MY TALK AT ST. MICHAEL'S
No, I have not been invited to speak at St. Michael's church in Charleston. I am sure we can rule out that possibility, at least for the time being. In lieu of a "course" or at least a "lesson," I will present the following talk for the good people of St. Michael's. I know there are people in St. Michael's who regularly read this blog. This talk is for you and rest of the people of your parish.
MY TALK:
Hello. It is good to be here and to visit with all of you fine folks here at old St. Michael's church. This is a special place. I am honored to be invited. I am honored to address the good people of this grand old parish.
I have a limited amount of time today, so I want to get right to it. No time to waste. I am here to give you information to help you decide what to do in the future. What you have had for many years is one side of the picture. You have been given a great deal of information, all of it in support of the diocesan position against the Episcopal Church. I am not here to tell you what to think and what to do. That would be unforgivably presumptuous. I am only here to give you information that you have not been given. This is to help you see both sides and therefore make the best informed decision you can as to what you and your church family will do in the future.
The future in this case is in all probability close at hand. As we all know, St. Michael's is one of the 29 parishes that the South Carolina state supreme court has ruled must be returned to the Episcopal Church bishop. The federal judge, Richard Gergel, just affirmed a few days ago. In fact, he all but told the TEC side to go to the circuit court and gain physical possession of the parishes in question. At the moment, we are awaiting action of the U.S. Supreme Court. DSC appealed the SC supreme court decision to SCOTUS in February. We will almost certainly have a response from the court by the end of June. It is highly likely the court will deny DSC's request. If so, that will be the end of the matter and we can expect the Episcopal Church bishop, Skip Adams, to regain control over St. Michael's probably sooner rather than later. In all likelihood, St. Michael's church will return to the Episcopal Church.
When that happens, you in St. Michael's will have, as I see it, four options. You will have to choose one. The options are 1-drop out of religion altogether, 2-go to another denomination (First Scots is a stone's throw away), 3-leave the building and form a DSC congregation elsewhere (Methodist church up Meeting St?), 4-stay with the building and return to the Episcopal Church. I do not see any other choices. If you see any, let us know.
What this really boils down to is whether you will stay in the building or leave. This is a terrible, heart-wrenching choice for so many of you to make and my heart goes out to you. You have been put in a painful dilemma whether you had anything to do with the schism or not. You are still trapped in an unfortunate situation. Right now you are being put under enormous pressure by your leaders to leave the building and form a DSC church elsewhere. We all know that. It is loud and clear on the Internet. The highly regarded DSC figures of the Revs. Kendall Harmon, Peter Moore, and Bishop Lawrence have all been here recently with their messages that I interpret as appeals for you to remain with DSC. You are in the spotlight now whether you want to be or not.
The decision of whether to stay or leave is yours and yours alone. Likewise, religion has to be a personal experience. No one should tell you what to think or what to do. This is your home. This is your church family. You must do what you think best for yourself and your community. It is a very hard choice. I only ask that you get all the information you can to make the most reasonable decisions. And, when all is said and done, you will be at peace with your choices. At the end of the day, you should not have any regrets.
As many of you know, I have published a book on the history of the schism and, or course, I recommend it to you. It will provide you with great detail on how the schism came about, what it meant, and how its aftermath has affected us all. It is readily available for order on the Internet (or ask you local library to order a copy). It is very long at 300,000 words. All I can do here today is to go some main points with information to balance what you have been led to believe.
For convenience, we will use the main talking points presented by the Revs. Zadig and Harmon in their recent course here.
So, let's get right to it.
Homosexuality.
Let's be candid and frank. This was the direct cause of the schism and it still drives us apart. So, how are we to deal with the issue of homosexuality?
Is homosexual activity sin? DSC and ACNA say it is. TEC does not have an official stand but regards it is morally neutral. So, each of you must decide for yourself whether you think homosexual behavior is inherently sinful.
If it is sin, you must first define what you mean by the word "sin." What is sin? I think a common definition that most of us agree on is, sin is that which separates us from God and our fellow human beings. OK, does homosexuality separate us from God and from our fellow humans? If it does, how so? How does what two consenting people do in their own privacy separate us from God and our neighbors? I don't see it.
Oh, but you may say it is against God's word. There are several verses in the Bible that some people claim prove God's condemnation of homosexuality. These verses are actually controversial and debatable. They are not clear-cut. For instance, the verses from Romans that Rev. Zadig cited actually condemn idolatry and it is God, not the people, who make them behave as they did. So, it is far from certain that the Bible stands in judgment on homosexuality. Jesus said nothing about the issue. There is not a word in the four gospels about it. So, using the Bible to condemn homosexuality is highly dubious and questionable.
Then, there is problem of standing in judgment on the choices of other people. What right does anyone have to judge what others do as long as it is not harmful or illegal? Even Pope Francis said, "Who am I to judge?" If he won't judge homosexuals, what gives anyone else the right to do so?
Homosexuals are God's children just like anyone else. We are all created in the image of God. The jury is still out on the question of whether homosexuality is inborn or learned but the weight of professional thinking now is inborn. If inborn, it is human nature and part of the human condition at least for some people, not most but some. If inborn, then it becomes an issue of human rights; and homosexuals should have the same rights as everyone else and protection against discrimination.
It took the Episcopal Church 40 years to come to terms with homosexuality. The discussion started in 1976 with a recommendation against ordaining "practicing" gays. In 2015, TEC adopted same-sex marriage. Along the way, the church gradually, and somewhat tortuously, came to a consensus that homosexuality was not sinful and that gays and transgendered should have equal rights and inclusion in the life of the church, even in marriage. This was a radical move to be sure. However, TEC was not alone, and far from being the first denomination to reach this point.
An important point in all this that DSC always ignores is the local option. When TEC adopted same-sex blessings in 2012 and marriage in 2015, it gave the local option. Each diocese can choose whether to have these. In the TEC diocese of SC, the local parish and clergy can choose whether to have these. Some have chosen not to have them. That is their right and everyone respects that. Thus, when St. Michael's returns to TEC, the vestry can vote to ban s-s rites and the local clergy likewise can refuse. That will be a choice that St. Michael's makes. Nothing is to be forced on any church or individual.
Moving on from homosexuality, there are several other major issues that need to be addressed. Of these, nothing riles me up more than the outrageous assertion that TEC has abandoned faith in Jesus Christ as the savior of the world, what some call "the uniqueness of Christ." I assure you, TEC has not done this; and it is most disappointing for DSC leaders to assert such nonsense. What the DSC leaders have done is to take certain remarks from some of the most controversial Episcopal bishops and transpose them onto the whole church, or at least imply such. This is just wrong. Spong, Pike, Jefferts-Schori and the like spoke only for themselves. Under the TEC system, all doctrines, beliefs and such have to be adopted by the General Convention. GC has made no change in the beliefs of religion. As for following the scriptures, the same applies. There has been no change. Now, traditionally Anglicanism has claimed a three-legged stool, scripture, reason, and tradition. The DSC leaders are trying to change this to scripture alone. This is not classical Anglicanism.
Rev. Zadig used an example of the 2003 General Convention's rejection of resolution B001 as evidence of the Church's abandonment of the Bible as authority. This is a misinterpretation. Actually, that resolution was offered to block a vote on Gene Robinson and was voted down by the convention for that reason. The GC went on the approve of Robinson's election. B001 was designed to stop Robinson, not to promote the authority of scripture per se. Conservatives tried to use the scriptures for an ulterior motive.
So, I assure you TEC has made no change in its religion. It has not rejected the uniqueness of Christ any more than it has thrown out the Bible. It still uses the same prayer book it has had since 1979, the same one you use here all the time.
Another topic on which there has been major confusion is the relationship of DSC to the Anglican world. DSC leaders claim they are truly Anglican and fully part of Anglicanism. They call themselves Anglican endlessly. They call the Anglican Church in North America a "province" of Anglicanism. This is highly misleading.
In fact, TEC is the only branch of the Anglican Communion in the United States. DSC and ACNA are not in the Anglican Communion and almost certainly will never be. The AC is a loose association of 39 independent churches around the world that claim a common heritage from the English Reformation of the sixteenth century. The AC has made it clear that ACNA is a separate church not in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury. Archbishop Foley, of ACNA, is not a primate of the AC and certainly will not be invited to the Lambeth Conference of 2020. He was invited to attend the 2016 primates' meeting as a courtesy but he was not allowed to vote.
The ACNA was created by anti-homosexual rights elements in the Episcopal Church and certain equatorial African Anglican primates in 2009. It was set up to be an anti-homosexual rights Anglican church to take the place of TEC as the legitimate Anglican province in the U.S. However, the AC refused to accept this. And, while on the topic of the ACNA, it is also opposed to equality for and inclusion of women into the life of the church. Only men can be bishops; and under the ACNA Constitution and Canons, power rests in the hands of the (all male) archbishop and bishops. It is an authoritarian, male-controlled system. It also gives the ACNA bishops leverage over election of new bishops in the local dioceses. A new bishop must get 2/3 approval of the ACNA bishops (it is 51% of bishops and standing committees in TEC). This means 1/3 plus one of the bishops can veto any choice of any diocese. DSC has surrendered a lot of independence to be a part of ACNA (not to mention almost $200,000 a year). If DSC left TEC because it thought TEC was too authoritarian, what it has now is much more so.
So, what kind of religion does DSC have now? It is not in the Anglican Communion. Since the schism, it has developed into a fundamentalist-leaning sect, an independent Protestant church. It had adopted a regimented system of conformity: literal interpretation of the Bible, born-again salvation, intolerance, rejection of homosexual rights, and authoritarianism. These were institutionally incorporated in the diocese in the Marriage Task Force documents of 2015. These required people to sign oaths of conformity.
So, you do have a clear choice facing you. It is between DSC and TEC. On one hand, DSC is a narrowly-defined fundamentalist-oriented Protestant church. On the other hand, TEC is a broad, tolerant, non-dogmatic general Christian church.
I think it is useful to use the imagery of vertical and horizontal religion. Fundamentalism is a highly vertical religion that is individualistic, that is, emphasizes one person's relationship with one God as the be all and end all of religion (I should know. I spent my first 21 years thoroughly immersed in fundamentalism). After World War II, TEC developed into a horizontal religion, that is, one that starts with a relationship between a person and God then develops that into social consciousness and activism. Horizontal Christians are those who emphasize improving the lives of people all around them, hence the reforms of civil rights, new prayer book, and equal rights for women and homosexuals. So, the choice is between a self-oriented religion and an other-oriented one. DSC offers the former. TEC offers the latter. At least, that is the way I see the choices before you.
I think all this really boils down to what we think religion is all about. Why are we here? Why do we want to call ourselves Christians? What is our understanding of why we exist? God did not have to create human beings, and there were times when God must have doubted its decision to do so (e.g. the Flood). But God did create us, and did so in its own image. We were created to do God's work in the world. We are God's representatives here and now. This is our reason for being. This is our mission in the world. We have to start with a relationship with God but we have to translate that into works to care for, promote, and enhance God's creation. Faith without works is dead. Salvation is not an end in itself. It is the starting place on the path toward the enactment of God's kingdom.
I see Christianity as a religion of compassion, caring, love, healing, service to others, and peace. How do you see our religion? Why do you think you are here?
I wish I had more time to talk today but my time is short. Of course, you can always invite me back (laughter). And so, I have to wrap this up.
I say to you, good people of St. Michael's, you must choose where you go from here. It is your choice alone. No one can tell you, no one should tell you, what to do. Whatever choice you make, you should be at peace. You should know that you made the best choice you could. And when it is all over, you should be able to say you behaved as the best Christian you could be. It will be over one day. I promise you. There will be an end to all this unpleasantness.
And now for questions and comments. Anyone?
[questions I anticipate]
Yes, I have a question. Why will not TEC just let us alone to keep our own church they way we want to?
Good question. I'm glad you asked. Under the TEC rules, the parish owns its own property. TEC is a trust beneficiary. All that really means in practical terms is that, under the trust, St. Michael's has to remain in TEC and cannot dispose of property without the permission of the local diocese. Otherwise, the parish has wide latitude to do what it wishes. However, the Episcopal Church is an hierarchical institution, not a congregational one. The local church must follow the rules of the diocese which in turn must follow the rules of the national church. St. Michael's was part of the Episcopal Church for a very long time and there was no question about that until the schism began to boil up. I see no reason why that cannot be the same again. I think the people of St. Michael's have nothing to fear. Does that answer your question?
Ron, I have a question. Why do not TEC and DSC settle their differences in mediation instead of dragging it all out in court?
Another really good question. Off hand, I can recall two instances when DSC had the opportunity to settle and not disadvantageously. In one, in June of 2015, TEC offered to give the parishes their complete independence and property in return for DSC giving up the possession of the entity of the diocese (rights, lands, property, accounts etc. of the diocese). DSC flatly rejected the offer. In another example, the federal judge ordered mediation last year and the two sides met three times from Oct. of 2017 to Jan. of 2018. Nothing came of this. We know that TEC offered a protocol where Bp Adams would meet with the parishes and discuss settlement. DSC rejected this. Mediation failed, although it is still officially open. It is clear by now that DSC will fight this on to the end, whatever that will be, in the courts.
Sir, I have a question too. We are all exhausted by the schism. When it is all going to be over? We just want it to stop.
My goodness, I wish I knew. No one knows the future (especially historians). However, the major issue of the parish properties has been more or less determined. If SCOTUS denies DSC's petition, in the next couple of months, that will end that. However, there are still two other avenues of litigation going on, DSC's suit in the circuit court of Dorchester County (Betterments), and TEC's suit in federal court which will probably go to trial later this year. Of course, the losing side there can appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals, in Richmond. Nevertheless, as far as St. Michael's goes, I see nothing to keep the Episcopal Church from moving to take possession of the property after SCOTUS turns down DSC's request, or even now for that matter. The SCSC decision is not on stay. I am like you. I wish all this would end, but I am afraid it is going to go on for some time yet.
Ron, I have a question. If most of us at St. Michael's leave and only a small congregation remains, how can they keep up the place. Will not TEC sell off our building to Muslims or some other group?
I do not represent the Episcopal Church. I cannot speak for anyone but myself. All I know is the experiences of similar old parishes hit by schism, such as Christ Church of Savannah and Christ Church of Mobile. In those cases, the majority of the members pulled out after the courts returned the properties to the Episcopal Church and formed churches in exile. In both cases, a minority stayed and slowly but surely rebuilt the parishes and now are thriving. I would expect the same sort of thing here and at St. Philip's. However, I think it behooves the Episcopal Church bishop to work closely and generously with the remaining congregation as they go forward; and I expect he or she will.
Well, it looks like we are out of time. I thank you all for being here and I appreciate the invitation. As I leave, I would like to say I wish you well and may God be with you and comfort you as you make the big decisions before you. Peace.
Moving on from homosexuality, there are several other major issues that need to be addressed. Of these, nothing riles me up more than the outrageous assertion that TEC has abandoned faith in Jesus Christ as the savior of the world, what some call "the uniqueness of Christ." I assure you, TEC has not done this; and it is most disappointing for DSC leaders to assert such nonsense. What the DSC leaders have done is to take certain remarks from some of the most controversial Episcopal bishops and transpose them onto the whole church, or at least imply such. This is just wrong. Spong, Pike, Jefferts-Schori and the like spoke only for themselves. Under the TEC system, all doctrines, beliefs and such have to be adopted by the General Convention. GC has made no change in the beliefs of religion. As for following the scriptures, the same applies. There has been no change. Now, traditionally Anglicanism has claimed a three-legged stool, scripture, reason, and tradition. The DSC leaders are trying to change this to scripture alone. This is not classical Anglicanism.
Rev. Zadig used an example of the 2003 General Convention's rejection of resolution B001 as evidence of the Church's abandonment of the Bible as authority. This is a misinterpretation. Actually, that resolution was offered to block a vote on Gene Robinson and was voted down by the convention for that reason. The GC went on the approve of Robinson's election. B001 was designed to stop Robinson, not to promote the authority of scripture per se. Conservatives tried to use the scriptures for an ulterior motive.
So, I assure you TEC has made no change in its religion. It has not rejected the uniqueness of Christ any more than it has thrown out the Bible. It still uses the same prayer book it has had since 1979, the same one you use here all the time.
Another topic on which there has been major confusion is the relationship of DSC to the Anglican world. DSC leaders claim they are truly Anglican and fully part of Anglicanism. They call themselves Anglican endlessly. They call the Anglican Church in North America a "province" of Anglicanism. This is highly misleading.
In fact, TEC is the only branch of the Anglican Communion in the United States. DSC and ACNA are not in the Anglican Communion and almost certainly will never be. The AC is a loose association of 39 independent churches around the world that claim a common heritage from the English Reformation of the sixteenth century. The AC has made it clear that ACNA is a separate church not in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury. Archbishop Foley, of ACNA, is not a primate of the AC and certainly will not be invited to the Lambeth Conference of 2020. He was invited to attend the 2016 primates' meeting as a courtesy but he was not allowed to vote.
The ACNA was created by anti-homosexual rights elements in the Episcopal Church and certain equatorial African Anglican primates in 2009. It was set up to be an anti-homosexual rights Anglican church to take the place of TEC as the legitimate Anglican province in the U.S. However, the AC refused to accept this. And, while on the topic of the ACNA, it is also opposed to equality for and inclusion of women into the life of the church. Only men can be bishops; and under the ACNA Constitution and Canons, power rests in the hands of the (all male) archbishop and bishops. It is an authoritarian, male-controlled system. It also gives the ACNA bishops leverage over election of new bishops in the local dioceses. A new bishop must get 2/3 approval of the ACNA bishops (it is 51% of bishops and standing committees in TEC). This means 1/3 plus one of the bishops can veto any choice of any diocese. DSC has surrendered a lot of independence to be a part of ACNA (not to mention almost $200,000 a year). If DSC left TEC because it thought TEC was too authoritarian, what it has now is much more so.
So, what kind of religion does DSC have now? It is not in the Anglican Communion. Since the schism, it has developed into a fundamentalist-leaning sect, an independent Protestant church. It had adopted a regimented system of conformity: literal interpretation of the Bible, born-again salvation, intolerance, rejection of homosexual rights, and authoritarianism. These were institutionally incorporated in the diocese in the Marriage Task Force documents of 2015. These required people to sign oaths of conformity.
So, you do have a clear choice facing you. It is between DSC and TEC. On one hand, DSC is a narrowly-defined fundamentalist-oriented Protestant church. On the other hand, TEC is a broad, tolerant, non-dogmatic general Christian church.
I think it is useful to use the imagery of vertical and horizontal religion. Fundamentalism is a highly vertical religion that is individualistic, that is, emphasizes one person's relationship with one God as the be all and end all of religion (I should know. I spent my first 21 years thoroughly immersed in fundamentalism). After World War II, TEC developed into a horizontal religion, that is, one that starts with a relationship between a person and God then develops that into social consciousness and activism. Horizontal Christians are those who emphasize improving the lives of people all around them, hence the reforms of civil rights, new prayer book, and equal rights for women and homosexuals. So, the choice is between a self-oriented religion and an other-oriented one. DSC offers the former. TEC offers the latter. At least, that is the way I see the choices before you.
I think all this really boils down to what we think religion is all about. Why are we here? Why do we want to call ourselves Christians? What is our understanding of why we exist? God did not have to create human beings, and there were times when God must have doubted its decision to do so (e.g. the Flood). But God did create us, and did so in its own image. We were created to do God's work in the world. We are God's representatives here and now. This is our reason for being. This is our mission in the world. We have to start with a relationship with God but we have to translate that into works to care for, promote, and enhance God's creation. Faith without works is dead. Salvation is not an end in itself. It is the starting place on the path toward the enactment of God's kingdom.
I see Christianity as a religion of compassion, caring, love, healing, service to others, and peace. How do you see our religion? Why do you think you are here?
I wish I had more time to talk today but my time is short. Of course, you can always invite me back (laughter). And so, I have to wrap this up.
I say to you, good people of St. Michael's, you must choose where you go from here. It is your choice alone. No one can tell you, no one should tell you, what to do. Whatever choice you make, you should be at peace. You should know that you made the best choice you could. And when it is all over, you should be able to say you behaved as the best Christian you could be. It will be over one day. I promise you. There will be an end to all this unpleasantness.
And now for questions and comments. Anyone?
[questions I anticipate]
Yes, I have a question. Why will not TEC just let us alone to keep our own church they way we want to?
Good question. I'm glad you asked. Under the TEC rules, the parish owns its own property. TEC is a trust beneficiary. All that really means in practical terms is that, under the trust, St. Michael's has to remain in TEC and cannot dispose of property without the permission of the local diocese. Otherwise, the parish has wide latitude to do what it wishes. However, the Episcopal Church is an hierarchical institution, not a congregational one. The local church must follow the rules of the diocese which in turn must follow the rules of the national church. St. Michael's was part of the Episcopal Church for a very long time and there was no question about that until the schism began to boil up. I see no reason why that cannot be the same again. I think the people of St. Michael's have nothing to fear. Does that answer your question?
Ron, I have a question. Why do not TEC and DSC settle their differences in mediation instead of dragging it all out in court?
Another really good question. Off hand, I can recall two instances when DSC had the opportunity to settle and not disadvantageously. In one, in June of 2015, TEC offered to give the parishes their complete independence and property in return for DSC giving up the possession of the entity of the diocese (rights, lands, property, accounts etc. of the diocese). DSC flatly rejected the offer. In another example, the federal judge ordered mediation last year and the two sides met three times from Oct. of 2017 to Jan. of 2018. Nothing came of this. We know that TEC offered a protocol where Bp Adams would meet with the parishes and discuss settlement. DSC rejected this. Mediation failed, although it is still officially open. It is clear by now that DSC will fight this on to the end, whatever that will be, in the courts.
Sir, I have a question too. We are all exhausted by the schism. When it is all going to be over? We just want it to stop.
My goodness, I wish I knew. No one knows the future (especially historians). However, the major issue of the parish properties has been more or less determined. If SCOTUS denies DSC's petition, in the next couple of months, that will end that. However, there are still two other avenues of litigation going on, DSC's suit in the circuit court of Dorchester County (Betterments), and TEC's suit in federal court which will probably go to trial later this year. Of course, the losing side there can appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals, in Richmond. Nevertheless, as far as St. Michael's goes, I see nothing to keep the Episcopal Church from moving to take possession of the property after SCOTUS turns down DSC's request, or even now for that matter. The SCSC decision is not on stay. I am like you. I wish all this would end, but I am afraid it is going to go on for some time yet.
Ron, I have a question. If most of us at St. Michael's leave and only a small congregation remains, how can they keep up the place. Will not TEC sell off our building to Muslims or some other group?
I do not represent the Episcopal Church. I cannot speak for anyone but myself. All I know is the experiences of similar old parishes hit by schism, such as Christ Church of Savannah and Christ Church of Mobile. In those cases, the majority of the members pulled out after the courts returned the properties to the Episcopal Church and formed churches in exile. In both cases, a minority stayed and slowly but surely rebuilt the parishes and now are thriving. I would expect the same sort of thing here and at St. Philip's. However, I think it behooves the Episcopal Church bishop to work closely and generously with the remaining congregation as they go forward; and I expect he or she will.
Well, it looks like we are out of time. I thank you all for being here and I appreciate the invitation. As I leave, I would like to say I wish you well and may God be with you and comfort you as you make the big decisions before you. Peace.
