Theses On The Door: The Episcopal Church Of The United States, Part II

[What follows below, Part II in my series on the Episcopal Church (here is Part I), is an essay I wrote on the eve of the 2003 General Convention. It was initially sent out as a letter to the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, Frank T. Griswold. Later, it went out as a batch email; one recipient would submit it to VirtueOnline, a conservative Anglican website, where it received some notice. I will be posting this essay in several installments in what may be the longest series I've ever offered at Contratimes. But the first few posts shall serve mostly as back story.

Over the following few days what I intend to demonstrate is that the Episcopal Church is currently an opponent of reason. The ECUSA is not a bulwark of reasonableness; rather, it is collapsing in a heap of subjectivism. My hope is to accomplish something of a theological tour de force here; my readers shall be able to judge if I've succeeded.

One final note: I have posted the following as originally drafted; any updates or corrections will appear in []. Thank you, and peace. BG.]

What's Left of the Triumvirate?

Any mindful Episcopalian knows that the Holy Scriptures, tradition, and reason comprise Episcopal discernment. This grand triumvirate, a trinity of illumination, has guided the Anglican Church through many a trial. Sadly, that blessed trinity is so sorely deconstructed as to leave it leaning precariously to one side. Scripture is no longer trustworthy, at least in matters of sexual identity and behavior, or so the post-modern theologian asserts. Tradition is hardly a matter of sturdy guidance, as polemicists have shown that tradition has not only been known to change, it has been known to be rather wrong. Gratefully, attacks on reason are not nearly so devastating or unnerving, as reason itself is invariably invoked to demonstrate its faultiness. Reason, it seems, is all that remains sturdy of the truth-finding machinations of the Church.

So, with that said, all we are left with regarding discussions about the propriety of confirming an openly gay bishop in the diocese of New Hampshire is whether the arguments supporting such confirmation are reasonable. By reasonable, of course, I mean logically valid. I do not mean anything suggestive of emotional validation. I do not mean anything approaching what feels right, or true, or “of God”. I mean purely reasonable, that which one can reason through from point to point, premise to premise, proposition to proposition, syllogism to syllogism. To put it another way, I am asking whether proponents of Bishop-elect co-adjutor Gene Robinson have argued fallaciously, for fallaciousness is the antonym of reasonableness.

Quickly, let us dispense with a few of the obvious fallacies offered by those supportive of Mr. Robinson’s confirmation.

First, to suggest that Mr. Robinson’s election is laudable because most people support that election is to commit the fallacy ad populum, which is to argue that something is good or true because it is popularly held to be so. A companion fallacy to ad populum is the fallacy consensus gentium, which is committed when one avers that a thing is good or true because the majority, perhaps determined via a referendum, poll or election, assert a thing is good or true.

Second, to suggest that Mr. Robinson is somehow entitled or worthy of bishop because he is a good man, a nice person, or a faithful minister of the gospel is easily dismissed as an example of what could be called the fallacy of the tipped scales, as one’s good deeds are weighed against one’s misdeeds in order to tip public approval in one’s favor. The fallaciousness of this argument is obvious. For example, myriads of people do not think that US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is worthy of such a high office, irrespective of his good acts or judicial skill, solely because one woman’s allegations [of sexual harassment] demote him too egregiously to be “good enough” for that office. Journalists daily like to begin stories with the amazingly good qualities of a seemingly normal man -- who did good deeds in church, home and society -- only to end such stories with exclamations of surprise that such a good man could have strangled his child. Even today people are speaking of the taint that will forever be on NBA basketball star Kobe Bryant, regardless of whether he is ultimately absolved of criminal guilt for allegedly raping a woman. Daily, at least through the media (and even private conversation), one bad act often results in nullification of a whole life of devoted service.

Conversely, many good acts are often used to dismiss one bad act. The New York Times recently ran a review of a new biography of assassinated President John F. Kennedy with the headline tease that his good political acts outweighed his personal peccadilloes. Similar arguments have been invoked to commend former President Bill Clinton: one bad act need not spoil the whole bunch. The good acts, in a sense, atone for one’s occasional sins.

If this fallacy is not yet clear, perhaps invoking Adolph Hitler’s name may bring lucidity [I recognize that he is a tired, though helpful, example]. Hitler, no doubt, did good things, perhaps many good things, in his life. Yet his misdeeds truly doom him. He is not worthy of celebration, but condemnation, even if his good deeds outweigh his bad deeds. One cannot imagine a headline in The New York Times that reads, “Despite Hitler’s Murderous Policies, He Nonetheless Did Many Good Things In Private”, even if such a headline were true. We do not reward someone solely because we think he or she has done more good than harm. Conversely, Jesus Himself does not necessarily condemn anyone who has done more harm than good.

That this fallacy is invoked to commend Gene Robinson is undeniable. Recently, in a discussion held at my parish church, a N.H. diocesan spokesman admitted as much; and a parishioner, with tears flowing, shared how blessed she had been by the Christ-like ministry of Mr. Robinson’s personal care (teary arguments are the fallacy argumentum ad misirecordiam [the appeal to pity]). The twist in this woman’s argument is that God could not speak through Mr. Robinson if his homosexuality was all that bad, or all that sinful. But this is just another version of the same fallacy. Scripture shows a devil and demons speaking truth, with some demoniacs even speaking respectfully to the Lord Jesus Christ. The Roman Catholic Church has insisted that a priest could be in mortal sin and yet still consecrate the Blessed Sacrament; a teaching the Anglican Church essentially affirms. God’s grace is not limited to holy vessels, as the Church has always taught that there are no holy vessels that merit God’s grace [perhaps Mary is the exception here]. In other words, the Church has always insisted that we are all sinners. Hence, sinners worthy of condemnation nonetheless experience the grace of God, and may minister in that grace. Moreover, no matter how fallen any human being is, there remains some fragment of the image of God in that person. No one is totally corrupt.

With that said, however, there are those in the Church who [perhaps] think I have now tacitly endorsed the likes of Mr. Robinson. For if Mr. Robinson is a sinner, and grace is available to all sinners, then Mr. Robinson may indeed minister in the grace of God. But I have not endorsed Mr. Robinson (or the ordination and marriage of homosexuals), solely because in instances where sinners are baptized with the Spirit of God and endowed with God’s grace, such sinners do not immediately stand up and say that their sin is no longer sin. But the likes of Mr. Robinson have done just that. Proponents of homosexuality are quick to point out that the Church has gone nearly mute on fornication and divorce, with this silence somehow serving as a logical corollary to accepting homosexuality. But the argument is duly specious entirely because the Church has not set out celebrating either divorce or fornication. Can anyone find a liturgy celebrating premarital sex, or abject promiscuity? Can anyone find a liturgy that is neither sober nor contrite regarding the "celebration" of divorce? Has anyone been to a “Divorce Pride” parade lately, or held a vigil honoring the oppressed and stigmatized adulterers and lechers among us? The fact is that the Church, irrespective of its silence on certain matters, has not ever hopped about suggesting a broad policy that divorce, adultery or promiscuity are good. And if the word “celebration” is too hyperbolic for some critics, one must ask those who take umbrage with my suggestion that homosexuality is being “celebrated” if that is not, indeed, the case. For celebration is merely the antonym of condemnation, is it not? And if Mr. Robinson’s homosexuality is not to be condemned by the General Convention, would not his confirmation be a cause of celebration for homosexuality? If not, how then is it that Episcopal proponents of Mr. Robinson’s confirmation, on National Public Radio’s July 23 report regarding the Convention, equate his confirmation with gay marriage and ordination? Would these not be celebrations?

All this, then, amounts to an argument that suggests that what was once a sin is now no longer a sin at all. To be homosexual, in fact, is to be a joyous participant in the diverse creativity and blessedness of God! We will return to this argument in a moment. What other fallacies are present in defense of Mr. Robinson? Surely there is the fallacy ad hominem, the fallacy of attacking the person who opposes Mr. Robinson rather than the argument presented in that opposition. Surely opponents of Mr. Robinson’s ratification have been called “regressives” or “homophobes” or “reactionary” or “narrow” or “intolerant”. This is really the fallacy du jour. For there is seemingly no swifter defeat of an opponent than to categorize that opponent as something despicable.

A friend of mine reported to me that in her conversation with a woman about the up-coming national election of Mr. Robinson, she mentioned that I opposed the ratification (both women knew me in college). Immediately the woman dismissed me as prejudiced, asking my friend if I had ever met Mr. Robinson in order to better understand him before I formed my opinion, for then I would have not “pre-judged” him. A lesbian priest recently speaking on New Hampshire Public Radio described those who opposed homosexuality as possessing a “prejudice based on fear and ignorance.” Both women, ironically (and sadly), are profoundly guilty of the very thing they decry, for neither woman has spoken with me to discern who I am or what I represent. Clearly they are prejudiced, and their prejudice is based in ignorance, for they have ignored me and the countless others they have labeled as prejudiced. This is the fallacy ad hominem at its ugliest. (By the way, I have met Mr. Robinson [and I have worked with his ex- wife]; and I really like the man. Moreover, I recognize that the fallacy ad hominem is not unique to one camp. Unfortunately camps pro and con deploy this viciousness.)

Thus far we have touched on five fallacies, the fallacies ad populum, consensus gentium; the fallacy of the tipped scales, and the fallacies ad misericordiam and ad hominem. Each is frequently deployed, each is used to support the heart of the pro-homosexual argument. Let us now turn to some of the most insidious fallacies of all.

(Tomorrow, some of the harder fallacies.)

Peace.

Part III of this series begins here.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.


Technorati tags: Episcopal Church, Anglican Communion, ECUSA, Gay Rights, Homosexuality, Identity Politics, sacraments, sacramentalism, marriage, consecration, Gene Robinson, Gay Bishop