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

[I must remind readers that what follows is a letter I wrote on the eve of V. Gene Robinson's election to the episcopate in 2003. The series begins here, and is an examination of the possible role of homosexuality in the Church; it is not a commentary on homosexuality in secular society.

Today's installment concludes this part of the series. I recognize that this has been a long process for many of my readers. I apologize if I have taxed your patience. But this series is more for me than perhaps for many of you: I need to make my case as to why the Episcopal Church is no longer much of a home for my family and me.

The gist of this series has been utterly consistent, though I am not at all sure I have succeeded. It has been offered here to show that the Episcopal Church has not elevated reason to new levels; rather, it has neglected, even denigrated, reason. In so doing, it has severed itself from the reasoned traditions and doctrines rooted in history and Holy Scripture; the only traditions it remains enamored of are ones of compromise.

This may come as bad news to many of my returning readers, but I am not through yet. In the next few days I shall explore the subjectivism that is the new church polemic. Really, this has all been backstory. Also, any major additions to the original are printed between []. Peace. BG]

What's Left of the Triumvirate?
V. The problem with democracy: it's fallacious

Last summer [1992] during a vestry retreat at my parish church, [then Canon] V. Gene Robinson came to serve as retreat facilitator. He was incredibly adept at his role.

At one point, I had a bit of a debate with a fellow vestry member. She was speaking in terms of democracy, that most of the parish was in favor of such and such. I countered that the Episcopal Church is not a democracy; that it is, by definition, a hierarchy. I said that it did not matter what "most people” thought; the church is an institution built around the leadership of the rectory, and the authority of the bishop. A democratic church is a congregationalist model, not an Episcopal one.

To this, I am pleased, Mr. Robinson gave his overwhelming support. He reiterated that I was indeed right. I was pleased with his comments. However, I find it ironic that Mr. Robinson is now comfortable with the idea of a majority vote approving his bishopric. I especially find it ironic when I consider that Mr. Robinson himself must be something of an anti-authoritarian.

Mr. Robinson was once married. He made vows of fidelity to his wife. He later reneged on those vows. After procuring a divorce, Mr. Robinson engaged in a homosexual relationship. In fact, he moved in with the man. I ask, at what point was Mr. Robinson submitting to the authority of the Episcopal Church? Did he submit to its positions on marriage, divorce, homosexuality, or cohabitation? Or did he determine for himself what was best for him? If the former, why does he have sex with a man that is neither his wife nor husband, for the church has never supported that, has it? If the latter, how could he represent authority in a church in which he himself did not respect that authority? For surely he snubbed his nose at the last General Convention's pronouncement that homosexuality, at the very least, was incompatible with Scripture, a call made by “majority” vote. Is Mr. Robinson not anti-authoritarian? If so, why, then, would anyone submit to him as bishop?

In another irony, a NH diocesan spokesman told my parish that ultimately, in matters of authority, the Episcopal Church's power is in the laity. Really? How then is a bishop even necessary? And if that is really true, then why would that same spokesman, speaking in favor of homosexuality, share that NH bishop Douglas Theuner is in favor of a gay bishop, or that the Presiding Bishop is moderate on the issue (I do not know his position)? Why would the laity care what the bishop thinks if the laity is ultimately in control? Technically speaking, the appeal to the bishops' positions is nothing other than the fallacy of appealing to authority. Must we once again face another fallacy in this process?

The fact is that majorities, even lay majorities, are often wrong.† That is why there are laws protecting the rights of minorities. That is why there are leaders, prophets, and a Christ. If majorities are usually right, then majorities don't need leaders or laws at all, since, apparently, they are usually right, knowing what they need for leadership. Majorities, apparently, can lead themselves.

Such tautologies notwithstanding, Mr. Robinson, who claimed in my parish that majorities do not run the church, ultimately supports that his anti-authoritarianism be approved by a majority vote! Really, who needs a bishop at all?

Finally, it is sad that Mr. Robinson, who claims to be a shepherd of the Church, would state in The New York Times that, "It breaks my heart if any [Anglicans] choose to leave [the Anglican communion]. But if they leave it's because they are choosing to leave, and they are choosing to divide this communion, not me. ...I am not willing to take responsibility for the future of the Anglican Church.” That doesn't sound much like a shepherd's heart, does it? What do we make of a man who claims that he is "not willing to take responsibility for the future of the Anglican Church?" Is that NOT the very thing a bishop IS supposed to take responsibility for? He's not to take responsibility for the church's past, is he?

Moreover, the (alleged) prophet Muhammad had a clear sense of ministry when he said, "All of you are shepherds responsible for your flocks. A ruler is shepherd of his subjects and he is responsible for them." It seems Mr. Robinson couldn't even be a good Muslim, let alone be a good Episcopalian!

***

It is written in 2 Timothy 4: 3-4: "The time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths". That time has arrived in the Episcopal Church in the debate over homosexuality. And if we start with reason, we can see that many of the most forceful arguments supporting homosexuality are fallacious. Reason dictates that Mr. Robinson's confirmation will be based on a series of common fallacies. Last week, a woman featured in a National Public Radio story on the issue facing the Episcopal Church said, "The Holy Spirit has spoken through the good people of New Hampshire in electing an openly gay bishop.” In light of what I've written in this essay, there are only three options for us: There is no Holy Spirit; or the Holy Spirit has NOT spoken through the good people of New Hampshire; or the Holy Spirit HAS spoken through the people of New Hampshire.

Of course, the first option––that there is no Holy Spirit–– is untenable. But the second option––the Holy Spirit is NOT speaking–– is not only possible, it seems highly probable. Why? Because if the third option is true, then we are helpless. For if the Holy Spirit is speaking through the pro-gay, pro-Gene Robinson supporters in New Hampshire, we MUST conclude that the Holy Spirit is irrational, given to fits of fallacious reasoning and invalid arguments. For it is indeed the case that the arguments in favor of Mr. Robinson are fallacious. Do we really think that if God speaks, He is going to speak irrationally; will He speak fallaciously?

Hence, we are left with a problem. Either the triumvirate of Holy Scripture, tradition, and reason remain strong and valid, or the Holy Spirit has destroyed all three.

[†One might think that I would today cite statistics that seem to show that the majority of people oppose both the ordination of gay bishops and gay marriage, thus indicating that I have contradicted myself or have neglected to notice that ordaining and blessing gay bishops and marriages are protections offered to a minority. I will not make that mistake: I believe that the ordination of homosexual bishops is demonstrably inconsistent with reason; and that the blessing of gay marriage is inconsistent with the utterly reasonable sacrament of marriage. Hence, majority opinion is irrelevant here, pro or con.]

Peace.

Part VIII of this series begins here.

©Bill Gnade 2003, 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,
tradition, idolatry, goddess, mother earth, reason