Albany Via Media

June 16, 2010

To the Editor:

It is good to see this post-Convention exchange of thoughts and feelings. It is my hope to offer some of my own in a helpful way.

My basic point will be that there is reason for all of us to find meaning and value in the Covenant, but also to speak to the matter of mutual respect and truth-telling. Following Archdeacon Christopher Brown, I would like to enumerate those points should others wish to engage them.

1. I believe that we can all stipulate as true that there are those whose views distress or embarrass us on our own “side.” In other words, on our own side, we can each find those whose views we find off-putting, unhelpful, and even alarming. The discussion we should be having, then, ought not to address such views as if they were normative of either side.

For example, people standing up with signs that gay and lesbian brothers and sisters are going to “burn in hell” or go into graphic detail about sexual behaviors are not representative of our true discussion partners and therefore not a part of our valid discussion.

Likewise, views such as those recently expressed in Openly Episcopal by posters from outside the Diocese that “[Archbishop] Gomez and your bishop seem to be neither Anglican nor followers of Jesus” are not normative for Via Media. Neither Via Media nor the traditionalists of this Diocese need to defend or own such views as representative of them. We will have a better discussion if we do not make straw men of the extremes and use them against one another or to stir up our “base.”

2. The real discussion, then, is between those who in good faith do not believe that Scripture and Tradition permit these recent innovations and those who find a way to make it work for them. That is to say, this is fundamentally a discussion of informed conscience between Christians of good will.

3. Therefore, we are really in the task of “informing the conscience” of one another as people already acting from legitimate conscience and worthy of that respect.

4. In order to do so, we need to have the patience and discipline of dealing with one another's arguments — not jumping over them to our own, but working through them, especially the parts of others' views most difficult for us. Most of our discussions sadly are about changing the subject. I mean, we are not being fair in working through the actual positions of others before moving to our own.

5. The “offense” card is an unfair tactic and discussion-stopper. There is plenty of offense to go around. Likewise, a “listening process” is not a delaying process or form of ideological therapy but made for discernment of truth. Here we must own that the climate surrounding “listening processes” has become tainted by their misuse. Indeed, ironically, these processes have too frequently been used to avoid the actual discussion of the issues at hand.

6. We need to speak honestly about the great warmth and kindness of our churches no matter where they fall on the issues. The charge that the Episcopal churches of this or any diocese are “unwelcoming” does not meet the facts on the ground. The issue is not our welcome or basic decency towards gays and lesbians in our various churches and has not been so for decades.

7. A similar candor is needed about ordination on which so much has hinged in this debate. Truly, one is much less likely to make it through the ordination process of The Episcopal Church by failing to affirm the ordination of Bishop Robinson than by being troubled by it. Indeed, we see many more priests in TEC who have been declared “unsuitable” for ordination for failing to support this litmus test issue than the other way around. I speak from the experience of several dioceses. On the ground, both in dioceses and seminaries, traditional views are more ridiculed and those who hold them mocked and stymied much more than progressives. The issue of inclusion is distorted when we don't speak honestly of the actual practices of our churches, seminaries, and dioceses.

8. On a positive note, we should acknowledge that TEC has thus far taken a course of “an inch at a time” and has felt compelled to sign things with which it did not agree. The Covenant can stop this dodgy course of incrementalism and of acting in ways inconsistent with our Church's official declarations to others. It is time for courage. The Covenant forces our stands to be real and our behavior and our words to match. Former Presiding Bishop Griswold signed Lambeth 1.10 and yet consecrated Bishop Robinson. Same-sex blessings were occurring while General Conventions were meeting. It is this kind of thing that has been happening for years, and now TEC can act honestly in its convictions or adhere to the Covenant.

9. Great harm has come to our Church by lack of truth-telling to our brothers and sisters here and elsewhere. It is bad “public policy” and it is bad evangelism. As Jesus says, “Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.” (Mt. 5:37.)

10. We need to accept, in the words of Archbishop Williams, that acts we deem “prophetic” must be willing to accept consequences. We must as a Church “take up our cross” if our present direction is what we truly believe to be right. Truth and consequences go together in real life. Our Church has not acted honorably in this regard, hoping for an easier way.

11. It is frequently maintained that the questions around human sexuality do not affect the core orthodoxy of those on the progressive side. Traditionalists are skeptical about this. Bishop Spong's twelve theses would be a good place to start testing the truth of the two views. We need to address honestly whether convictions on human sexuality and convictions on other theological innovations correlate. In any case, we will need to speak of Faith and Morals as fundamentally connected.

The 12 Theses of Bishop Spong

There are countless numbers of Christians who love everyone equally — gay or straight — but sincerely do not know what to do about the passages of Scripture and the Tradition in which they have been read in a way that can arrive at the conclusions advanced by most folks in Via Media. Equally on the Via Media side, they do not know how to quiet their scruples either. Again, the fundamental and real discussion is about informed conscience and not about ill will, stupidity, or bigotry on anyone's part.

In sum, we must finally deal with the actual arguments of these sincere and informed consciences. We must have the patience and discipline to do so. And we must leave the attributions of ill-motive, unreasonableness, lack of Christian heart or faith, lack of enlightenment, or bigotry outside the door.

The Rev. Paul J. Hartt