The Way Forward

When Jesus first celebrated the Eucharist there was a juxtaposition of two very different worldviews that is not talked about very much. One of the disciples participating in the table fellowship was Simon the Zealot and another was Matthew the former tax collector. Before his conversion Matthew was perceived by his fellow Jews as a traitor to his own kind and a conspirator with the Roman establishment. If Simon had been a member of the Zealot faction within Judaism he would have been very much opposed to Roman rule and especially to people like Matthew. How is it that these two people were able to come together in Eucharistic unity? The answer to this question is relevant to our own struggles in the Anglican Communion today.

The reason they were able to do this is that as part of their call to conversion and discipleship they were required by Jesus to set aside their old presuppositions and take up a new unified perspective. This unity was not monolithic, but at the same time it was not a false unity where everyone maintained their former positions with no change whatsoever. It was a unity informed by grace.

This unity is not free but requires a great deal of sacrifice. This lies in the difference between what Dietrich Bonhoeffer called 'cheap grace' and 'costly grace.' Under the model of cheap grace we can continue to hold our current positions that are ingrained in us by our personal experiences and popular culture and remain unchanged by the Gospel. If we choose costly grace we must lay our theories and concerns before Christ and simply follow Him using the tools he has given to the Church. That is not an easy task. The obvious question is: "How do we go about this?"

Each of us has a lens through which we look as we make use of the standard Anglican tools of Scripture, tradition, and reason. This lens is formed over the course of our lives as a product of our religious backgrounds and life experiences. Every time we use the tools our conclusions are shaped by the design of this lens. As a result it is extremely difficult to drill down to a truly objective point of view since a lens is just a tool of our own making and is not the truth itself. We must be very careful to never confuse the lens with the object of the lens' gaze. However, the presence of the lens does not mean that there is no objective truth to be found. It is there and for the sake of unity we are obligated to find it.

There are vast differences in how this process works in the different parts of the Communion. The debate over homosexuality has led to an unnecessary dualism that has marginalized the voices of conservatives and moderates who wish to remain loyal to the Episcopal Church. Anathemas are being tossed around by both sides, and people are pointing fingers at each other while stating in a grandiose manner, "You are out of communion." The rest of us are in the middle watching the pews empty as the American expression of Anglicanism teeters on the precipice of irrelevancy. The simple truth about this disgraceful process is that we do not have the authority to make these kinds of statements as to 'who is in' and 'who is out'. Only God decides who is in communion among the baptized.

We need to take a serious look at the methods being used to make these kinds of assumptions. Only when we come to realize that a lens is not the same as objective truth will we have any chance of achieving Eucharistic unity again. The first order of business is to admit that the current attempts by the progressive wing of our Church to describe homosexuality as normative ignore the tools of Scripture and tradition. With the current data that we have there is no way to justify this via Scripture or tradition, so the proponents of this movement must rely solely on experience and the call to 'social justice.' This is an incredibly subjective approach and I would argue that it is not particularly Anglican or even Christian but instead is a secular liberalist approach. Once experience becomes the plumb line it is only a matter of time before moral relativism becomes systemic. We should stick to the tools that Anglicanism has always used.

On the other hand the wave of schism that is rippling through our Church is also based on the wrong assumptions. One of the goals of Anglicanism is to maintain a sense of catholic order in our Church. The intervention of foreign bishops violates this sense of order as much as Robinson's consecration and is a thumb in the eye of the Windsor Report and the Communique. If we continue to fragment we are disobeying Jesus' command to unity and will ultimately end up as a collection of sects rather than a Church. We need to work for change within the framework that we currently have. If we wish to be Anglican then we must make the Windsor Report the roadmap for the way forward, and we all need to be honest about implementing it. As part of the Windsor process we also need to respond to the care of homosexuals in our church with pastoral sensitivity and not just give it lip service.

Like Simon the Zealot and Matthew we need to set aside our assumptions and focus on what sacrifices need to be made for the sake of church unity. How can the Episcopal Church strengthen the bonds of communion? The first step is total compliance with the Windsor Report to give everyone some breathing room. Although each province is autonomous what we do in the U.S. has dramatic impacts on other provinces. We are not independent but interdependent. The unique nature of our polity can and should be balanced with this interdependence between provinces of the Communion. We must understand that with our more democratic polity comes a great degree of responsibility to ourselves and to Anglicans worldwide. The same compliance message holds true for other provinces. All interventions and further schism should immediately cease until after Lambeth.

The next step is the cessation of all lawsuits against breakaway parishes. The national church has had the opportunity to take the moral high road and has chosen not to do so. This is very scandalous for the church and is totally contrary to the Gospel. Negotiated settlements where the needs of all are considered should be the only courses of action. Otherwise our unity will continue to fragment while the attorneys stand around and collect their fees like the postmodern equivalent of the moneychangers in the temple. It is time to flip the tables on these opportunists.

It is time to start meaning what we say and saying what we mean. All of the posturing, games, and anathemas need to stop. If we keep this up it is likely that the noble Anglican experiment will fail, and we will only have ourselves to blame. Only when we set aside all of our presuppositions and admit in humility that we do not know everything will we even have a chance at unity. Even now Jesus sits at the table and waits for us to join him for nourishment before our common mission. As He looks at us we know we have a job to do. Are we willing to take up the challenge of costly grace? It is never easy but it is always worth it.