Dio TX “Unity in Mission” - Big Hearted but Built On Sand
Back in April, Bishop Doyle of the Diocese of Texas released “Unity in Mission,” a 124-page apology and vision for local (congregational) choice on gay marriage.
Let me confess from the get go that I am by disposition, breeding and whatever else a typical male Episcopal priest of the baby boom generation, totally allured by efforts to keep everybody together and happy. My basic orientation is to grab onto and advocate an approach like the one undertaken by Bishop Doyle and his diocesan unity team. Before the fire breathing readers of this blog turn away in disgust, let me at least note that Bp. Doyle not only allows but provides a template (p.112) for orthodox congregations to differentiate from TEC innovations, as recommended in several recent SF posts by more fire breathing bloggers.
But as I confess my orientation, I seek to repent of it. Making unity the top goal of the church too often rests on soft ideas - “sand” - rather than the hard foundation of the Word of God. I have to ask if it is wise for orthodox leaders to sign onto a document like “Unity in Mission,” which a good number do on page 120 of the document.
My provisional answer is, “No, not good to sign on.” “Unity in Mission” is big hearted and well intentioned, but sitting on an unstable foundation that can’t support an abiding witness to the Gospel or even mere institutional survival. Here are three samples of the sand:
1. Historic diocesan shift from model to muddle.
Part of Bishop Doyle’s foundation is the historic role of his predecessors in guiding the diocese through constant conflicts.
But an attentive read of the history reveals a decisive shift. The first list of bishops dealt with guiding the diocese to maintain unity and Christian identity in the face of the world’s upheavals - Texas independence, the Civil War, WWI, the Great Depression, WWII and the Civil Rights Movement. The diocese was a model of Christianity’s power to unite around ultimate things in the midst of urgent but passing things.
Then, starting with Bishop Richardson in the 70s, the diocese started to fight over internal church matters about which the outside world cared little - Prayer Book revision, women’s ordination and LGBT religious ceremonies. Bishop Doyle sees this as the same kind of leadership exercised by the preceeding bishops. But there is a Texas-sized difference between guiding Christians to unity in the face of vexing temporal conflict, and trying to get them to stay together when they are fighting one another over irreconcilable visions of the church itself. It is the management of a muddle. And that’s exactly what “Unity in Mission” finally endorses.
2. Illusory strengths vs. very real weaknesses.
Bishop Doyle does not shy away from the sad state of TEC. He admits to decades of fighting and decline (p. 12) and documents the research showing how same sex marriage has been a catalyst for that. He is candid about how “the culture wars…have infected the church” (p. 35) and that our debates have degenerated into “attempting the destruction of one another” (p. 34). Pages 84 through 102 describe all of the “polarization” in gory detail. He sees and presents the denominational disaster rather than indulge in “all is well” propaganda.
Unfortunately, his local option solution points to mirages. It is hard to see how he convinced himself that these fantasies could stand up to all too real problems:
“Biblical Formation?”
On page 36, he says that Anglicans, and Episcopalians specifically, “are formed by the reading and study of Scripture,” and that this is a source of unity in the face of secondary distractions like fights over sexual morality. As much as any of us might want to believe that, any honest look at the Episcopal Church reveals a massive and seemingly intentional ignorance and rejection of Scripture. Highly placed bishops parrot slogans like “You don’t need the Bible, just the Prayer Book” or “The Church wrote the Bible so the Church can change it.” Parishioners tell clergy “We don’t really believe all the old stuff, now, do we” (yes, a statement, not a question). Just go to your diocesan convention to hear clergy at microphones saying things like, “Jesus said, ‘First go and talk about the problem, but if they don’t listen, then sue them’” (heard that one a couple of years ago here in South Dakota). Then there was this year’s General Convention, in which the Deputies spent days reeling from the discovery that most major New Testament versions really do mention homosexuality in a disapproving way. Think of all the times your friends in other denominations have told jokes about Episcopalians not knowing/caring about the Bible - there’s a reason for the perception.
“Unity in Mission” is itself a piece of evidence. At page 57, Bishop Doyle opens a discussion of “Common Themes and Essential Foundations in Traditional Marriage.” He doesn’t engage the Bible until page 65, and there it’s just to say, “Hey, those Old Testament people had polygamy!” He quotes lots of people talking about the Bible, but does little exploration or exposition of the Bible itself. When he finally mentions Matthew 19:9, he ignores Jesus’ affirmation of male and female creation and union, instead invoking a broad theme of “covenant breaking.”
He starts out speaking of the Bible as “authoritative” but shifts to terms like “guidepost” and “showing us possibilities.”
And the practical outcome is that issues - primary, secondary, tertiary, whatev - can’t be addressed because the church has neither the shared insight from or commitment to Scripture that can provide a foundation for unity. “Sex” might be a “secondary” issue, but the primary conflict has always been over the authority and interpretation of the Bible. So “Unity in Mission” posits the locus of conflict as an illusory source of unity. Why sign onto an approach doomed to frustration and failure?
“Common Prayer?”
Then there’s the Book of Common Prayer. At page 48, Bishop Doyle launches into the familiar assertion of the BCP as “Our Episcopal Witness to Unity.” But he sets up a smorgasbord on which some parts of the Prayer Book are essential and others not so much. You can guess where marriage winds up. His argument seems to be that marriage is important but not worth all the fuss. Yet he argues in Chapter 5 that the Diocese of Texas should use local option to become “an icon of the nuptial mystery.”
Thus the vision of “Unity in Mission” rests in part on the “formularies” of the church. But the marriage language in the BCP is a flash point for all of the current disunity. That which Bishop Doyle holds up as an “icon” with one hand he tosses aside as secondary content with the other. Again, why sign onto an approach that is so confused and bound to frustrate those who undertake it?
3. Why sign up for what one already has?
Bishop Doyle lays out some concrete measures that both traditional Christian and LGBT&c congregations can take to protect their turf. I won’t presume to speak for the LGBT&c congregations, but when it comes to traditional Christians, why bother reading and signing onto 124 pages of diocesan stuff when the denominational legislative body already declared,
Resolved, That this convention honor the theological diversity of this church in
regard to matters of human sexuality, and that no bishop, priest, deacon or lay
person should be coerced or penalized in any manner, nor suffer any canonical
disabilities, as a result of his or her conscientious objection to or support for the
77th General Convention’s action with regard to the Blessing of Same-Sex
Relationships…(Resolution A049)
There is no need to sign a diocesan document when one can simply assert the stated position of the ostensibly “hierarchichal” denomination. As I recently told a fellow priest who was being hassled by some gay marriage zealot in his congregation, “Just tell him that his position is outside of the doctrine and discipline of The Episcopal Church.”
Reaching the sandy bottom
The bottom line - the epitaph for “Unity in Mission” - is that there is no unity. Not in TEC, not in Texas. If one parish’s mission is to proclaim the Bible’s Good News and another’s is to overthrow it as inconvenient to feelings, they are not unified in any meaningful way, and signing a well meaning declaration of unity doesn’t change that. Nor does it change the reality that any faction can declare anything at any time and overthrow whatever facades of unity are set up:
“...we cannot use dogma, which we believe is essential, to bludgeon our fellow Christians or those who seek a (sic) living Christ… we cannot condemn… myriad local forms…” (“Unity in Mission” pages 23, 26).
Share this story:
Recent Related Posts
- California Court of Appeal Denies ECUSA’s Writ Petition
- Sweet lyrics and you can goose step to it!
- No News from Texas; Sad News from Virginia
- Another California Judge Denies Summary Relief to ECUSA (Updated)
- You win or you die
- Shiny Red Balls & Red Herrings in Upper South Carolina: Three Notes on Bishop Waldo’s Clergy Email
- Waldo To Approve Same Sex Blessings: Truth & Consequences in the Diocese of Upper South Carolina
Comments
Facebook comments are closed.
18 comments
I can hear it now, “That thar ‘Piscopal church says same sex unions are a blessing form God, that’un ever there says like h*^! they ain’t!”
For Bishop Doyle, and for my bishop who likes Doyle’s approach, unity in disunity must be the new “living into the tension.”
[1] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 8-24-2012 at 01:35 PM · [top]
Below is what God said on the topic of homosexuality. Any questions?
1. Gen 1 & 2 - we see from the beginning that the complementarily of the sexes reflects God’s inner unity and His creative power and Fatherhood. God created man and woman to become one flesh which is consummated in the act of marital love.
2. Gen 2:18 – throughout the creation story, God says “it is good” seven times. But when God pointed out that man was alone, God says “it is not good.” God then created woman. Man and woman therefore belong together by God’s design, according to His natural and supernatural law.
2. Gen 2:24 – God created man and woman so that they could share communion. This communion is consummated in the marital act (which must be between a man and a woman). This communion is also a reflection of the eternal communion of the Blessed Trinity, who created man in His own image and likeness.
3. Gen 19:24-28 - the Lord rained fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah as punishment for the sin of homosexuality. Homosexuality perverts God’s covenant with humanity.
4. Gen 13:13; 18:20 - while homosexuals argue that the sin in Genesis 19 was the sin of in-hospitality, these verses show that the Sodomites were evil and wicked people before the alleged sin of in-hospitality. That is because the Sodomites were guilty of homosexuality, not in-hospitality. In fact, 2 Pet 2:6:8 says that Lot witnessed their evil sexual practices “day after day.” The Sodomites’ sin was daily and pervasive.
5. Gen 19:5 - this confirms that the Sodomites’ sin is homosexuality. Here, the Sodomites mistaken the two angels for men and, surrounding Lot’s house, ask to have sex with them. When the yell to Lot “bring them out that we may know them,” the Hebrew for “to know” (yadah) in Gen 19:5 means having sexual relations. See, for example, Gen 4:25 where “yadah” refers to sexual relations between Adam and Eve.
6. 2 Pet 2:6-10 - Peter also proves that the Sodomites were guilty of homosexuality. He says God condemned them for “licentiousness” and “lust of defiling passion,” which is where we get the title “Sodomite” for a homosexual. The Greek “aselgeia anastrophes” for lustful behavior is also found in Rom 13:13; Gal 5:19; Eph 4:19 and Jude 4.
7. Jude 7 - Jude also confirms the Sodomites’ sin is homosexuality. Jude says they “indulged in unnatural lust” (Greek, ekporneusasai) and went after “strange flesh” (Greek, sarkos heteras) in reference to their homosexual sins.
8. 2 Peter 2:4-6 - Peter also reveals that the Sodomites are suffering in hell for their sins by comparing the Sodomites’ punishment to the eternal punishment of the evil angels. Just as God did not spare the angels when they sinned but cast them into hell, so He did the same with the Sodomites when He “condemned them to extinction and made them an example to those who were to be ungodly.”
9. Jude 5-7 - Like Peter, Jude confirms that the Sodomites are in hell by saying that they had the same fate as the evil angels. Jude says just as the evil angels were condemned to hell, the Sodomites “likewise” (Greek, hos) acted immorally and are undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. “Undergoing” (Greek, upechousai) is a present participle which means their suffering is ongoing. See also the clear polarity between those who are saved (v.5) and those who are condemned (vv. 6-7,11,13).
10. Lev 18:22, 29 - God commands a man never to lie with a male as with a female, or he will be cut off. This refers to supernatural death which is eternal separation from God. While the Old Covenant laws have been abrogated by the New Covenant, the Church has adopted their moral principles. Thus, the moral prohibitions on homosexuality still apply in the New Covenant, as Peter, Paul and Jude demonstrate.
11. Lev 20:13 - God says that if a man lies with another man, he shall be put to death. From the very beginning, God has revealed that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered, unhealthy, and mortally sinful.
12. Deut 22:5 - cross-dressing is also considered an abomination before God.
13. Matt 19:6 - after referring to God’s divine plan for man and woman, Jesus says a husband and wife become one flesh, which ultimately reflects God’s union with humanity through the Church. Homosexual unions pervert this divine truth of God’s love for and union with the human race.
14. Rom 1:26 - also, when a woman lies with another women (lesbianism), this is unnatural and a perversion. God wants His children to be pure and holy as He is holy. Paul condemns all homosexual acts, whether committed by men or women.
15. Rom 1:27 – Paul calls the practice of homosexuality shameless, unnatural and a perversity. It is contrary to the natural law, as it eviscerates the life-giving aspect of human sexuality and reduces it to a selfish, pleasure-seeking end.
16. 1 Cor 6:9 - Paul teaches that sodomites will not enter into the kingdom of God. The Greek word for “sodomite” (arsenokoites) literally means “male copulation” or “male sexual relations.” The Greek “arsen” means “male” and “koites” means “coitus” or “sexual relations.” Paul uses the same word in 1 Tim 1:10.
17. 1 Tim. 1:10 - sodomites are called ungodly and sinners, unholy and profane, lawless and disobedient. They are called by God to chastity. It is important to note that homosexual attractions and inclinations, while disordered and dangerous, are not by themselves an act of sin. It is the acting out on homosexual attraction that is sinful. Those with homosexual desires can still live a life worthy of Christ by remaining chaste and pure as they abstain from acting out on their desires.
[2] Posted by B. Hunter on 8-24-2012 at 02:58 PM · [top]
#2 B. Hunter: Given your clear assumption of the authority, coherence and reliability of Scripture, could you sign a “live and let live” position paper with those who judge the Bible to be a loose collection of unreliable symbolism? Could you find common work and purpose with them?
I just don’t see how we get “common mission” when when our churches are that far apart on something this important.
Thanks for the summary, and all that it reveals.
[3] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 8-24-2012 at 03:16 PM · [top]
Ephesians talks a lot about unity. 6 short chapters. Perhaps Bp. Doyle might study it someday.
Especially this Sunday’s excerpt.
Though, maybe he doesn’t believe in all that spiritual defence stuff.
[4] Posted by Ralph on 8-24-2012 at 03:35 PM · [top]
I’m glad I’m in the Diocese of Ft. Worth. The one lead by a rightous bishop, Bishop Iker. Thank you, Lord, that when you led me home you placed me in a part of your vineyard where truth is still taught.
[5] Posted by michaelc on 8-24-2012 at 03:59 PM · [top]
From the Catechism in the BCP:
[6] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 8-24-2012 at 09:12 PM · [top]
For some reason I keep humming the old Sunday School tune, “The Wise Man Built His House upon the Rock”
[7] Posted by The Little Myrmidon on 8-25-2012 at 09:06 AM · [top]
No, no orthodox have signed the document. To do so is to deny orthodox Christianity. The orthodox are called to boldly proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to DRIVE OUT false doctrine. If you sign a document promising specifically to NOT drive out false doctrine, and swear fealty to a bishop promoting heresy, you are not orthodox. Your job is to stand against the forces that are allowing heresy in the diocese.
On point #3, keep in mind that the “guarantees” to the orthodox in A049 are only good until July 2015- after that, all bets are off. The revisionists already have said that A049 is inadequate, and will continue pushing for a new BCP- and once it is in there, any promise by a bishop or diocesan convention will be null and void. As proven in a dozen dioceses already, the “guarantees” of A049 can be violated at will by the diocesan bishops (it is only a resolution after all), but unless the guarantees of the Dio of Texas are perpetual and accompanied by a quit claim deed on parish property, and a release of the bishop’s approval over future rectors, it is hard to see that the diocesan guarantee is worth the paper (or electrons) it is written on.
[8] Posted by tjmcmahon on 8-25-2012 at 10:17 AM · [top]
Does that last make me a “fire breathing reader?”
[9] Posted by tjmcmahon on 8-25-2012 at 10:18 AM · [top]
#9 I sure hope so! And fire breathers are highly valued when you all get that “Lake effect snow.”
[10] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 8-25-2012 at 10:25 AM · [top]
“I just don’t see how we get “common mission” when when our churches are that far apart on something this important.”
Exactly. I kind of liken what TEC is doing to date rape. You can say no all you want but in the end unless you get out of the car and find another ride home it’s not going to end well.
[11] Posted by iamaworm on 8-25-2012 at 07:58 PM · [top]
“The Communion is clear about its teaching on sexuality. The Lambeth Conference has reaffirmed this historic teaching. The General Convention of The Episcopal Church has not changed its teaching on sexuality. The Diocese of Texas is clear in its canons regarding the definition of marriage. Therefore, I will not ordain non-celibate individuals, whether heterosexual, gay, or lesbian. I will not give permission to celebrate unions in the Diocese of Texas. As bishop, I will hold true to the canons of the Diocese of Texas.” Canon Andy Doyle, 2008, Candidate for Bishop, the Episcopal Diocese of Texas
Andy figured out that in 2015, a viable candidate for Presiding Bishop of the Epis. Org. could not be the bishop of a diocese of 19th century neanderthals, so, he has now, “changed his tune.” So, now we are a “with-it” diocese. May I offer you a cup of grape Kool-aide and a Saltine…down here we call it “communion.”
[12] Posted by ProbablePastoralProvisioner on 8-26-2012 at 04:50 PM · [top]
This was what finally got us to leave the Episcopal Church. Me and my family are now worshiping at a LCMS church. We plan on becoming members once we complete their required classes.
[13] Posted by JustOneVoice on 8-27-2012 at 12:56 PM · [top]
JustOneVoice, if you wrote a departure letter, consider sending it along - we might share it here on SF with your permission.
[14] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 8-28-2012 at 10:16 AM · [top]
In fact, we would gratefully receive any Diocese of Texas departure letters in our Private Message box, so that we can review them and consider if they are appropriate for posting. We will also eliminate the names of the departees if they so choose.
[15] Posted by Sarah on 8-28-2012 at 12:15 PM · [top]
Timothy, Sarah
I considered writing a departure letter. Over the past few year I have taken note of what others have written. But now that the time has come, I see no point. I’ve spoke to those in the congregation that would care, and they know why I left. The priest and I had a long conversations and I don’t think Bishop Doyle would care. I feel like I would be preaching to the choir or it would fall on deaf ears.
[16] Posted by JustOneVoice on 8-29-2012 at 10:42 AM · [top]
JustOneVoice, I wrote a letter to be sure that the rector (and a close friend on the vestry) knew that my absence was for a reason and not a function of some other life event (getting married, change of jobs, etc). I wasn’t trying to convince anyone of anything. I believe that you should make it clear why you are no longer attending, rather than just fading away. It will fall on deaf ears, but it at least they’ll know that it was a consequence and not a coincidence.
[17] Posted by Stephen on 8-29-2012 at 12:11 PM · [top]
The only thing common about this drivel is that it is as promiscuous with the zeitgeist and therefore as common as a barber’s chair. Theologically light in the loafers.
[18] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 8-30-2012 at 11:38 PM · [top]
Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.
Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.