Stand Firm Interviews: Mark Galli

Mark Galli (pronounced "galley") is managing editor of Christianity Today magazine. He has also been an editor at Leadership and Christian History. He is the co-author of Preaching That Connects, and author of The Complete Idiot's Guide to Prayer, and Francis of Assisi and His World. I spoke with Mr. Galli via instant messenger on June 25, 2004.

Greg Griffith: You were an ordained Presbyterian minister for 10 years.

Mark Galli: Yes, and I served in Sacramento, California, and English-speaking congregations in Mexico City.

GG: But you're now an Episcopalian?

Mark Galli: Yes. I became an Episcopalian when I moved to the Chicago area to begin a career in journalism. I had been using the Book of Common Prayer for some time in my prayer life, and I became increasingly enamored with a more sacramental approach to the Christian life. When I attended an Episcopal church here, I became hooked. I regretfully had to give up my ordination to become a member, but other things came together to make the decision final.

GG: How long have you been managing editor of CT?

Mark Galli: Four years now.

GG: The Christianity Today web site is really an amazing resource, and your organization seems to be devoting a lot of effort to keeping it that way.

Mark Galli: We are investing a lot in that side of things. Print will never go away, but for the future, it's really important to have that online dimension. A lot of journals I only read online now. I think that will become more common in the future. But there's still nothing like sitting down with a magazine or a newspaper.

GG: In a previous exchange, you mentioned that your church was divided over the issue of sexuality. Can you tell us a little about your church, and about the nature and depth of the division?

Mark Galli: Our last two rectors were both solidly orthodox, so the parish has always leaned in that direction, especially since it draws a fair number of people from Wheaton College. Still, neither was an ideologue, so they always made sure revisionists felt welcome. As a parish, we more or less agreed to not bring up terribly divisive issues, like abortion or homosexuality, and to simply work on other things together. This was a fine compromise for conservatives, as long as the denomination was officially orthodox. After August 5, 2003, that compromise was no longer tenable. Most conservatives felt like the parish needed to speak out publicly about the decisions of General Convention, but a strong but minority revisionist group objected, naturally enough.

Though we passed two or three resolutions that put us officially on the side of orthodoxy, the atmosphere became pretty ugly. Our rector felt he was not making the progress he wanted to be making here, and he continued to struggle with having to be obedient to our revisionist bishop. So he left for an AMiA parish at the end of February. At that point, a number of conservative vestry members resigned, as well as other conservative staff. When the dust settled, the vestry ended up with a 6-6-2 balance (conservative, revisionist, and "swing votes.") Since then it's been very difficult to get some things done.

Mark Galli: I will admit to a bit of jealousy here, because I have for some months been making notes toward a very similar project. I want to show the depth and nature of the problem with ECUSA today. Many people think conservatives are just mad about a single vote last summer. What I wanted to show them was how deep and broad the problems are. Rev. Woodliff's essay did nearly everything I wanted to do. So I am extremely thankful to him.

What I appreciate most is both the historical and theological nature of the piece. He reviews recent (and sometimes long-term) history, of our denomination and of this issue particularly. The paper shows that the decline of Episcopal orthodoxy has not been inevitable, nor did it happen in such a way that it is obvious that all this has been the "leading of the Spirit, doing a new thing." To help readers get that perspective throws a lot of light on the problems we currently have. Naturally, the issue in the end is theological, as are all church disputes. And the sections before and after those on homosexuality itself lay out the conservative concerns wonderfully.

GG: Certainly the essay is very helpful in stating the orthodox position, but do you think the essay can help revisionists better understand the debate?

Mark Galli: I asked our vestry to read the first third of it, and one member did react pretty negatively. He said the paper was arguing that he, as a revisionist, wasn't really a Christian. I quickly clarified (as I had done earlier) that it is one thing to say that ECUSA is moving in a direction that is fundamentally unchristian. It is another to call any individual a non-Christian. I said I assume that everyone on our vestry at least is a Christian, some a better Christian than I, for sure. Nonetheless, we had some pretty serious disagreements that needed to be articulated. So that would be one area where the document may not be well received by some revisionists.

GG: In 2002 you wrote an article called "Why I Don't Imitate Christ." Your message, in short, was that bad things tend to happen when we confuse following Christ with imitating Christ. Is this lesson applicable in the Episcopal Church's current crisis over sexuality?

Mark Galli: I think it applies in a lot of ways, but let me pick one. The idea of imitating Christ seeps over into a convoluted idea of what that means. For example, I have heard revisionists say that Jesus never condemned homosexuality, therefore how can we? There is such a focus on Jesus as such, that one's entire theology and discipleship is affected. Jesus, of course, did not condemn incest or child abuse and dozens of other things. And Jesus doesn't just speak in the Gospels, but in all of Scripture. To be a Christian, of course, means to follow Christ as he reveals himself and his will in Scripture, not to merely imitate the person we find in the four gospels, and by extension, exclude what he may seem to exclude.

GG: Obviously for many Episcopalians in particular, and Anglicans in general, the crisis over homosexuality looms larger than any other issue in their church lives right now. But to what extent are those from other denominations following the crisis, and what do you think their general impression of it is?

Mark Galli: I think independent evangelicals, and conservative denominations are simply shaking their heads, "There they go again." Mainliners are very interested, I'm sure. Liberals are taking notes on how NOT to move forward with the gay-liberation agenda. Conservatives are taking note on how to thwart revisionism before it gets close to that stage.

In addition, I think what the ECUSA/Anglican crisis is pointing out is that after 30-some years of dialogue, the two sides have gotten further apart, so that it is fair to say we have two different churches living under the same roof. This is what some Methodists finally admitted this summer, with some suggesting that an amicable divorce might be the best way forward. I think there is tremendous merit in the idea for all the mainline denominations.

GG: The Presbyterians have been having this same debate, but without the massive publicity the Anglicans have received. What differences and similarities have you observed between the way the two denominations have handled things?

Mark Galli: As a former Presbyterian, I have to say that the Episcopal debate has been shockingly lacking in biblical and theological argument. I am frankly stunned at the theological illiteracy of most bishops. They assume an appeal to experience is all the homework they need to do. They fail to appreciate that theological language and logic is the official medium through which to settle church disputes, just as legal language and logic is the official medium through which to settle matters of law. The Presbyterians, thank God, are still very committed to exploring issues theologically and biblically. Though Presbyterian revisionists in the end have to appeal to experience to win their case, they will at least try to do some theological thinking before they get there.

GG: It seems you can't throw a rock without hitting an Episcopal priest who flatly denies the immaculate conception, the bodily resurrection, even the divinity of Christ. To put it bluntly, most Christians characterize these people as heretics, yet Episcopal seminaries seem to be producing a never-ending supply of them. What's going on in Episcopal seminaries, and what can be done to turn things around?

Mark Galli: I'm not sure it is possible to turn them around at this point. Alternative seminaries (like Trinity) will have to be started. That is the usual way of church reform through the ages. It is very difficult to reform within. That's the genius of the monastic movements--they never leave Roman Catholicism, but they raise up alternative structures that can, over time, reform the church. This is why the Network [of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes] is genius: It accords with how church reform has usually been carried out successfully.

GG: Do you think the Network stands a similar chance of reforming from within, or is it more likely to emerge as the orthodox successor to ECUSA?

Mark Galli: It's difficult to say at this point. In the very long term, I do think it will in one way or another be the orthodox successor to ECUSA. That is, the revisionist disease will eventually kill off parishes and dioceses in ECUSA, and those churches and dioceses that join the Network will eventually blossom and grow and simply outnumber the revisionists by a huge margin. One of the things that makes it hard for conservative bodies to grow right now, and to be adequately represented at national conventions, is that so many of us are in mixed bodies, therefore it is difficult to sustain a reform attitude (we often just want to give up), and it is difficult to get our views fairly represented. Over time, as we band together in alternative Episcopal structures, we can have more of an impact. Now, the Anglican Communion may settle all this for us in short order - by excommunicating ECUSA. But as we well know, that is hardly likely in the next few years.

GG: Last week several orthodox Anglican groups such as the American Anglican Council, the Anglican Mission in America, the Reformed Episcopal Churh, the Anglican Province in America, and Forward in Faith came together under a declaration of "common cause," uniting over 200,000 Anglicans in North America behind the cause of Christian orthodoxy. How do you think this affects - if at all - the struggle between revisionists and orthodox in North America, and the dilemma faced by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Eames Commission?

Mark Galli: I think it is an absolutely brilliant move. It shows that conservatives are not "hot heads," schismatics, and hyper-individualists. It indicates the seriousness of the current problem: No other issue has been able to bring these groups together. It shows the Archbishop that this unified group is not something to be ignored (though I think he already knew that). It also raises even higher my respect for [Bishop Robert] Duncan as a churchman, and it encourages me ever more so to advocate that our parish join the Network.

GG: Rowan Williams recently wrote the foreword for, and enthusiastically endorsed, a new translation of the Bible called "As Good As New," which in the process of trying to make the Bible more "accessible," occasionally uses coarse language, and reverses the Bible's teaching on sexual morality. I don't have a question here, I was just hoping you would tell me that it was in fact a joke, or that I had just woken from a horrible dream.

Mark Galli: I'm praying it is a horrible dream.

GG: Some commentators have suggested that America is at the beginning of a new cultural split, with religion and morality at the center. Do you think this is the case? If so, what effects - both long-term and short - do you think it will have on the country?

Mark Galli: America has always had a cultural split, and religion and morality have usually been at the center. Think: The tensions between Enlightenment revolutionaries (Jefferson, et. al.) and Christian revolutionaries (Witherspoon, et. al.). Think: Ante-bellum America. Think of the social gospel era. Think of the Civil Rights movement. We've had a remarkable track record (except for the Civil War) of figuring out solutions that eventually work for most people. Indeed, some have to be coerced into changing their behavior (civil rights laws, for example). But many church-state issues have been settled in such a way that both sides can live with the need for pluralism while protecting religious freedom. To be sure there are weighty issues to decide today--from abortion, to bio-ethics, euthanasia, gay rights, and so on. I'm guessing on most of these, a compromise will be found--the recent Pledge of Allegiance non-decision might be an example. But I think we're entering a new period in which some forms of hyper-secularism will prevail, and Christians will simply have to be prepared to practice civil disobedience, or withdraw from society in some aspects. I think gay marriage might be an example of this. Churches really can't bless this sort of thing, and may have to agree that the state can marry whomever it darn well pleases. At the same time the church will simply have to say, "To be married in the eyes of Christ, you'll need to adhere to a few moral principals, like heterosexual, faithful sex."