ein sehr lesenswerter Beitrag des Bischofs i.R. von New Hampshire
(Bischof Douglas Theuner ist der Amtsvorgänger von Bischof Gene Robinson, dessen
Wahl ein Anlass für die ganze Streiterei war)
The “Other” Issue … Or is it the Primary Issue?
by the Rt. Rev. Douglas Theuner, retired bishop of New Hampshire
[An earlier version of this essay has appeared on some blogs and websites. We have
Bishop Theuner's permission to post this revised version here.]
http://episcopalmajority.blogspot.com/2 ... euner.html
While the world is watching the issue of full inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual
and transgendered people in the life of the church being played out in the back
rooms of the Anglican Communion, another, and for the Anglican Communion perhaps
more important, issue is rising to the fore. As the world to which the church is
called to bear witness moves slowly but inexorably toward greater understanding
and acceptance of a variety of sexual orientations and behaviors, the most
significant long-term issue for the Anglican Communion may actually be that of
authoritarianism; an element of Christian communal life long distrusted in
Anglicanism. In today’s world the death throes of authoritarianism and its
partner, patriarchy, seems to have focused for the churches in the area of full
acceptance of women and men, regardless of their sexual preference or orientation,
as well as their race, ethnicity, age or abilities and even creed.
The Anglican Communion was born in the rejection of monarchical and aristocratic
authority in the American Revolution – a rejection fostered not by the church but
by the political milieu in which it existed. A large portion of the Church of
England’s devotees in the American colonies were Loyalists, opposed to the
overthrow of the British monarchy as the legitimate power in this country.
Deprived of a functioning episcopate for two centuries, the English-speaking
church in America was faced with effective separation from the Church of England
by virtue of the fact that the hierarchy of that body refused to pass on to the
church in the newly independent colonies its historic episcopate. After all, those
colonies had just successfully rebelled against the King of England, the head and
Governor of the Church of England. No matter that perhaps a majority of the Church
of England clergy had remained Loyalist during the Revolution, including Samuel
Seabury, a Revolutionary War chaplain to the British Army, who was refused
Episcopal ordination by the English hierarchy. The English bishops could not
accede to the American request, thereby necessitating Seabury to seek ordination
from the non-juring bishops of Scotland – a move that was successful more for
political reasons than specifically religious ones. Once the American Church had
received its own episcopate from Scotland with possible further implementation
from the established Church of Denmark and the Moravians, the English had no other
option than to have parliament waive the political aspects of the ordinal (i.e.,
subjection to the crown as head and Governor of the Church) and provide further
ordination for American bishops by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Thus was what came to be known as “the Anglican Communion,” founded essentially as
a result of American initiative. The Church of England decided that it would be
more expedient to retain a relationship with the now independent Americans that to
let them go off on their own; a lesson from history which today’s Archbishop of
Canterbury and the other provinces of the Communion might well find instructive
today. The sun set of the British Empire in the United States a long time ago, yet
the Episcopal Church there has retained the “bonds of affection” for its mother
institution.
Now after some two centuries of collaboration, the Anglican Communion, a
world-wide group of autonomous provinces in communion with the Archbishop of
Canterbury, we begin to hear talk of new and hitherto unimagined entities, the
so-called “Instruments of Unity”; the Lambeth Conference, Anglican Consultative
Conference and, most recently, the “Primates’ Meeting,”, in addition to the
Archbishop of Canterbury. From whence did these entities spring and why are they
necessary? The answer to the first question is that they initially sprang, as
“Instruments of Unity,” from a reaction to the Episcopal Church’s decision to
ordain women to the priesthood and, ultimately, the episcopate – the clearest
threat yet to the patriarchy with which the communion had so comfortably rested
for centuries. And, as those who were opposed to the ordination of women from the
beginning so clearly and correctly pointed out, that factor opened the door for
questioning the whole basis of sexuality as the determinative factor in acceptance
and leadership.
The answer to the second question follows easily. The first and most obvious
reaction to any institutional threat is authoritarianism. The patriarchs have
“circled the wagons” in response to this threat to their authority.
But authoritarianism has always rested uneasy within Anglicanism. Historically,
the Archbishop of Canterbury has been respected among those who identify
themselves as Anglicans as “the first among equals." He has had no control over
the actions of any autonomous province, much less does any newly created identity
like the “Primates’ Meeting”; a new comintern with the obvious purpose of control
and through the enforcement of conformity. It has cut its eye teeth in Dromantine
and Dar es Salaam, by fashioning itself effectively as an “Instrument of
Disunity”. If there is indeed anything “new under the sun,” it is certainly not
homosexuality within the church’s life but it may well be the so-called
“Instruments of Unity”! Not even honesty about its life is wholly new in the
Church. It is this fundamental change in the exercise of authority – and
patriarchy – that is the long-term issue facing the Anglican Communion.
But the immediate concern is presented as the full acceptance of gay, lesbian,
bisexual and transgendered people in the life of the church. Because the lives of
individual people must always be of foremost concern to the Church, as it was to
our Lord Jesus Christ, these people cannot simply be “put on hold” until the
communion works out its ecclesial problems, as important as they are. But, at the
same time, until the church deals with the issues of patriarchy and
authoritarianism it will never be a body in which" . . . there may be no
dissension within the body, but the members may have the same care for one
another.”…”if one member suffers, all suffer together with it; if one member is
honored, all rejoice together with it.” (1 Corinthians 12:25-26)
I have always been one to caution against the facile use of the term “homophobic,”
as it seems there are many reasons why some people refuse to affirm gay, lesbian,
bi-sexual and transgendered people other than “fear of homosexuals.” But
homophobia is very real in many cases as, I believe, in the current actions of the
Archbishop of Nigeria in championing the criminalization of homosexuals in his own
country. I simply cannot understand how some American Episcopalians willingly
place themselves under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of a person who espouses
such egregious evil. For years the American Episcopal Church and the Lambeth
Conference have passed resolutions decrying discrimination of the basis of sexual
orientation, as have other provinces of the Anglican Communion. Why are the
primates not calling Archbishop Akinola to task for his blatant and hurtful denial
of the dignity of every human being?
I suspect that if the “Instruments of Unity” were to call the Archbishop of
Nigeria to account for his behavior, it would be left, once again, to the American
Episcopal Church to initiate such action. But, the American Episcopal Church does
not see the Anglican Communion as an “Instrument of Conformity." We must bear
witness to that which we hold but it is not ours to use authoritarianism to try to
force others to bend to our understanding. Archbishop Akinola does not understand
this, but we do. That is who we are and where we stand. We are not just a church
of gay, lesbian and transgendered people; we are a church committed to “respect
the dignity of every human being,” according to the primary covenant which ought
to govern our lives, that of our baptism into the Body of Christ from which no one
can exclude us except our Lord Himself.
Fasting from decision making during this period of Lent is an excellent
penitential discipline. Then, I think the House of Bishops meeting in September
ought to pass a “mind of the house” resolution asking the Presiding Bishop to
convey to the Primates of the Anglican Communion that it has received their advice
and counsel from Dar es Salaam and has given it prayerful and thoughtful attention
and that it looks forward to being with them at Lambeth in 2008 for further
discussion of these matters and others relating to the mission of the Church
today. Nothing further should be required or is likely to be either helpful or
honest.
Revised 3/4/07 -- Douglas E. Theuner
Anmelden
Registrieren
FAQ
. Die Frage ist nur wie wir den Alt-Katholischen das gute Singen des Evensongs beibringen sollen 
