I am an Anglican Moderate....

Nick Knisely over at Entangled States asked me to write something on the idea of the “Anglican Middle.”  I'd been thinking about this for a while - so here's my stab:

---

I am an Anglican Moderate.

So what is an Anglican Moderate?  People from the “Edges” tend to use terms such as “Neither Hot nor Cold” or “Wish-Washy,” implying that a moderate is nothing more than a fence sitter, doing whatever is expedient at the time - taking the easy way.  I certainly don’t see myself that way and I certainly have a hard time understanding the conflict I find myself in as an easy way.

So what do I believe as an Anglican Moderate?

I believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. Etc. (See the Nicene Creed for the rest.)  I believe in the Creeds, I believe in the scriptures of the Old and New Testament as containing all things necessary to salvation.  I believe in the two great sacraments and the five sacramental rites.  I believe in the sign of the Historic Episcopate as locally adapted.  In short, I am orthodox in the traditional Anglican sense as suggested by the Lambeth Conference over a century ago.  I become angered when someone tries to add additional requirements and to hijack the term.

I believe in my own sinfulness – that I share in a state with all other human beings that is derived from our free will to choose to turn away from God.  I believe that I have sinned against God and my neighbor, that I am sinning, and that I will sin again.  I believe I must maintain a hermeneutic of humility since God is God and I am not.

I believe that our sins become enculturated in both society and in the institutional church.  I believe that I am a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, etc. because of the culture I was raised in.  I believe that I am blind to my privilege as a white, heterosexual male most of the time.  I am aware of the multitude of examples throughout Church History where the church has tacitly allowed, initiated, encouraged and sometimes institutionalized bigotry, prejudice and violence.

I believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and saves us from our sin.  I believe, along with Julian or Norwich, that our forgiven sins become scars of honor to our Lord.  I believe that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is more powerful that our most treasured prejudice and has the power to reconcile the entire world.  I believe that neither the Gospel nor the church it nourishes are fragile constructions – they exist by divine fiat and can be hampered but not ultimately foiled by human choices.  All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.

I believe in the holy catholic and apostolic church throughout the world.  I believe that she is both a human and a divine institution.  She has warts, but she is still the Bride of Christ.  After two thousand years, she survives still despite her prejudices and sometimes-horrific choices.  Jesus loves her still.

I believe in the Anglican Tradition – a tradition that holds worship to be our primary theology and other aspects to be secondary - a tradition formed more in the poetry of Herbert and Donne than in the theology of Aquinas or Luther.  I believe in a tradition that actively tries to encompass the greatest diversity possible within a single expansive tent - a tradition that honors reasoned discussion and consultation rather than heated rhetoric and political process.

I believe in the Episcopal Church, formed in the crucible of the American Revolution to become the most democratic province in worldwide Anglicanism.  I believe in our interdependence and our autonomy.  I believe we are called to proclaim both our vision of the church and to listen to the vision of others.  I believe we must repent of our American colonialist past and remember that this past colors all dialogue with post-colonial societies.

I believe I am terribly conflicted in this time in our church.  I believe the Internet’s hyperfast speed of communications which I both love and loathe, has a lot to do with the sense of urgency that people from both edges seem to feel about this issue.  I believe this sense of urgency is overstated in both cases and being used for political gain.  I believe that in 100 years, the current conflict will look as strange to Anglicans as the high church/low church fistfights on the floor of General Convention of the 1800s look to us. 

I believe the important question is not actually the end, but the means.  God can work with any end – that has been proven time and time again.  We are not in control of the ultimate end.  What we are in control of is the means.  When we disagree, do we honestly love one another, or do we demonize them?  When people look at us, do they know we are Christians by our love, or do they simply see us as another junior league fighting over who gets to host the tea party?

I believe it is important for everyone to stick to his or her convictions.  I believe it is important for the “left” to continue to advocate for their view of justice.  I believe it is important for the “right” to continue to hold up the historic witness of the church.  I believe the point is not to simply quell dissention.  I believe that the loss of either voice is to the detriment of the church.

I believe the “middle” is made up of people with views sympathetic to both “left” and “right” but that many of the beliefs that I have outline above hold us together in a way that is stronger than our political affiliation.  I believe the task of the Anglican Moderate is to insist to both the “left” and the “right” that we always remember that we are Christians and Anglicans first, and that the things that unite us (Our faith in the Holy Trinity voiced through Scripture, Creed, Sacraments and Episcopate) are greater than the things that divide us.   In the body of Christ, the torso isn’t an exciting part, but it keeps the arms and legs from going off in different directions. 

I believe it is our charism as Anglican Moderates to turn to our brothers and sisters on the edges, love them, listen to them, and make our way forward after careful deliberation and measured debate.  It is our duty to take the goods that each edge offers and hold them in tension for the benefit of the church catholic so that treasures both old and new can be brought out in God’s time, not ours.

I am an Anglican Moderate.  If that makes me a “Fence Sitter,” so be it.

David+

Comments

[Jane Ellen]

Amen, and amen. Thank you for this.

[Mark J.]

I've already linked to this from my blog, because what you say is very much where I live, theologically, too. I would like to share this with parishioners as well if I may do so, with credit, of course..?

[FrSimmons]

Yes, of course.

[Ches]

Excellent. If I were Anglican, I think we would reside in similar Moderate territory.

One other thing aside: if your extremist detractors decide to label you a "fence-sitter" or "wishy-washy" or some such, you can certainly take comfort in knowing that you are also something that they by their very nature are incapable of being--REASONABLE.

[An Observer]

As someone who also considers themselves a "middle grounder" in the best tradition of the Episcopal/Anglican faith, I can only say WOW.

Don't know that I consider myself a racist, sexist homophobe, but will accept frequently being blind to privilege.

Wish that all the folks on both ends of the spectrum could read and heed your message.

[Jesse Hasty]

You have staked out an interesting "moderate" position. You seem to have taken the classical Anglican position on the subject of homosexual behavior and labeled that far right and labeled the modern homosexualist position as far left. You then attempt to place yourself in the middle of this contradiction and claimed that position as moderate.

The true moderate position would sit somewhere between the far left and the far right on the subject. This position would pretty much coincide with the classic Anglican position on the subject, i.e that homosexual behavior is sinful but we won't go overboard punishing those who practice it.

You seem to reject the notion that there might be an absolute answer to this question discernible from scripture. In fact your characterization of scripture seems to leave it as merely a guide for salvation and not the source of any other truth. You seem to invest greater authority in the creeds than the Bible. This is certainly not a moderate position. The Anglican church was formed because of the propensity of the medieval Roman church to stray from scripture.

The far right position is that homosexuals should be executed. The far left position is that homosexuals were made that way by God and should be encouraged in their behavior, and those who won't encourage this behavior should be excommunicated from the church. Moderates, like myself, take the position that while homosexual behavior is wrong, we don't want to see them stoned or jailed, but likewise we don't want to see anyone forced to accept homosexual behavior as Godly.

It is sophistry to try to claim that your left wing position is somehow moderate.

I would be interested in how you square you position with the clearly anti-homosexualist warrant of Scripture.

[FrDavid]

Jesse,

To say that one particular belief is moderate and another is not is to ignore the fact that we are talking about a continuum in between left and right. Moderates come of all stripes. In trying to define precisely what a moderate is, you sound kind of like a D&D geek trying to divide the world into "Chaotic Neutral," "Lawful Neutral" and "True Neutral." Real life doesn't work like that.

I don't attempt to lay out what the "official moderate" position is - I simply say what I believe and choose to label myself as moderate. I consider Chris Seitz to be a moderate, yet he and I disagree over issues of Human Sexuality.

The most common denominator among those who call themselves moderate bloggers seems to be a willingness to believe that issues of human sexuality are not the be all end all of theology and that we do better working together than working apart.

My sympathy for the GLBT community comes from personal contact with GLBT Christians who are working within their subculture trying to pull members of their community out of truly destructive behaviors. If you do not have personal experience of this type, be careful to rush to Judgment, lest you blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. (Matt. 12:31)

The position that the Creeds are somehow in conflict with the Bible is a strange one for an Anglican. All of the reformers up until the Anabaptists retained the creeds, and that is not part of our tradition.

To quote the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, which is the only universally agreed central Anglican theological document beyond the creeds, I believe "The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as 'containing all things necessary to salvation,' and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith." I believe that clear answers can sometimes be found, but more often they require interpretation, e.g., "Thou shalt not kill." This is the power of binding and loosing that Jesus confers on the church in Matt. 18:18.

I'm not going to cover all the details of the relevant scripture, other than to point out that the Bible is much more clear about the evil of lending at interest than homosexuality. See
http://tinyurl.com/5qxflp

For in-depth exegesis of the usual culprits, see:
http://www.truthsetsfree.net/studypaper.html

David+

[Jesse Hasty]

David,

Your truth set free net reference is woefully incomplete. It is largely a proof text busting work, adequate as far as it goes, but it hasn't considered the full extent of material available in Scripture on the subject of homosexual behavior. They seen to have reached their conclusion before they started the study. You should read Robert Gagnon's exhaustive work on the subject. While I did not do a peer review study of his treatise, it has stood up to such review. If you read him with an open mind he might change you conclusion concerning the clear warrant of Scripture forbidding homosexual practice, I know he changed my mind.

The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral clearly places Scripture above itself as to authority. I agree. the creeds do not contradict scripture unless one assumes they are somehow a complete statement of the faith.

Your anecdotal references to homosexuals you have known and your warning not to offend the Holy Spirit are well met. However, since I am in the music business (among other businesses) I am well exposed to homosexuals both as friends and acquaintances. You are right when you say that many, if not most, are engaged in a personally destructive lifestyle. Of the stable relationships I have seen, most consist of a young man coupled with an older man, one or both of whom have AIDS. Often these same sex coupling are not monogamous. From what I have seen none of these relationships is lifelong. I would not knowingly grieve the Holy Ghost, but if you say that I foment such grief by simply arguing that homosexual behavior is wrong you are in error. I do not go out of my way to condemn such things, but I do tactfully say to my friends and acquaintances that homosexual behavior is wrong, just as I say taking drugs is wrong, or cheating on your wife is wrong, or speeding is wrong, or the many wrongs of this world are wrong, in some of which wrongs I myself indulge from time to time,

I certainly agree that homosexual behavior is not the be all and end all of Christianity. I think the pro homosexual group can be more accurately condemned for this. I would not be writing this except as a response to the pro-homosexual noise I hear. I think it is simply a pro-homosexual tactic to say that one is not moderate if one says that the Bible condemns homosexual behavior. That position is purely hogwash. If you can support the pro-homosexual position then support it, if you can't then admit you're wrong. The immoderate position would be to attempt to have those who disagree with you censored or condemned for their position. I have no desire to condemn or censor you. I'm simply saying you are in error.

You are attempting to say that your position is moderate. All I have said is that your position is not moderate in light of the current position of the vast majority of Christians and Anglicans. Moderate means somewhere in the middle. You are not somewhere in the middle of a group if 10% of the group agrees with you and 90% say you are wrong.

I should stop now since I am losing my intellectual detachment.

Youre brother in Christ,

Jesse Hasty

[FrDavid]

Jesse,

What would be the texts he does not cover? These are the only ones that I've ever heard conservatives use as proof-texts.

The Scriptures are not above the creeds - they don't have to be because there is NO CONFLICT as I see them between the scripture and the creeds. They are both revelation of the Holy Spirit. You seem to imply there is some. To argue that there needs to be a hierarchy implies conflict.

To quote the quadrilateral, "The Apostles' Creed, as the Baptismal Symbol; and the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith." While I agree that the creeds to not contain all things desirable to Christian faith, the creeds contain all things necessary. The Anglican church has historically been very clear on this. If you wish to believe otherwise, you are welcome to do so, but realize it puts you outside the Anglican mainstream.

From your anecdotal experience with homosexuals, I would venture to say that you are not dealing with homosexual Christians or have experience with a long-lasting homosexual Christian community. That is the community you need experience with before you can accurately begin to judge. Otherwise, it's like saying, "I know heterosexuals in the music industry, and they're mainly interested in promiscuous sex and drugs. Over 50% of their so-called "Committed" relationships are really not life-long and are actually just serial monogamy. Therefore, no heterosexual lifestyle is compatible with scripture."

As I will state YET AGAIN, I have never said that a person who does not support a pro-homosexual agenda cannot be a moderate. There are many moderates who tend towards conservative views on the subject. I have instead stated my position and identified myself as a moderate. I am not interested in judging whether you are a moderate or not. I simply maintain that you have no such right to judge me either.

Despite your rhetoric, you are trying to tie the term "moderate" exclusively to an exact middle position on one issue. I don't fit into either camp, and my essay barely touches human sexuality. Please re-read it. IMHO, being a Moderate Anglican entails a lot more than an exact position between two extremes on one issue. It entails moderate behavior as well as moderate beliefs.

Therefore, taking that into consideration, and also the fact that you are losing your "intellectual detachment," you may need to ask yourself if you are as moderate as you think. If you are moderate, where does all this angst come from? If you are truly moderate, why this need to define yourself as such and claim that others are not?

David+