Firstly we must ask: What is the point of courts, laws, arbitration, and justice? (individual vs communal)
In America we generally approach questions around issues of law and justice from the point of personal vindication and the individual having their rights acknowledged and due compensation given. This is what we have inherited from Western European civilization.
Some other societies, including those with Anglican churches, approach questions around issues of law and justice from the point of view of a community's need for peace, reconciliation, and continued functionality. In the midst of this personal vindication and individual rights can be placed aside if such ensures overall harmony and well being within the community.
Both concepts have strength and weaknesses. Both at their best strive to recognize the basic rights of every individual and also maintain community harmony. The problem arises when the system is forced to decide in one way or another... our system will advocate for the needs of the one over the needs of the many while the alternative system will advocate for the needs of the many over the one.
It is important to recognize that both concepts of law and justice are expressed within systems and cultures that are not egalitarian and struggle with issues of racism, sexism, heterosexism, and cisism. Blaming the concept for the system and culture that it inhabits and the manifestations of kyriarchy therein is not useful.
When forced we will choose to take the needs of LGBTQ+ individuals over the maintenance of the Anglican Communion while they will choose to take the maintenance of the Anglican Communion over the needs of LGBTQ+ individuals. All sides would desire that both the needs of LGBTQ+ individuals and the maintenance of the Anglican Communion could occur but when forced to choose one over the other in the midst of a disagreement about what those needs are, our concepts of the purpose of law and justice bring us to different ends.
Secondly we need to recognize that alternative views on LGBTQ+ issues are not simply American views on LGBTQ+ issues from the 1950s.
The various movements for liberation of oppressed and minority groups in America, and Western Culture in general, builds upon preexisting concepts of individualism and liberalism that are not inherent to human society. We simply assume that everyone basically agrees with John Locke and his concept of each individual's right to life, liberty, and property. We do this to such an extent that many of us do not even know that the philosophy of John Locke is a key cornerstone of our society.
What is important to realize, as Christians, is that John Locke's Christology was Socinian. It rejects the eternal transcendent nature of Jesus Christ, Jesus as Logos, and thus is not within what is generally considered orthodoxy. In the end his overall philosophy requires the acceptance of certain concepts that are simply not reconcilable with orthodox doctrine. Which is not to say that the human rights advocacy made with such arguments are not reconcilable with the Gospel, but the mechanisms and rhetoric by which they have been brought about at points very much are.
Now this might seem very confusing. We generally do not engage our day to day thinking in this way. America is somewhat unique in how pervasive one particular philosophy permeates the majority of our culture to such a great extent. There was an expectation of conformity after WWII, through McCarthyism and other methods, that perpetuate a unique reality in our culture to this day and underpins our conversation and thinking across our society's spectrum of conservative and progressive. This pervasiveness exists, to a lesser extent, in the rest of western european civilizations but can become completely absent once outside of it.
Our arguments for the inclusion of LGBTQ+ individuals take for granted this shared acceptance of John Locke's thought. That means they actually make little or no sense outside of that philosophical frame work. The problem is that since we take this philosophical frame work for granted we do not recognize we are using it and we do not know how to clearly articulate its importance and value. Further because at many points our arguments actually require taking the gospel of John Locke over the Gospel of Jesus Christ from an outside Christian perspective they look not just worldly but heretical.
This is not to say that the full inclusion of the LGBTQ+ community and the recognition of their Proclamation of Christ Crucified is not inherently orthodox and part of the Gospel truth... but that we are yet to clearly articulate it in such a way that is understandable in a context other than our own. We presume the same context as our own well outside of its boundary and then, not realizing the breakdown of communication that is happening, respond to outside inquiry and detraction as if it is occurring within our context. The issue is not simply a disagreement within an overall philosophical worldview, what we generally experience in our conversations within the United States, but exceptionally different philosophical world views.
To put this in perspective consider various levels of math. Two American Episcopalians have a conversation and we can take a level of common knowledge and worldview for granted such that we are dealing with basic addition and subtraction in the midst of disagreement. Have that same conversation with an American who is a Southern Baptist and the lack of common ground has heightened the conversation to a complexity equal to Algebra. By the time we are seeking to have this conversation across the Anglican Communion we are talking about a level of systems of thought at play to bring us into the realm of Calculus if not Differential Equations.
If we do not take this heightened complexity into account, and learn to recognize it, make our arguments within it and yes allow our own thinking to be transformed by it... then we simply will not make any progress for LGBTQ+ Anglicans/Episcopalians.
Third, and finally, we have to recognize a complex interwoven cycle of violence within the Anglican Communion.
Each of us, and each of our communities, is made up of a complex set of traits and characteristics intersecting to create who and what we are. Some of these traits give us strengths, such as societal privilege, while others give us weaknesses, such as societal oppression. As a rule if we are hurt upon a line of weakness, a point of oppression, we have a tendency to retaliate along a line of strength, out of our privilege in society. For instance if we are hurt because of our stance on LGBTQ+ issues we could respond in retaliation with how we use, or do not use, our material wealth. This is pushing and pulling along the linked lines of privilege and oppression in our relationships. When we do this we are contributing to the complex and interwoven cycles of violence that permeate the Anglican Communion and we contribute to the perpetuation of violence.
We want to construe the recent events in a linear way outside of their context and history. We want to assume that in the context of the Anglican Communion every Primate comes to the table as inherently equal. Both of these presumptions are flawed and not based on a realistic appreciation of what is at play.
TEC/DFMS maintains an exceptionally powerful position within the Anglican Communion. This is in part because we are principally based in America and America's position in world politics. This is in part because of our material wealth and our capacity to fund, or not fund, ministries and human relief efforts across the Anglican Communion. This is in part because of the historical use of both of these realities to foster churches across the globe.
The reality is that our history is resplendent with not only the racism, sexism, heterosexism, and cisism we struggle to overcome within ourselves but also with problematic concepts of Manifest Destiny, which we officially held until our renunciation of said theology at our General Convention in 2009. The violence we have perpetuated, and continue to perpetuate, on account of American Exceptionalism and the manifold issues systematic oppression concurrent with that, cannot simply be ignored in the midst of this conversation. The conversation has to be made across all of these intersections of privilege and oppression. To do otherwise simply contributes to these cycles of violence and does a disservice to all.
The conclusion is that Christian Community is not easy and often chaotic.
We want to presume that Christians can live in community as explained in Acts chapter 2:
All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need. Day by day, as they spent much time together in the temple, they broke bread at home and ate their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having the goodwill of all the people. And day by day the Lord added to their number those who were being saved.
In context, however, we must recognize that this is a picture of the nascent community of Christians made entirely from Jewish converts... the next story is of gentile converts being promoted to deacons because the needs of widows and orphans, specifically gentile orphans and widows, was not being addressed in the midst of the above community. Shortly thereafter the chaos of arguments and broken community between the party promoting circumcision and the party allowing for the uncircumcised rends the church in twain for a generation.
Christian Community that is actively engaging the Proclamation of Christ Crucified from outside of itself will face chaos and brokenness. It will have to die to certain understandings of itself and be born again. There is not some point of stabilization until the coming of Christ again and the fulfillment of all things in the creation of a new heaven and new earth. For now our place is exactly where we are, in the chaos and brokenness of Christian community within this age. We must enter into this Spirit filled transformational space and not avoid it for our own camp, regardless of what camp that might be.
No comments:
Post a Comment