We Can Have Two "Religions" in One Episcopal Church

Some scripturalists are claiming that the so-called reappraisers (a.k.a. liberals) adhere to a different religion than orthodox Christians.   They implicitly raise the question:  Can the Episcopal Church viably serve as home to two different religions?  I say yes, it can.

According to dictionary.com, the root word of the word religion may come from the Latin religare – to tie fast.  Rabbi and author Dr. Harold Kushner claims, in his book on the 23rd Psalm, that the Latin root means to bind together, like a ligament, and that religion serves this function in communities. 

Clearly we have different factions today in the church. Just what is the “ligament” that binds these different factions together in the community?

• Is the ligament the Great Commandment and Summary of the Law – concerning which Jesus is reported in Luke to have said explicitly, do this and you will gain eternal life?
• Is the ligament the adherence to Scripture as the supreme authority in matters of faith and morals?
• Is it intellectual assent to the claims of the Nicene Creed?

I expect that many reappraisers would say that the first point listed above, the Great Commandment and Summary of the Law, is what binds them into the community.   Many reasserters,[1] on the other hand, would respond that the GC&SL is insufficient without the latter two.   Some might say that, this being the case, there are indeed two different religions in ECUSA. 

I favor another view.  Different ligaments bind different parts of the body together.  Likewise, different “ligaments” can bind godly people of different views into one Body of Christ.

Paul wisely said in 1 Cor. 12, “[t]he eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I don’t need you!’ And the head cannot say to the feet, ‘I don’t need you!’ … [T]here should be no division in the body, but … its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.”

Author Kathleen Norris is quoted as saying, "As its Latin root, the word `religion' is linked to the words ligature and ligament, ... offering both bondage and freedom of movement."   And so should it be in the church.

------------------------

[1] I prefer the term “scripturalist” instead of “reasserter.”  Many so-called reappraisers are themselves reasserters, of the primacy of the Great Commandment and Summary of the Law.

Comments

[Geoff]

Agreed. We can have more than two if we have to. PS I stumbled across your blog tonight and I am having a great time exploring - great work.

[David Huff]

(sigh) But the problem is that, while I've heard "yes, we can" from a majority of mainline & "liberal" Episcopalians, the overwhelming message from the “scripturalist” camp is "no, we can't! (unless you beg our forgivness, agree with us, and repent)" As a mainline / somewhat progressive Episcopalian, I'm perfectly happy to have the more conservative folks remain part of the ECUSA, worshipping as they will.

However, the message I get over and over is that they don't want me in "their" church.

[Todd Granger]

David, if the "mainline" and "liberal" members of the Church would answer yes to the accomodation of two different "factions" in the Church, then why did General Convention 2000 remove any possibility of conscientious dissent from the ordination of women to the presbyterate and the episcopate, why are aspirants for Holy Orders in several dioceses (including my own) rejected because of traditional Christian views of human sexuality, and why are appeals to an historic catholic understanding of holy Scripture on a variety of issues summarily rejected as "fundamentalism" in venues ranging from parish meetings to diocesan conventions to the General Convention itself? The notion that the "progressive" or "reappraising" faction in the Church is liberally accomodating traditionalist and conservative Anglicans in The Episcopal Church is simply fantasy. There are certainly individual exceptions, but on the whole, progressive Episcopalians want the Church to be bound by the ligaments of their own understanding of Christian faith and practice. Let us be as honest about their (your) rejection of conservative ("reasserting") Anglicanism as we (and you) are about our rejection of progressive ("reappraising") Anglicanism.

And by the way, QC, "scripturalist" doesn't accurately describe "reasserters", because many (most?) of us do not base our reassertion of classical Anglicanism (reformed catholicism) on Scripture alone, but on the catholic Church's reception and understanding of the Scriptures.

[Susan Peterson]

Isn't the "ligature" the Eucharist? Recieving the body of Christ, being made into the body of Christ, the church. Also, if your understanding is Catholic, being one with the church in offering the Eucharistic sacrifice, by which the whole church makes present Jesus' sacrifice on the cross.

Now do or don't the current issues affect that sign of unity? At first it might seem as if they do not, but I am sure some readers will be able to make connections.
I am at work and have to return to working so for now
I will leave it to others to discuss.

Susan F. Peterson

[Nicholas]

How does this work exactly? It doesn't, does it? You can believe that Jesus Christ is the Incarnate Son of God: crucified, resurrected, and ascended into Heaven to sit at the right hand of God...or not? I don't really know what sort or group that would be but it would not be a church.

Why join such a group? Would you join a political party if you did not share its philosophy? Would you support a charity whose goals and objectives you did not share? Would you (voluntarily) patronize a business that sold products you did not like? Why would you join a religion that had no answers and whose answers you believe to be True?

The fact of the matter is that "reappaisers" are no more clairvoyant regarding the Will of God that "reasserters." (BTW, the explosion of names in this argument is nausiating and it is hindering communication, not helping). God has some very tough things to say to all of us! He takes each and every one of us as we are, BUT we cannot stay that way and remain His. He expects us to be changed by His message.

In my own opinion, the crux of the problem is that liberals do not want to change (believe it or not), thay want to change God.

[bls]

How does this work exactly? It doesn't, does it? You can believe that Jesus Christ is the Incarnate Son of God: crucified, resurrected, and ascended into Heaven to sit at the right hand of God...or not? I don't really know what sort or group that would be but it would not be a church.

But you are conflating the issues, which I think is a major problem here. You've just described my faith - yet I'm considered a "liberal" because of the gay issue.

In any case, the two official pieces of doctrine in the Episcopal Church are the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds. So you've also just described ECUSA's faith.

What's the issue, then?

[David Huff]

Todd wrote:
why did General Convention 2000 remove any possibility of conscientious dissent from the ordination of women to the presbyterate and the episcopate

So, uhhh...the fact that dioceses like Fort Worth, Quincy, etc... don't ordain women doesn't count for you ? I don't see jackbooted thugs from 815 breaking down Bp. Jack Iker's door in Ft. Worth and forcing him to toe the party line (not that +Iker doesn't deserve a smack upside the head for this and several, other reasons - but I don't get to decide that, and the national church is leaving him be).

If the “scripturalists” demand that we all agree with them before we can live together, then it's over; and I honestly believe this is the case for a certain number of them.

Time to make a choice: learn to live with the majority of the ECUSA that doesn't always agree with you, or go in peace. But hanging around and making things nasty isn't helping, nor is it convincing anyone. Indeed, it's distracting the church from its real work and harming both "sides."

[D. C.]

David, I think the problem is that collectively we haven't figured out a principled approach to accommodating "conscientious dissent" while still upholding national policy. For example, I respect +Iker's conviction that women should not serve in ordained ministry. If he were to put in his will that his funeral service should be taken by a male priest, that's a private matter that should be his choice. But allowing him, in this day and age, unilaterally to block women from serving as priests, seems to me to be another matter entirely.

I see a possible analogy from the legal world. Right now there's a big controversy about the propriety of the federal sentencing guidelines for criminal cases. Many federal judges hate the guidelines, because they sometimes force judges to impose drastic sentences that the judges feel are unjust. But the Supreme Court has held that the guidelines are not unconstitutional. Consequently, in our system, it's Congress, not each individual judge, that has the authority to decide whether judges must follow the guidelines.

A judge whose conscience will not allow him to follow the federal sentencing guidelines in a particular case has only two choices: He must follow the guidelines anyway, or he he must resign. (I believe I read that one federal judge in New York did just that.) If the judge attempts to practice "civil disobedience" by consistently refusing to follow the guidelines, he likely will be impeached and removed from office.

[John Wilkins]

I don't think it is possible to have two religions in a single church, but the next step is to ask what the content of the two religions are. Personally, if both think that Jesus is Lord, and that bishops and prayerbook do properly organize the institution, then the rest is secondary.

Each person has their own language, their own life, and their own faith which only God can know perfectly. Thus, in a sense, each person has their own piety; or even their own religion.

Only when we say - in the midst of serving the poor and the thirsty and the suffering "I can't work with you" or "I can't pray with you" must we be faced with the decision.

[David Huff]

Only when we say - in the midst of serving the poor and the thirsty and the suffering "I can't work with you" or "I can't pray with you" must we be faced with the decision.

Hmmm, Episcopal Relief and Development. vs. "Anglican Relief and Development," the breakaway parishes in S. Calif., the Ohio confirmations last March, the Chapman Memo, ... Seems like we have a pattern here.

[obadiahslope]

David:
"Time to make a choice: learn to live with the majority of the ECUSA that doesn't always agree with you, or go in peace. But hanging around and making things nasty isn't helping, nor is it convincing anyone. Indeed, it's distracting the church from its real work and harming both "sides."

Does this apply o ECUSA vis a vis the communion? What are the principles that make it different. I am not sure that i disagree with you but I would be interested in how you work out when seperation is best.

Secondly I think you might have been a bit dismissive of Todd. He has a point about imposed unity even though you rightly point out dissdent dioceses. But for the individual conservative the knowledge that there is a conservative haven somewhere is no use unless you live there. (And I take it that you are not a supporter of flying bishops or are you?)
The same is true of you: for A progressive in a conservative diocese. the prersence of women/gay priest/bishop across the state boundary doesnt help much does it.
You make it clkeasr you are fed up with conservatives. But do you want them to saty or go? And what sort of polity would allow for both sets of consciences?