The Episcopal Diocese of Kansas

Transcription

1 The Episcopal Diocese of Kansas Moving Forward Together: Unity and Diversity in the Church By the Reverend Andrew Grosso, Ph.D., Canon Theologian of the Episcopal Diocese of Kansas For many years now, The Episcopal Church has been engaged in a process of intense reflection and dialogue about matters pertaining to human sexuality. Later this year, the 77th General Convention in all likelihood will approve trial liturgies to be used for the blessing of same-gender unions. While it is important to see this development within the wider context of the conversations about sexuality that have been going on now for some time, it also is necessary to acknowledge that this development is not without controversy: there are many who, for a variety of reasons, welcome this development, and there are many who, for a variety of reasons, do not. This situation provides Episcopalians with an opportunity to reflect on the nature of unity and diversity in the faith and practice of the church. How have the conversations we have had to date about human sexuality influenced our understanding of the nature of the unity of the church? How have these conversations influenced our understanding of the viability of divergent beliefs and practices in the life of the church? Is it possible for the church to accommodate a range of beliefs and practices regarding controversial issues, or is unanimity necessary? This brief essay does not attempt to answer such questions (and all but ignores questions directly related to human sexuality), but does venture to propose ways such questions might be explored. In order to appreciate the importance of these kinds of questions for today s church, it is helpful to note the range of perspectives that often are employed in conversations about human sexuality. It is not the case that there is a single position that can be identified as liberal and another single position that can be identified as conservative. Rather, there is a range of liberal and conservative perspectives, the likes of which can be described as follows: Strong non-affirming position: Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) sexualities are inconsistent with Christian faith and practice, and those who identify themselves in such terms have no place in the church. Moderate non-affirming position: LGBT sexualities should not be recognized or affirmed by the church, but those who identify themselves in such terms should not be excluded from membership in the church or the exercise of leadership in the church. Weak non-affirming position: LGBT sexualities should not be recognized or affirmed by the church, but those who identify themselves in such terms should be welcomed by the church and encouraged to model their relationships on traditional norms and practices. 1

2 Weak non-traditional position: LGBT sexualities should be recognized and affirmed by the church, but those who identify themselves in such terms should not have their relations recognized sacramentally in the same way heterosexuals do (i.e., marriage). Moderate non-traditional position: LGBT sexualities represent a legitimate variation of traditional sexual norms and practices, and those who identify themselves in such terms should have access to the same sacramental rights and responsibilities as heterosexuals. Strong non-traditional position: LGBT sexualities represent a legitimate and muchneeded radical critique of traditional sexual norms and practices, and those who identify themselves in such terms should not be expected to observe traditional standards or practices. It is also helpful to note that one of the more persistent challenges to emerge from conversations about human sexuality has to do with the real but often overlooked differences that exist relative to the way certain words and concepts are defined and used. It is, for example, at least as often the case that conservatives and liberals disagree about the nature of justice itself (or holiness, freedom, rights, marriage, etc.) as it is that they disagree about how justice should be enacted. This more fundamental disagreement, however, often goes unnoticed. In other words, conservatives and liberals often disagree with one another as vehemently as they do because they are actually having quite different conversations and hence talking past one another. In light of these challenges (and others), it is not unrealistic to expect that the church will find itself wrestling with questions about human sexuality for some time to come. It s also clear that there continues to be a rather pressing need for further clarification regarding these matters. Thus, reflection on unity and diversity in the church is imperative if the church is to avoid further schism while also allowing for opportunities to explore new possibilities (if, in other words, the church is to be responsive both to the catholic tradition as well as contemporary realities). Perhaps the best place to begin in any consideration of the nature of unity and diversity in the church is to note that, theologically speaking, unity and diversity are not opposing ends of a spectrum. They are instead mutually reinforcing dynamics. In other words, the exercise of unity and diversity should not be played off one another as if they counterbalance one another; rather, unity and diversity should be exercised in ways that allow them to inform one another. One of the clearest and most concise examples of unity and diversity in the church can be found in Paul s first letter to the Corinthians. There, Paul makes a strong case for both unity and diversity. The purpose of unity is to facilitate the mission of the church (1 Corinthians 1:10-17) and to bear witness to the unity of Christ himself and the unity of Christ with God (1 Corinthians 1:21-25, 8:5-6), while the purpose of diversity is to bear witness to the fullness of the gospel and the work of God s Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:9-13, 12:4-26). Likewise, Paul elsewhere argues that the unity of the church testifies to the unity of the faith and ultimately of God (Ephesians 4:4-6), even as it also testifies to the variety of gifts given to the church for the building up of the body (Ephesians 4:7-13). Indeed, Paul suggests that both unity and diversity are intended for no other reason than to facilitate the intimacy of the members of the church with one another and ultimately with God (Ephesians 4:14-16). 2

3 This dynamic interplay between unity and diversity is also close to the heart of Anglican faith and practice. For example, the collect for the feast of Richard Hooker (November 3) suggests that Hooker s classic articulation of Anglican identity represented less a compromise for the sake of peace and more a comprehension for the sake of truth. Compromise signifies a mid-point between opposing views, or a way of minimizing differences by maximizing similarities. Comprehension, however, involves the simultaneous affirmation of complementary perspectives in the recognition that none alone bear witness to the truth, but that together they offer a wider and more integrative perspective. Thus, the via media of Anglicanism is less a mid-point between opposing accounts of the church and more a testimony to the fullness of the catholic faith that is responsive to both its essential unity and its necessary diversity. What this means, however, is that for Anglican faith and practice to be true to itself (and to the biblical witness and catholic tradition), it must continually seek ways of understanding and enacting unity and diversity that encourage and facilitate the full exercise of both. This can be a particular challenge when the church is faced with controversial questions. Turning again to the biblical witness, we find several passages that provide us with some sense as to how to address this challenge. Chief among these are those passages that bear witness to the distinction-in-unity of Christ and the Spirit (e.g., John 14-16, 20:19-23; Luke 4:14-21). In the relation between the incarnate Word and the inspiring Spirit, we see most clearly how unity and diversity serve to reinforce each other. This is so because it is Word and Spirit that enact and empower both unity and diversity in the church; further, it is through Word and Spirit that the bond between God and the church is maintained in a way that accommodates both distinction and relation (compare 2 Corinthians 3:17-18). Reflection on the relation between Christ and the Spirit enables us to recognize that the Christian life involves nothing other than learning to live according to the mind of Christ, a gift that is given in and through the Spirit (2 Corinthians 1:18-2:16). Living according to the mind of Christ means allowing God to transfigure us through the renewal of our minds, a process that enables us to recognize God s will (Romans 12:2). Pursuing this kind of renewal involves nothing other than learning to live with the same humility and obedience that characterized Christ himself (compare Philippians 2:1-11; Hebrews 2:5-13). It is therefore not surprising to find that the scriptures often indicate that the church is to be a place governed by humility and obedience; in other words, mutual submission in the body is a prerequisite to apprehending the mind of Christ. Whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, Jesus tells his disciples, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all. (Mark 1:.43-44; compare John 13:12-17) Likewise, Paul commends to the members of the church the practice of bearing one another s burdens as one of the chief means whereby they testify to the work of God in their midst (e.g., Galatians 6:1-5; Colossians 3:12-17; 1 Corinthians 6:1-8). It also is worth noting that the practice of humility and obedience through mutual submission is precisely what enables the church to apprehend the will of God. Putting aside bitterness, wrath, wrangling and slander and instead practicing charity, kindness, tenderness and forgiveness are the means whereby the church is able to recognize all that is good and right and true and thus to apprehend the will of the Lord. (Ephesians 4:25-5:21) Not surprisingly, we also find the practice of humility and obedience through mutual submission to be a necessary condition for realizing unity and diversity in the church. Taking care to exercise one s liberty in a way that 3

4 gives no offense to others is essential if the liberty of all is to be practiced and received in a way that builds up the whole body (compare 1 Corinthians 8). What this all suggests for the church as it wrestles with how to discern the will of God is that embodying the mind of Christ likely will follow only when the members of the church learn how to entrust and surrender themselves to one another. In other words, the means whereby the church most fully enacts the wisdom, holiness and glory of God is through the mutual submission of its members and their participation in the redemptive work of God in the world through Word and Spirit. Turning from the biblical witness to the catholic tradition that grounds Anglican faith and practice, we find a number of additional ways of thinking about the exercise of unity and diversity. In particular, the traditional marks of the church (i.e., one, holy, catholic and apostolic ) can be seen as being consequent upon the effective exercise of unity and diversity. The oneness of the church, for example, has less to do with the uniformity of its structures and more to do with the uniformity of its purpose, which in turn testifies to its conformity to the mission of God in the world. Anything that involves the church in any mission other than God s mission undermines the oneness of the church. Likewise, the holiness of the church is most clearly manifest when it testifies in word and deed, not to its own holiness, but to that of God, just as the catholicity of the church is most clearly manifest when the church is enabled to bear witness to the fullness of the gospel of Christ and the riches that follow from the inspiration of the Spirit. The apostolic character of the church is most clearly seen in those instances of unity and diversity that encourage and facilitate the proclamation of the gospel in and to the world. In short, both the unity of the church and the diversity therein must at all times be grounded in a profound sense of the presence and activity of God in the world through Word and Spirit. There is in the theological tradition a well-known saying that the church should preserve unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials and charity in all things. The original source of this saying is somewhat obscure, but it has most often been associated with the Paraenesis of Rupertus Meldenius. Meldenius suggests that essentials are beliefs that are necessary for salvation, derived from the clear testimony of the scriptures, recognized by all in the catholic tradition and promulgated by authoritative teachers as binding. On the other hand, nonessentials are not mandated by scripture, not part of the catholic tradition, not unanimously held by the teachers of the church, and not inclined to result in piety, charity and edification. Meldenius s suggestion can be read in two ways. On the one hand, it may seem to encourage a certain passivity relative to matters of faith and practice, a kind of live and let live approach to unity and diversity. On the other hand, it also can be read as proposing an active strategy for exploring and apprehending the fullness of Christian faith. Essentials and non-essentials are not categorically equivalent; rather, the former serve to ground the latter. 4

5 When read in this way, Meldenius s maxim becomes less a justification for indifference and more a goad to growth in the life of faith, an invitation to all in the church to grow closer to God and thereby closer to one another through the pursuit of the distinct vocation and ministry to which God has called every member of the church (compare Hebrews 6:1-3; Philippians 3:10-16). The fact that Meldenius highlights the essential role of charity in the exercise of both essentials and non-essentials serves as a reminder that the church is called to the more excellent way of love (1 Corinthians 13), a love that is not its own but is itself part of the gift God has given to the world in Christ and the Spirit (1 John 4:6-16). 5