What’s Really Happening in the Worldwide Anglican Communion?
After a “panel discussion,” following the celebration of
the Eucharist at St. Mark's Episcopal Church in New Britain, CT, someone else who used to attend Saint Maurice
Catholic Church in the same city asked me how our experience had been there as a gay couple. Was
that the reason we were now attending Saint Mark’s? Actually, I was able to
say, we were completely accepted at
The “panel discussion” held in the Library was deeply
disturbing to me. In the first place, a “panel discussion” implies
“discussion.” With a “lecture” or a “presentation” there will not necessarily
even be an opportunity for questions. You are there to hear what the presenter
or lecturer has to say and if there will be an opportunity for questions it is
very frequently explicitly mentioned. Not so with a panel discussion. If you
need convincing, consider how you would feel if you came to church and instead
of the Eucharist, a movie was shown, or if you went to the movies and the
Eucharist was celebrated. Expectations matter. Words matter.
In this instance expectations are even more important because they are involved with ecclesiology, with how we understand ourselves as a Church. Curiously, I had just the previous week enjoyed a conversation with our seminarian, Carolyn Sharp, and others helping her critique her sermons. We talked about whether the traditional “sermon” had perhaps outlived its usefulness, that congregational dialogues might be more appropriate considering the level of literacy, education, and experience of so many Christian congregations. Whatever the future of the sermon in the liturgy, a series of four sermons masquerading as a panel discussion was actually offensive to me. Why? Because it was dismissive of the feelings, thoughts, concerns, perspectives, knowledge, and experience of the People of God gathered in the Library for a discussion. We all know that if there had been more time others in the room would have had the opportunity to speak. That is the core ecclesiological issue. Why were the insights and perspectives of the non-clergy such a low priority?
For me this is very personal. My husband, Mark, and I were the only
openly homosexual persons in the room. It was very akin to having a panel of
white people talk about racial prejudice with black people in the room who are
only allowed to listen. Perhaps even more poignantly it was like what probably
did happen in the Episcopal Church as all male panels of clergy pontificated in
the presence of women about the appropriate role of women in the Church.
After the clergy had their say, I was required to reduce my
list of questions and concerns to one. I chose carefully what I thought was the
most poignant issue. It was fascinating to me how no one in the room seemed to
grasp what I was talking about. That tells me something, which is the reason
for the title of this missive.
Especially after Mother Eakins stunning revelation of the
bigamist African bishops, it is perfectly clear to me what is really going on
in the Anglican Communion and elsewhere. A powerful anti-homosexual orientation
is driving people’s sexual theology. That this is not recognized is to be
expected, but this lack of recognition of this anti-homosexual bias is
precisely what prevents it from being addressed. Why everyone loves
homosexuals, don’t they? They are God’s children, aren’t they?
It is fascinating to me that the worldwide Anglican
Communion can tolerate bigamist bishops but not bishops, priests, or even
congregants in same-sex relationships that are fully in accord with traditional
Church teaching about permanence, exclusivity, and faithfulness. I repeat, it
is perfectly clear that anti-homosexuality is driving theology including and
especially the interpretation of sacred scripture.
It is also perfectly clear that heterosexual persons cannot be expected to come to this realization on their own. They need to speak to and come to know homosexual persons. The value of a panel of straight clergy sharing their insights on the way the Church is dealing with homosexual persons was vitiated by what, or I should say who, was left out.