The Presiding Bishop's Letter to the Primates

Introduction

Not too long ago, David Virtue, the author of the listserv "Virtuosity," asked me to write an analysis of a letter the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church wrote the Primates of the Anglican Communion. The letter was in response to a recent action of the Episcopal Church to approve Gene Robinson, a practicing homosexual, as a bishop in that Church. Among many others, the Presiding Bishop voted to elevate Gene Robinson to the Episcopate. This not only produced a reaction within the Episcopal Church, but disturbed Anglicans throughout the world. The Presiding Bishop wrote the Primates to avert any action on their part to break communion with the Episcopal Church.

Anglicanism took its characteristic form at the time of the Reformation, and as such, it holds to the primacy of Scripture and the great theological tradition of the early centuries of Christian faith. As I have shown in other essays, the Presiding Bishop shows no interest in truthfully bringing these authoritative sources to bear upon the conflicts that now divide the Episcopal Church. In fact, the Presiding Bishop has adopted a mystical, modalistic perspective that undermines the Christian faith. The letter to the Primates is consistent with that perspective. It is one more indication that the Episcopal Church has lost its biblical and theological moorings. My essay follows.

An Analysis of the Presiding Bishop's Letter to the Primates

In his letter to the primates the Presiding Bishop speaks as one spiritual man to another. As he does so, he creates a resonance, a personal resonance. By resonating personally with his fellow primates, he defines their relationship personally rather than theologically or biblically. Once the personal resonance has been established, and Scripture and theology marginalized, he asks the primates to accede to his wishes -- that they not set up an "alternative structure to the Episcopal Church." If they deny his request, their rejection will a violation of their "fraternal affection and respect" rather than a theological and biblical response to ECUSA's continuing corruption of the faith..

This elevation of the personal implies that no other norms, not Scripture, not theology, not the tradition of the Church, can take precedence over the personal. This covert claim, that the personal takes precedence over the theological and biblical, is of a piece with the totality of the Presiding Bishop's public statements.(1) He is a revisionist, a part of a larger theological pattern that affects the whole of ECUSA.(2) In light of that larger theological pattern, it is not just sex, it is everything -- how Scripture is interpreted, whether Jesus is the only Savior, whether God can heal, whether ethics is given by God's commands or by abstract norms defined by evolving circumstances, whether there is such a thing as heresy and whether it merits separation.(3)

As reflective of a larger pattern, the letter to the primates is simply more evidence that ECUSA has abandoned the faith "once and for all delivered to the saints." Specifically, the Presiding bishop is asking the primates to place personal relations above the Lord Jesus Christ as known in Scripture. In other words, it is not just how the primates get along with each other, nor simply the future of ECUSA within the Anglican Communion, that hangs in the balance. It is the first commandment -- "Thou shalt have no other gods but Me," -- which stands or falls with this letter and its response. I shall now show this.

The Presiding bishop begins by addressing the primates as "My dear brothers," a greeting that affirms his personal affection for them. His heart is "heavy" as he realizes that their bonds of "fraternal affection and respect have been strained by an action of our General Convention." He is not only aware, but "keenly aware," that some will think this action contrary to the "plain reading of Scripture." He understands their discomfort. He knows that, given the cultural context of some of them, the action of General Convention is "unthinkable." In spite of these obstacles, he hopes that their personal relations will not be broken, but only "strained."

Having affirmed his affection for his "dear brothers" and expressed his feeling for their disappointment and disapproval, he now begins to show them that he is a man of prayer. He himself prays. He shares a portion of one of his prayers, a prayer he says "daily." He asks that they pray for him. He believes that divergent viewpoints between Anglicans are set in "a context of common prayer." In spite of a resolution that appeared to sanction same-sex blessings as a local option, he affirms a commitment to "'continued prayer, study and discernment'" under his direction. He prays they will see what happened at General Convention in all its "its complexity, and not dismiss it as an instance of infidelity to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ or disregard for the bonds of communion we share." He knows that what has happened is difficult, but he is "asking God to show me how this occasion might be used for the good and to build up the life we share in Christ."

As the letter unfolds, it becomes apparent that he, like his audience, is deeply committed to Scripture, and this in the "strongest possible terms." Like all other faithful Anglicans, he believes that the "Holy Scriptures are the Word of God and contain all things necessary to salvation. My life is rooted and grounded in this understanding." Then, in a somewhat roundabout way, he lets it be known that it is "dishonoring" to assume that those who favor homosexual unions do not equally honor Scripture. "It is extremely dishonoring of the faith of another to dismiss them as not taking the Bible seriously."

The Presiding Bishop is also a man on a mission, and that mission is "Christ's work of reconciliation." He knows that there are conflicts in the Church, but he will not let these divergent views "undermine the mission we share." Part of that mission is "a strong and clear acceptance of our call to be active ministers of global reconciliation." He is thankful for Archbishop Rowan who is "calling us together such that we might share our views and concerns with an eye to finding a way forward that honors both our provincial realities and struggles and our oneness in Christ." He ends his letter with a passage from Paul, which he hopes will "sustain us all in the ministry we share, which is none other than Christ's continuing ministry of reconciling love."

He not only sees his ministry in terms of reconciliation, he is willing to make sacrifices to put that ministry into action. He will, for example, initiate contact with the 18 North American bishops who stood to object to the consent of Gene Robinson's election. He will also "explore how we are called to live with divergent points of view in a way that will not undermine the mission we share." He is able to do this because he believes that "one of our Anglican gifts is to contain different theological perspectives within a context of common prayer." In fact, the presiding bishop sees his "ministry now as helping our church to find a way forward that both preserves the unity of the church and honors the deeply held divergent points of view among us." In that regard, he is pleased with the fact that General Convention affirmed "global reconciliation" as one of its goals. Doubtless he will work to make it happen. Even more, he prays that, in spite of divisions, he will be "ready for all, I accept all," a prayer ideally suited for one who is willing to reconcile any and every theological persuasion and every sort of moral or immoral act. Given his attitude of willing acceptance, he voted in favor of Gene Robinson. Among other things, it was because he honored "the life of my own church and the canonically prescribed election process of a diocese." Respect, honor, acceptance, reconciliation, mutual understanding, common mission, and affection, characterize this man of prayer deeply devoted to Scripture and the bonds of common life.

As he paints this picture, the Presiding Bishop also asks something of his fellow primates. If the Presiding Bishop were to simply state what he wants, it would read something like this,

Dear fellow primates, you can see that I hold you in the highest affection, that I understand your cultural context, that I pray daily and love the Bible, so please, trust me as one spiritual man to another. Do not form an "alternative structure to the Episcopal Church," but rather, accept me in my cultural context just as I accept you in yours.

This message is not, however, forthrightly stated. The message is implicit rather than explicit. Rather than stating the theological, biblical, and historical reasons for his support of Gene Robinson, the Presiding Bishop reveals himself as a deeply spiritual man. If the primates resonate to his hospitable spirituality, they will accept him and the actions of General Convention even if they do not agree with those actions. In other words, once the resonance is established at the level of personal friendship, they will be tempted to honor ECUSA and its Presiding Bishop by continuing their mutual affection and respecting their mutual diversity. Or, to restate the matter simply, "If you accept me as a spiritual man as I accept you, then let us place that relationship above other considerations, including what happened at General Convention." That is the real logic of the letter. That logic is never stated, and for that reason, the letter is insidious.

Now, this appeal is personal, person to person, one spiritual man to another. As a personal request, it possesses one defining and crucial characteristic -- there are no other norms that take precedence over the personal. Specifically, the Presiding Bishop places personal relationships above Scripture. Of course, he never directly says this. He never bluntly says, "For me, personal relationships, mutual respect, and honored diversity supersede Scripture, and therefore, I simply ask that you value me and my church above all things, even when we do something 'clearly contrary to a plain reading of Scripture.'" Nowhere in his writings or his public statements, either here or elsewhere, have I ever known him to say this, although it is implicit throughout his writings. Consider this quotation taken from the letter.

It is difficult for me to know just what you may be hearing and not hearing about our General Convention, and I hope that it is not simply the urgent voices which speak of crisis or extreme pastoral emergency. The mission of the church was the primary focus of the General Convention, and one of the most important aspects of our work was a strong and clear acceptance of our call to be active ministers of global reconciliation.

Here the Presiding Bishop does not define the "crisis or extreme pastoral emergency" which faces the Church in terms of Scripture, theology, and the witness of historic Church, but rather in terms of the primates "hearing and not hearing about our General Convention." In other words, the problem is not biblical or theological, but personal. It is a failure to hear all sides of the issue, and once heard, to be "active ministers of global reconciliation." The Presiding Bishop labels the voices of those who speak of a crisis as "urgent voices." He does not ask the primates to discern whether they be orthodox or biblical voices. By omitting the theological or biblical content of the voices, the Presiding Bishop obscures the need of his readers to think biblically and theologically. He doesn't want them to think biblically or theologically. He wants them to think in terms of "global reconciliation," where reconciliation is understood as the act of "I accept all." Further, the word "urgent" implies that the primates must slow down and listen rather than acting on their theological convictions. In other words, he places personal relations above biblical and doctrinal Truth without really telling the primates that he is doing so.

This is not to say that the Presiding Bishop doesn't mention Scripture. He knows he must deal with Scripture, and he does so. First, and I have demonstrated this in an earlier essay,(4) he believes that the revelation to the apostles before Christ ascended "was in fact a prelude to a deeper, fuller and more substantial knowing of the risen One mediated by the Spirit."(5) To put it simply, the revelation given directly to the Church by the risen Christ today is "more substantial" than the one given to the apostles as recorded in Scripture. He will not say this to the primates, but it is evident from his writings, and in a covert way, it is evident throughout this letter.

For example, when he recognizes that some of the primates might think the election of Gene Robinson is "contrary to a plain reading of Scripture," he insinuates that these primates hold this opinion because of the "contexts in which you live." In other words, they interpret Scripture differently from the Presiding Bishop because they live in a different cultural context. For the Presiding Bishop, this context is the locus of the "more substantial" revelation. The primates also adopt a "plain reading," i.e., a reading that may not be informed by the critical methods used in the so-called "developed countries." In other words, differences of biblical interpretation are the result of differing cultural contexts, what he usually calls the events and circumstances of life. Consider this quotation from the letter,

First, I must say in strongest possible terms that if I believed in any part of my being that the consent to this election was unfaithful to an authentic way of reading Scripture and contrary to the leading of the Holy Spirit, I could no longer serve as the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church. I pray that - as most of you have come to know me over these years - you know I firmly believe, as you do, that the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God and contain all things necessary to salvation. My life is rooted and grounded in this understanding.

Unfortunately, the difficulty before us is not about some of us believing that Scripture is the inspired Word of God and others not believing it is. How we have been shaped and formed as Christians and the context in which we live have a great deal to do with how we interpret various passages in the Bible and the weight we give them in making moral decisions.

In the first paragraph of this quotation the Presiding Bishop appears to uphold the classical view, that "Holy Scriptures are the Word of God and contain all things necessary to salvation." In another essay, I have clearly show that the Presiding Bishop is a revisionist.(6) He honors Scripture, but he revises it from a modalistic perspective that allows him to blend the revelation in Scripture with revelations taken from the social context in which Scripture is interpreted. This can be seen in the second paragraph just quoted in which he qualifies his respect for Scripture with the recognition that context has "a great deal to do with how we interpret various passages in the Bible." Consider this statement to the primates.

My own sense is that one of our Anglican gifts is to contain different theological perspectives within a context of common prayer. This is not a matter of compromise but of acknowledging that the "truth as in Jesus" is larger than any one point of view. A church unable to make room for difference in how Scripture is understood and how Christ's work of reconciliation is to be carried out could be in danger of neglecting the continuing unfolding of God's truth worked among us by the Holy Spirit.

Again, in an earlier essay,(7) I showed that real locus of revelation for the Presiding Bishop is what he calls the "risen Christ," here denoted by the phrase the "truth as in Jesus." The "Jesus" mentioned here is the body of the baptized rather than Jesus Christ in the witness of Scripture. By this he means that the resurrected Christ is active in the events and circumstances of life, and especially in the Church as shaped and formed by her historical and social context. Then, within the Church, the Holy Spirit enables revelation to go beyond Scripture as the Spirit unfolds the "truth as in Jesus" through the coming together of divergent views held in mystical tension. One such "truth as in Jesus" would be the experience of homosexual persons who, since truth is personal (not ultimately biblical), reveal God's new truth in their own persons. In this view Scripture is superseded by the Church, the locus of a "continuing unfolding of God's truth worked among us by the Holy Spirit." Consider another quotation taken from the letter,

Second, and very important, to my mind consent [to Gene Robinson] does not mean we now have clarity about the matter of homosexuality in the life of our church, and a vote to consent is not about this larger question. The matter is far from resolved and there are strong opinions on every side.

What can this possibly mean? The presiding bishop does not believe that revelation takes an objective, verbal form. He believes that the "risen Christ" harmonizes all our contrary beliefs into a mystical whole that transcends them all. As he states it,

All that we can do is to travel on in faith and trust, knowing that all contradictions and paradoxes and seemingly irreconcilable truths - which seem both consistent and inconsistent with Scripture -- are brought together in the larger and all embracing truth of Christ, which, by Christ's own words, has yet to be fully drawn forth and known.(8)

Since the risen Christ transcends language, since Truth is personal -- honoring, listening to, and accepting all -- honoring others is not done at the level of doctrine, biblical language, and "strong opinions." Rather, the Presiding Bishop ascends to a personal level that transcends all verbal differences as he "accepts all." For that reason, he could vote for Gene Robinson in spite of Scripture, two-thousands years of tradition, the resolutions of past General Conventions, and the warnings of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the primates, and our ecumenical partners. He can ignore this witness because it is verbal commandments regarding right and wrong. Ultimately, that verbal form gives way to the personal, the truth revealed in homosexual persons. Just as he disregards this massive and consistent witness, he asks the primates not to consider the vote for Gene Robinson as a "disregard for the bonds of communion we share." He can ask this because our common bonds are personal, they are not a matter of resolutions or language. In a similar way, he can disconnect the vote on Gene Robinson from "clarity about the matter of homosexuality." He does not expect "clarity," because clarity implies a position that can be verbally expressed and consistently obeyed. He does not think we need that kind of clarity, and even if we had it, it would doubtless contradict someone's personal truth, homosexual or otherwise. Rather than clarity, we have the risen Christ who harmonizes contrary personal truths into the mystical heaven of his person.

The Presiding Bishop's understanding of Scripture does not differ from that of certain primates because of differing cultural assumptions. No, the Presiding Bishop is out of line with the primates and tradition because he applies a false picture of God to the biblical revelation. His modalistic perspective leads him to interpret Scripture in a fashion that violates the classical understanding of Scripture on such things as homosexuality. In fact, his claim that context determines interpretation is a function of his modalism, his blending of God's revelation in creation (God's presumed truth in a homosexual nature, for example), with the revelation of the Son in Scripture, with the unfolding work of the Holy Spirit revealing new truths to the Church. All these revelations are blended, a reflection of his blending Father, Son, and Holy Spirit within God. He calls this perspective profoundly incarnation, meaning that the incarnation implies that God is incarnate in everything and that everything is revelatory, seen in a heart that burns "for humankind, for the birds, for the beasts, for the demons, for every creature ..."(9)

Finally, I would hope that the primates would see this letter as symptomatic of something much, much deeper. The fact that the Presiding Bishop could write the primates and never once suggest that their differences might be theological rather than cultural, or that Revealed Truth might be more important than "our oneness in Christ," reveals a profound sickness within ECUSA. That sickness is theological and biblical. It isn't just a matter of biology or culture. Nor is it simply a matter of failing to "appreciate the different contexts in which we minister." The fundamental problem with ECUSA is that so much of its leadership has been swept away by heresy, the ecstatic heresy which reduces everything to mysticism and personal truth.(10) The Presiding Bishop is the chief spokesperson for this heresy, not only within ECUSA, but worldwide. This should be obvious on all sides except for the fact that so many people in ECUSA, deep down inside, don't want to know that ECUSA is afflicted by heresy. They don't like the word "heresy" because they also believe that Christian Truth is personal, a matter of personal loyalty, respect, and "I accept all," rather than the saving revelation of Jesus Christ in Scripture and preserved in the tradition and Creeds of the Church.

I can only hope that the primates will discern the subtext in this letter. I hope they will refuse to elevate their personal relationship with ECUSA and its Presiding Bishop above the revelation given in Scripture. In the end, the first commandment is at stake -- whether God as known in Jesus Christ is our ultimate Lord, or whether we allow our personal relationships to become a god. The latter is an idol, a false god. Reject it, reject it without compromise. I think of Jesus,

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law-a man's enemies will be the members of his own household. Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. (Mt. 10:34-9)

Endnotes

1. "Mystical Paganism, An Analysis of the Presiding Bishop's Public Statements," found in the Virtuosity archives, http://www.orthodoxanglican.org/Virtuosity, as well as my website and on my website.
2. See the essay entitled "The Ecstatic Heresy" in the Virtuosity archives and on my website.
3. "It's Not Just Sex, It's Everything," found in the Virtuosity Archives and on my website.
4. "Mystical Paganism."
5. Ascension Day Sermon.
6. "Mystical Paganism" as well as "The Ecstatic Heresy."
7. Ibid.
8. "Glimpses of the Eternal Design," The Presiding Bishop's Column, September, 1998.
9. Sermon at the Service of Investiture of the XXV Presiding Bishop.
10. "The Ecstatic Heresy."