Canon Strangelove

Note: The following was posted to the House of Bishops/Deputies (HOB/D) Listserv, which comments on an exchange between a deputy and a ‘kibitzer’ to the list which, for me, is emblematic of the problem in our church.

The exchange between the woman from Hawai'i and the man from Colorado makes a perfect point for this woman from Newark. This is the problem with the "conversations" between those who sit in the left, right and middle pews of the church. It's why I've stopped engaging the discussion (much less 'dialogue') on the HOB/D listserv as well as around the church.

Remember that Peter Sellers movie: "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb"?

Well, were I to write a chapter on this part of the history of the church, the title would be: "Canon Strangelove or, How I Learned to Stop Dialogue and Love the Schism."

Oh, I'm still listening, but I'm not hearing anyone - on any side - saying anything new. Indeed, at this point, some of us could write each other's scripts.

Like the deputy from Ft. Worth's most recent complaint about those who have been "ignored or scoffed at" because they claim to have 'recovered' or been 'saved' from the "sin of homosexuality". No one gives them any credibility because they espouse a position which steadfastly refuses to acknowledge either the complexity of human sexuality or the broad continuum of sexual orientation, rendering the claim of 'healing' to be bogus. It also assumes "abstinence until marriage" as the achieved norm, rather than the practiced goal.

The woman from Hawai'i speaks about dialogue - meaningful dialogue - and the man from Colorado speaks about discussion - specifically, that of "theological justification" - and complains that all people do is 'tell their stories.'

One is working out of a construct of classic liberation, process and feminist theology, the other is working out of a construct of classic systematic theology.

One is working out of a more literal perspective of scripture; the other is reading scripture through a more contextual lens: form criticism, historical, scientific and archeological discovery as well as social-cultural curiosity.

One is concerned to hear the voices from the margins which have been silenced or ignored; the other is concerned to listen only to the voice of "the faith once delivered to the saints."

Alas, it has ever been thus.

Mind you, I spent five years of my life engaged in the process of reconciliation known as "The New Commandment Task Force." I still believe reconciliation is the central call of Jesus from the cross at Calvary. I know it to be central to the mission of the church. Indeed, I do not believe we can do any good, effective work of mission (much less be an authentic Body of Christ – the church) without reconciliation.

Which is why, I think, we've got to acknowledge and be reconciled to the full reality of the schism which some have labored long and hard to bring upon us. It has happened. It is happening now, even now, as I type these words into my computer and as your are reading them on yours. They have achieved their goal. All the rest is details.

The 'dirty little secret' is that this is precisely what many have wanted since the ordination of women more than 30 years ago. There are still those who insist that we have not developed a theology which "justifies" that or any future action. Many are members of the AAC, AMiA, ACN, and the rest of the alphabet soup of the conservative, neo-Puritan, orthodox evangelical movement in the church.

As author Suzanne Pharr has taught us, homophobia is a weapon of sexism. To put it bluntly, it's all about who's on top - the superiority of gender in terms of sexual intimacy as well as institutional authority; and, concomitantly, how one views and interprets scripture based on the perspective of one's social and cultural location -from the top of the heap, the bottom of the pile, or on the outer margins.

If you have any doubt about this, spend some time over at some of the conservative web sites. "Titus One Nine" has 'cyberelves' to censor their more virulent members, but you can find them in their full hate-filled . . .'glory' . . . over at "Stand Firm in Faith." I think it's one of the few places (thank you, Jesus) in the Episcopal section of cyberspace where sexism and misogyny reign so transparently.

Please do remember to wear your asbestos pumps when you walk through that area of cyberspace. You know, the same ones you wear to read 'He-who-must-not-be-named'.
Interesting, but I've yet to find a liberal or even moderate or conservative website/blog/chat room which has the same level of venom and toxicity.

I think we ought to gracefully allow those who wish to exchange their membership in The Episcopal Church for a membership anywhere else in the Anglican Communion and we should do so without undue haste.

Let the ABC do what the ABC has always done - determine who is a member of the Anglican Communion and who is not. If +Rowan wishes to create an "upstairs/downstairs maid" arrangement of membership, we ought not fault him. It is the "natural default" setting of the British organizational system. They've been doing this for centuries. I don't think it has anything to do with anything Jesus taught, but, as the British would say, "Well, there it is, then."

As for me and my house - the amazing Episcopal Church of St. Paul - we will love and serve the Lord, loving our neighbor as ourselves as we humbly and fervently seek to live out the promises made in our baptismal covenant.

Remember the last scene of the movie, Dr. Strangelove? Anyone want to do the graphic for this chapter of our history?