiation threatens not just our own sense of security. It strikes to the very heart of Anglicanism. It’s not that we want our own little orthodox ghetto free of heretics. We want a Church that leads people into the truth rather than away from it; toward life not toward death.
The premise upon which Fr. Timothy proceeds is thus skewed from the very start. He seriously misidentifies the high stakes involved (the gospel), and the motivations of at least the orthodox (to defend and preserve it) not simply on our own turf, but everywhere.
Upon the basis of this misidentification Fr. Timothy goes on to articulate a general vision for an uneasy peace between revisionist and orthodox parties based on the assumption that coexistence is both possible and mutually satisfactory so long as there is a sort of safety zone for the moral conscience of both sides.
If I had the solution, I’d bottle it and sell it. Absent that, I ask us to think about ways that we might minister to the fears of both minorities. In offering some responsive love and respect, perhaps we can mitigate some of their perceived need to fight for survival and the collateral damage to the greater church.
Fr. Timothy adopts the heretofore revisionist assumption that “fear” is one of the primary motivators in this dispute. If the fear can be dealt with, then peaceful dialogue/engagement is possible.
Again, this is a serious misinterpretation of the problem. There is fear, not for our personal or our party’s political future, but for the souls caught up in the lie propagated by our Church. There is the fear that if we do nothing and let those souls go down to death we will have betrayed our calling as ministers of the gospel of Christ. As bishop FitzSimons Allison put it: heresy is cruel. It destroys lives and souls. It must be defeated everywhere it crops up. This is not personal. It is an essential matter of faith.
Fr. Timothy goes on to articulate what he considers some of the “Orthodox Safety Needs”
First, he says: ECUSA must refrain from non-Trinitarian revisions of the BCP.
This is true, but, again, it has little to do with “safety.” It has to do with being a true Church. We are not given the freedom to casually saunter into God’s presence and address him in accordance with our own cultural needs and desires. God is personal. He has an identity. He has revealed himself in three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We have no authority to formally address him otherwise in the context of public worship. This is not a “safety need.” It’s basic Christianity.
Moreover, I could not disagree more with Fr. Timothy’s summary of this first “need“:
When opponents of the orthodox assail key Creedal affirmations, the orthodox necessarily hear, “We don’t want you in the church.”
Why does he insist on couching heresy in such emotional/relational terms?
The orthodox I know don’t “hear” we don’t want you in the church. We “hear” a core rejection biblical revelation. We recognize a move to conform God‘s self-revelation to human cultural convention. We discern the same willed idolatrous misperception that has, from the very beginning, arisen from within the fallen human heart: God is who we want God to be.
Second Fr. Timothy says:
The orthodox, especially at this time, need ECUSA to take seriously the church as one, holy, catholic and apostolic (meaning Windsor compliance). It must be admitted that the orthodox lived with a de facto “local option” policy toward a number of issues for several controversial decades. But GC 2003 pushed into an area where the seriously orthodox had no room for compromise. Appeals to “proper canonical process” did not answer the orthodox need for organic connection to worldwide and historic Christianity. The orthodox hear assertions of radical denominational independence as absolute rejection of their membership in the body of Christ.
I fully concur with Fr. Timothy here. I would only add that orthodox complacency in the past, the fact that we lived with a de-facto local option, is something to be ashamed of. It is one reason why ECUSA’s future is so bleak. The sheer number of active priests currently living in same sex sexual relationships (we’re talking numbers at least in the hundreds and growing) makes it almost a given that at some point in the near future VGR will be joined by another non-celibate homosexual bishop. Compromise is always a short-term solution. We are paying for it now.
Fr. Timothy goes on to list the safety needs of the LGBT community.
First, he says:
The LGBT need the church to be honest with and about them. Rejection, discomfort and disgust are common “straight” reactions to LGBT people. For many LGBT people, such negative reactions from family, community and church are formative, damaging experiences. It is insulting to hang out “ECUSA welcomes you” (or “We’re here for you”) signs if that’s not how a congregation feels about LGBT people. Better to have an orthodox congregation that says, “We see it as sin” than well-meaning churches that say, “We’re inclusive” when they mean “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” Churches need to understand the painful, ambivalent relationship many LGBT folk have with religion, and honor those who take the risk of coming to church to seek Christ. Too many churches make the right noises about inclusivity and equality, but coddle serial marriages, gossip, alcoholism and all kinds of other un-Biblical things while squirming nervously should an “out” homosexual start attending. Churches that are serious about LGBT members need to look into special programming that addresses their unique spiritual issues. And ECUSA needs to own up to its statements affirming God’s love for LGBT people. That is, the most orthodox among us needs to look a Southern Baptist friend in the eye and say, “LGBT people are my brothers and sisters in Christ, whatever our differences, and they belong in the church.”
I am not at all certain what Fr. Timothy means here so I want to tread lightly. Setting aside the question of whether those promoting heresy are to be considered brothers and sisters, if he means that because the orthodox have turned a blind eye to socially acceptable sinful behavior in the past (heterosexual promiscuity, divorce without cause, gossip) we ought to now turn the same blind eye to homosexual sinful behavior…it’s only fair, then I don’t even know where to begin.
But let me try anyway.
First, having worshipped in a number of orthodox Anglican parishes and leading one on my own now, I have never seen this “coddling.” If it does exist then it is shameful and must be stopped. Church discipline is a biblical mandate and it must be applied across the board.
Second, all sexual behavior outside of marriage is a sin and is therefore destructive to body and soul. Certainly pastoral kindness, gentleness, humility and love are necessary, but if non-celibate homosexual people will only feel comfortable in a parish that embraces their behavior or remains silent, then I am afraid they will never be comfortable in my parish. Nor should they be; nor should anyone living in open rebellion against God be comfortable in any faithful community. Sin ought to make us uncomfortable and when it doesn’t then either our conscience is deadened or our pastors are negligent…or, more likely, both.
I can’t open the bible without feeling uncomfortable. I am constantly convicted. The bible is not a “welcoming” book. And yet, thanks be to God that he has, in his mercy, given us such a flawless gift. Thanks be to God that like a good father, he corrects and rebukes me through his Word. In it I find conviction and in it I find the words of life.
A pastor who teaches and proclaims the whole word of God, truthfully and accurately, may be perceived as “unwelcoming” and “hateful.” This is unfortunate but not unexpected. It is the lot of prophets.
In any case, I have come to the end of this first part of my response to Fr. Timothy. I‘ll try to have the second out tomorrow morning.
18 Comments •
I hardly ever agree with a post completely, 100%—even my own on second reading! But this one I do. Thanks.