Presiding Over Crisis--and Maybe Schism

Continued from page 3

Yes. And I see nothing lacking in what is being put forward, other than the notion that one visits at the invitation of the diocesan bishop. That is the most basic courtesy as well as ancient canon law.

If you read some of what is being put forward, the agenda of some-not all, but some-is that in time they can become the "alternative" Episcopal Church.

How does this crisis compare to the split over women's ordination in 1976?

Some of the dynamics are the same, but the issues are quite different. What is common is that in the case of the ordination of women, a number of Episcopalians had a vision of the Episcopal Church as faithful to the Catholic church. One of the elements of being faithful to the Catholic tradition was male priests and bishops. And so when that changed, what happened for those people was the church as they understood it existed no longer. So then people grieve deeply.

For a number of people, sexuality raises large concerns because they see monogamous heterosexuality in lifelong marriage as the only way that sexual expression is allowed in the church. Though I will say, parenthetically, that there has not been the same upset over permission for divorced people to be remarried. And in that case, Jesus is quite clear about [his opposition to] divorce. Isn't it interesting that this doesn't cause the same kind of upset? I think it's because the majority of people who are sexually active are heterosexual and a great many of them are married, and so they understand how a marriage might collapse. Homosexuality is foreign to them and it seems much more threatening to the stability, purity and authenticity of the church.

Will the church schism?

Undoubtedly some people will leave the Episcopal Church.

How big a group will it be?

It's impossible for me to predict. I will say some clergy have reported growth in their congregations, so it's not totally a one-sided thing. A great many people have said to me, "This is very complicated, but it's truthful." They mean that here is something we all know about [i.e. homosexuality], and the church has said, "This is a reality, and we can see the face of God in the face of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters."

And I'll tell you: I've talked to people in other denominations who've said to me, "We know this is a reality in our church, too but the important thing is that we never change the official position of the church." And I've said to them, "Secrecy is the devil's playground. So many instances of sexual aberrancy have occurred in the context of secrecy."

You mean the Catholic church's pedophilia scandal?

Yes. So I think to live something openly and honestly is the right place--the right place--to be. We can't deny that gay and lesbian Christians are our brothers and sisters in Christ. That's the heart of it.

You're probably read about the charge that the protesting church members are being funded by conservative foundations. What do you make of that charge?

Yes, it's a political movement, not just a [church] movement. And I think the important thing is to be upfront about it. I think the money has been there for a long time-but I think the dynamic has just become clearer. Over time, certain things are simply ready to become public. The more energy that goes into these causes, the more is known about what is actually at their heart in terms of financial support.

Will you fight back with money?

I don't think it's a matter of fighting back, except by staying the course, and again and again saying we are a community of divergent points of view, grounded in common prayer.

I have a spiritual director, and he works with me on what it means to be a faithful disciple. I'm as imperfect as any other human and I can be enraged, so it's very important that I look at the question of What is God inviting me to do in this situation? In spite of what's coming at me, I am called to be one who acts out of compassion and non-reactivity.

You sound like a Buddhist.

Well, there are spiritual practices that are common to a number of traditions.

What is your reaction to the letter leaked this week that details the secret plans of the American Anglican Council?

First of all I say, no matter what, these are limbs of the Body of Christ. And, second, I say a lot of the reaction comes from deep pain. I mean, I have visions of the church, and I can imagine myself feeling disconsolate if something were changed that destroyed my vision of what I feel the church is.

An example?

One of the most grounding elements in the Anglican tradition is worship. If for some reason the Book of Common Prayer were revised out of recognition I would feel enraged. The other thing I would say is that it's so easy to turn some aspect of the church into an idol. People say to me, "I love the church" and I think, "I'm not sure I love the church; I certainly love Christ, who is the head of the church, but isn't it a bit dangerous if one identifies oneself or one's security with some aspect that could change?"

One of the rules I've learned is dispossession. I can cling to nothing--and what has been the incredible gift is that the more is taken away from me in terms of security, ego gratification and all the rest of it - the more I am reduced to deep trust in Christ. People say, "You look well. How can this be?" They assume I'm in agony night and day. And I'm not. The other thing that's helpful is the gym. So it's exercise and prayer.