Home

A REPORT FROM DAN MUTH
A layman's view from the Diocese of Maryland

Maryland Confessing Episcopalians

Reflections on the 2005 Maryland Convention
June 4, 2005

Friends,

Is there any real point in reporting on this year's Maryland Diocesan Convention, particularly as almost a month has passed? Anyone can get on the diocesan website and see what was said and decided, none of which is all that surprising or innovative. Indeed, I would invite anyone reading this to do just that. It seems to me, though, that it is precisely because of the tedious, unremarkable and, well, rather banal nature of so much of what was said and done that we get from this event a pretty good look at the Episcopal Church, circa 2005.

I recognize that some will find what follows to be flippant, dismissive and harsh. I understand and at times will plead guilty. When I am I think the target deserves it – I just can’t seem to help myself. My point is not to give a neutral recounting of what happened but rather to give personal impressions and, I hope, some theological reflection on what I saw and heard. Nor is it my intent to engage opponents in dialogue. Indeed, I think one not-insignificant error made by our leadership is in overestimating the value of human dialogue as a source, rather than reflection, of truth. Christians are first to learn the Truth as He has objectively revealed Himself in Scripture as interpreted by the Church over the millennia, under the guidance and tutelage of the Holy Spirit – as Thomas Aquinas puts it, “What the Truth hath spoken that for truth I hold.” Only in light of His self-revelation can their conversation yield any theologically meaningful results.

As to the current unpleasantness regarding the delightful subject of sodomy, it actually is this simple: either they are wrong or I am. I have no problem being respectful with people I think are desperately wrong. And I have no problem making fun of their bad ideas. I hope they don’t get the wrong idea and think I’m making fun of them. But I understand that people are people and they probably won’t and that’s too bad. Anyway, here goes:

The Diocese of Maryland met for its 221st Annual Convention on May 6, 2005 in Hagerstown. I sat toward the back this time (as usual for anything Episcopalian, we had to get there early to get a bad seat) and scribbled notes furiously much of the time – all the better to get you a first rate report.

The theme was obviously the work of a committee: “Hearing the Voice of God; Walking Together in the Light of the Word; Your Word is a Lantern to my Feet”. Apparently, they couldn’t settle on one slogan and so kept three. Dang – no quilts on the wall this year. They affirmed a quorum and seated all but five congregations. A courtesy resolution to extend voice to non-canonically-resident clergy passed.

The first ballot was then taken for General Convention Deputy (there was a mess o’ clergy running but only five laymen for eight spots – four delegates and four alternates – so several names, including mine, were added from the floor), Triennial Delegate, Diocesan Council, Compensation and Benefits, Ecclesiastical Court, and Standing Committee. Three ballots wound up being taken by the end of the day.

Bishop Ihloff then got up to address us. He’s amazed that after ten years he’s one of the senior bishops in the House. He’s very optimistic about the future of the Anglican Communion. Sure, there are strains and hurt feelings, but we honor diversity and respect difference: this is our special charism. There have always been disagreements and these continue today but God is holding us miraculously together. There are narrow-minded people who think truth is narrow, and petty people fighting over “truths” unworthy of the name, but really we know that truth is so comprehensive that no one of us has all of it (apparently a complete comprehension of all universal truth is a prerequisite for the disapproval of sodomy). If we come together each bringing our little bit of it, we hope that in community that we can construct a complete sense of it. The Windsor Report addresses the big ongoing fight over women’s ordination and notes that there is already “a measure of impairment” brought on by this bit of diversity. We can learn from this. Some of our friends (read: Africans) have never debated homosexuality before and now have a chance to stand in our shoes and come up to speed on the fifty years’ worth of debate we’ve had on this in our society. We need to be patient and wait for them to catch up. And we all need to appreciate how our different understandings and interpretations of scripture allow us to say different things about gay sex. We need to take scripture seriously and let it inform our acceptance of new ideas, which should never be rejected when a convincing case is made (like…uh…um…well…uh…). This is not embracing secular culture. The Church always dwells within a culture and always appropriates bits and pieces of it – like, for instance, formerly pagan Christmas traditions (holly + ivy = buggery). We can’t reconcile by changing each others’ minds or being willing to forgive each other. Reconciliation is the work of Jesus Christ. We deny Him if we say we have “irreconcilable differences.” God’s going to keep the Anglican Church together. Through dialogue and respect for difference, through sensitivity and shared liturgy we will form deeper faith, overcome party strife, and extend Christ’s Kingdom here in Maryland.

So there. Any of you who managed not to be offended can contact me for a free cigar or else this here deluxe, house-broken seeing-eye dog. Yes, yes, it was a sloppy, tendentious, condescending, vapid mess. The white man’s burden routine was vintage Spong. Shame on Ihloff – he should know better. The really scary part is the thought that he may well think that by indulging in this bit of smarmy let’s-agree-to-disagree-but-you-have-to-buy-my-agenda-as-being-at-least-as-valid-as-2000-years’-worth-of-consistent-Christian-witness-and-belief claptrap, he’s raising the level of conversation. The mind boggles.

Bishop Rabb followed with an exhortation for us to imitate the great 13th century mendicant leaders Francis and Dominic by dedicating ourselves to social justice. In times of change the church often has a hard time finding its voice. We tend to compartmentalize. As Marylanders we are heirs of a tradition of religious tolerance and are polite. The point is not to make a laundry list of issues to send to congress, but to embrace God’s call in Jesus Christ and get involved in the world’s needs – move from maintenance to mission. There’s a lot of good stuff happening in this Diocese. Francis and Dominic reflected the servanthood of discipleship by focusing on those most in need. We can be like them by continuing to be inclusive and minister to those who are victimized and address the root causes of the world’s ills. Like them, we are called to go out and preach by our deeds.

OK, not so bad. Simplistic, overwrought, a little too faddishly Social Gospel – just once I’d like to hear some concern for the salvation of souls to go along with the constant hippie-dippy mantras of therapeutic jingoism. At least Rabb didn’t go out of his way to show his compassionate bona-fides by trying to stick a thumb in the eye of honest disagreement. Again, he shows himself dependably shallow but decent.

Apparently one extended verbal outrage wasn’t enough for our worthy Diocesan. You betcha, Bishop Ihloff let us know how he shares our soccer-mom concern that the media and the religious right insist on defining morality as a matter of personal piety (just who is doing this is anybody’s guess: abortion, being homicide, is a private matter only in the fevered imaginations of the hoary Left and certain Justices; the redefinition of marriage is a matter of overwhelming public consequence). Social justice is at the heart of Jesus’ ministry and a central concern of the prophets. Personal piety is important for Pharisees and Puritans, not Christians. Puritanism is at the heart of violent Islamic fundamentalism and, wouldn’t you know, certain other, shall we say, unnamed extremes (sure, he leaves himself some plausible deniability here, but we all know he means to make an utterly despicable equation of murderous thugs with peaceable Christians). Christians belong in community and as a community we support the work of social justice, or “outreach”, which is really a bad term. He goes on for a good couple more paragraphs or so worshipping at the shrine of 60’s era do-gooderism. OK, fine, but why start with the rhetorical body blows?

We then approved a grab-bag resolution of Resolveds from our favorite General Convention ’03. Included were Holy Habits (tithing), Supporting International Relief and Development (the usual modest proposals including the eradication of poverty and AIDS), Anti-Racism (surprisingly, they left out motherhood and apple pie), and General Convention Deputies (try for some younger people – I don’t think we were successful. I’m pretty sure I’m the youngest one and I’m 42 – and I’m the fourth alternate). We then passed a resolution regarding clergy compensation, then heard from the treasurer about our $22 million portfolio – all dedicated to Social Justice, no doubt.

The next resolution was to encourage youth membership on vestries. Apparently, somebody must think our kids are not bored enough in Church. Sticking ‘em in a multi-year series of vestry meetings should do the trick. Our spiritual betters indulged in the usual head-patting, the kiddies told us how, like, totally groovy the whole thing was, and it passed overwhelmingly.

Episcopal Relief and Development let us know that they are there to help with outreach to the country and world. The Capital Campaign next reported in. They hit an itty-bitty snag and only raised $2.5 million ($1.8 million paid) of a planned…well, a whole lot more. Apparently, the economy dipped. I’m sure it didn’t have anything to do with any General Convention or anything like that. New start congregations got a whopping $14.5 thousand, the poor got $7.1 thou, and the other 99.136% went to Claggett. Oh yeah, there’s still time to give.

The Prison Ministry folks got up next and described the truly awful plight of children whose parents are in prison. They listed the sad but unsurprising pathologies associated with these kids and would like to help. The long and short of it is that we’re Episcopalians for cripes’ sake. We simply don’t run into those kinds of people. Or at least they don’t come to our kinds of churches. We do run pretty good summer camps, though. They suggested that maybe we could organize one for these kids. I admire the rather refreshing honesty and recognition of our Diocese’s limitations. All in all, it’s a pretty good idea.

Our keynote speaker, Dr. Roger Furlo of Virginia Seminary got up next. He started off well, putting Hooker’s grossly misunderstood and badly abused footstool out of its misery. He then took up where Bishop Ihloff left off with a traipse through the Land of the Straw Targets, dismissing the “infamous” Lambeth ’98 resolution as the product of an “instrumental” understanding of scripture. Apparently, the Africans went to all the wrong schools and learned that the Bible functions solely as an “instrument for moral enforcement and social control.” This disregards historical contexts and (snort) acts as if ancient texts could speak directly to our world. Alternatively, you could make the error of “reductionism” and be like the Jesus Seminar. Their scholarship is standard issue and, he thinks, well accepted. Where they get into trouble, though, is in thinking, in a fit of exegetical arrogance, that they know what Jesus actually said. After dismissing the “instrumentalist” view and the “reductionist” one, he launched into a generally thoughtful exhortation to us to read, mark, and inwardly digest scripture – as a way to know Jesus. It’s the menu, He’s the meal. He reminded us of the tradition of reading scripture out loud and the importance of involving the entire body in the task of meeting with God in His word written. It was really pretty good stuff. He made some recommendations including becoming more text-centered, renouncing blindered scripturalism, talking the scriptures over amongst ourselves, reaffirming the power of scripture in imagination and art, and re-establishing the tradition of the “rabboni”, or scripture teacher.

OK, so I thought the second half was pretty good. And I appreciate shuffling Hooker’s footstool off into the sunset. Why then, did I find what he had to say so inadequate? Well, it’s not just the by-now boilerplate and, yes, insufferable mischaracterization of the Africans. No, here is demonstrated the very deep, very critical error at the central core of the revisionist movement. Look at what he did: he set scripture as vessel of Divine Revelation against scripture as vessel of Divine Experience. This is profoundly opposed to what the Church has always believed and taught. We have always believed that Holy Scripture gives us both a view of God’s revelation as objective reality and provides a gateway to God’s revelation in subjective experience. In scripture – as interpreted by the Church (this is vital to keep in mind) – God is met as He is in Himself. It is not simply an account of the ancient Hebrews’ experience of what they think He is. By inspiring the scripture writers to write what He wants written about Himself the way He wants it written, He shows us who He is. All of it? No. Trustworthy insofar as what is there accurately reflects who-He-is-in-Himself? Dang straight. In addition, God invites us to meet with Him in scripture, to experience Him in our lives, to live His love in communion with one another – a love that can only be truly known because we truly know – and are known by – Him.

The assumption throughout – and this appears to be shared by all of our revisionist friends – is that God only reveals Himself in the life and experience of the individual. Paul encountered God and wrote about it. Your experience of Him will be similar to Paul’s since, well, God is God, but will differ substantially from Paul’s because you live in a different culture. This is a fascinating topic and I could go on and on and I probably will somewhere else. But let’s move on, shall we?

We next passed a resolution establishing a Prison Ministry Sunday in Epiphany and another requesting General Convention deputies to disseminate information in a timely manner. We then heard from the Reparation Task Force. Apparently, they haven’t yet determined out how much the rest of us owe them but they’re continuing to dialogue on it. I guess they’ll let us know when they come up with a figure (“Let’s all turn to number 50 in our wallets...”). The Claggett Center then let us know that everything’s hunky dory. Construction continues apace. They signed a new building contract. They didn’t tell us how much of the money was borrowed (something like $3 out of $4 million).

The Mission Strategy Committee talked about their retreat last November. They were depressed about the national election (apparently some riff-raff got into the White House or something) but learned some things: 1. It is urgent that we stand up for our values (which are?), 2. We need to revitalize our congregations by working together and learning from each other, 3. We can no longer go alone but need to join with other faiths that share our values. They also established some core priorities: 1. The intersection of faith and (obviously, liberal) politics, 2. Grow together for mission and ministry, and 3. (mirabile dictu) Inclusiveness. One of their number gave an impassioned and mildly biblically sound defense of inclusion as opposed to fear of others.

I once heard Alan King say of the Reagan administration, “I’ve made fun of seven U.S. Presidents, and I’m not about to stop now that it is easy.” Well, why rub it in? Yes, these people are way too stuck on liberal politics, but what do you expect? The God they worship didn’t reveal Himself in any definitive way. They really have nowhere else to turn. It wouldn’t make a dead rat’s difference if they fell in love with conservative rather than liberal politics, or for that matter made an idol out of bird watching. Dr. Rog, I think, spoke for these people when he set biblical moral standards against individual experience of the divine. If God’s nature is not knowable as an objective reality, if He’s only met in the life of the individual, if we only get bits and pieces of truth that may or may not add up to a coherent whole, if we don’t already have sufficient truth about who God is in Himself in Holy Scripture as interpreted by the Church under the guidance and tutelage of the Holy Spirit over the last 2000 years, then we have nothing to which to, among other things, anchor a moral foundation. Sure, the Bish thinks our bits and pieces of truth will add up, but to what? Something more than scripture? How would we know if it did? It’s shameful for otherwise well-meaning Christians to make an idol of liberal ideology, but then it’s equally shameful for others to make an idol of conservative ideology. The idol’s the problem, not the face you carve on it. Let us all be chary of making the same mistake.

Our keynote speaker returned with examples from scripture itself about how to read it. Three people got up and gave dramatic presentations of: 1. Josiah finding the scroll of the Law (2 Kings 22), 2. Jesus reading the scroll of Isaiah (Luke 4), and 3. Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8). These scenes speak to the relation of the reader to the text, the need for interpretation, and the need for us to respond to it. In scene 2, we see how scripture is incarnated in the reader (I’m going to assume that he is thinking of this in a very limited way and isn’t violating any of the Creeds); in scene 3, we see how reading scripture leads to baptism. We gather as baptized persons to open the book so that it can open us to the Holy Spirit.

Again, what he has to say is fine. I’m going to resist the temptation to go on and on about how Jesus reads, say, Genesis 2 as a moral injunction against divorce and never utters a peep about how it was written in a different cultural context over a thousand years earlier and therefore can’t speak directly to His culture. Once again, Furlo’s emphasis is all on the experience of the reader. The notion of divine inspiration of scripture (also attested in scripture itself) completely fails to make an appearance. Indeed, the inspiration appears to be equally shared between the reader and the writer.

This appears to be a variation on the ancient heresy of Montanism, from the second century group that believed that God was continuing scriptural revelation through its leaders as He had through the Apostles. These people were condemned in the third century, essentially because they equated their claims of divine inspiration to those of scripture. It looks to these eyes like that’s pretty much what’s going on here.

I attended the Eucharist that followed but elected not to receive communion. My objection was not to the celebrant (Bishop Rabb), but rather from the gnawing sense that heresy was in the midst of the communicants and that I could not in good conscience accept a deep sign of union in a place where unity is not founded in revealed Truth. Bishop Ihloff preached a wonderful sermon on the “I am” statements in the Gospel of John.

The Safe Church Committee then reported on all the stuff they’re doing to protect children and youth from sexual abuse. The Planned Giving folks next shared some pretty good and fairly sound resource material that they developed for the making of wills and advanced directives.

Then the fun began. There were four resolutions left, all of a lovely lavender hue. Before things got underway, someone got up and motioned that we vote on all four by paper ballot. There was some wrangling on this but we voted on the first one this way. Apparently, some of our more compassionate types figured that this was a way for the anti-gay bigots among us to attempt to hide their shameful injustice. The motion was not only later rescinded, but the voting was changed to require the “ayes” and “nays” to stand up so we can all see who they are. I guess I should have grown my mustache out so I could cackle and twirl it as I stood up for the despicable belief that “ancient texts could speak directly to our world.”

Anyway, the first resolution was for the state and federal government to “prohibit discrimination based on gender identity or expression” (I didn’t know it was against the law to identify as male but I’m glad these folks are looking out for me). Two speakers argued against the wisdom of the diocese claiming to speak as one on divisive matters of this sort rather than leave it to people’s consciences. They further argued that resolutions communicated to government officials are of limited benefit and, by issuing marching orders to citizens, will not help dialogue and are not appropriate to the current situation. Against this, several others said that the Church has to speak out for justice. So there. “Boo-yah in your face,” as my 14-year-old would say. No one again uttered a peep against this or any of the other resolutions, yet the debate droned on and on and on and on and on... Oh, this one passed, by the way. I guess we can all breathe a sigh of relief.

The second resolution was to establish a commission to study and recommend appropriate pastoral responses to couples living in relationships other than marriage. There was some discussion about whether this should apply only to people in “committed relationships” (read: homosexual) or extend to those in “truly loving” relationships (and don’t try to imagine what that looks like in the back seat of a beat-up Chevy). They stuck with “committed”. A spartan few eye-patch-wearing, cutlass-rattling rogues stood up to vote in opposition. Otherwise, it was a veritable sea of “ayes”.

Resolution #3 was to oppose constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. “We don’t do them in this diocese, but don’t you dare stop us.” Again the mediocre phalanx of thin-lipped-gristle-brained-right-wing-nut-jobs who stood up to vote “nay” was utterly overwhelmed by the diocesan tsunami for justice. Another world problem definitively solved.

And finally (finally, FINALLY), came the last resolution, to support legislation providing benefits to same-sex couples. The microphones were chock-a-block with voices all speaking in support of the measure. And on and on they went. There was no debate, but no sense of real unity either. It felt as if these people desperately needed to tell their stories of Aunt Gertrude who couldn’t visit her girlfriend in the hospital but the people the stories were meant to touch and convert were inconveniently missing. It was like the tapes were playing but no one was there to really listen. The people who were there were too busy playing tapes of their own. They were all singing the same song but each in his own key. I thought it rather sad. Anyway, it turned out that the Maryland legislature had just passed legislation on medical decision-making so the resolution was amended to tell the Governor that we think it would be OK for him to sign. Oh, and it passed, too. You just know that 535 palms were slapping foreheads on Capital Hill the following Monday. I’m sure they’ll get right on it.

Someone asked the Bishop why this really important stuff was left until the end of convention. Well, uh (hem haw), the schedule was, uh, really packed, and, uh, General Convention, uh, requires certain things, and, uh, oh hell: this self-righteous garbage is a total waste of time, detracts from the work of the Gospel, pisses off the people we really need to be talking to, isn’t going to matter politically for diddly-spit, and serves only – only! – to make us look like arrogant idiots. OK, so the “oh hell” and following part wasn’t there, and I guess I’m glad it wasn’t. But frankly, I hope that some, at least, of our diocesan leadership is thinking along these lines (preferably in less brusque tones).

At the same time, I understand the frustration and helplessness these people feel in their lives. Their political views, views which they find utterly indistinguishable from their Christian faith, are getting routinely clobbered in national elections – and, of course, at Lambeth and in the Primates’ meetings. You can only console yourself with your own wonderfulness and sense of martyrdom for so long before needing to let off steam somewhere. On the whole, Diocesan Convention isn’t so bad a place for it. They said their say and I hope they feel better for it. Whether it’s going to have any real impact internationally I rather doubt. The apparent cluelessness of our Bishop regarding the precariousness of the ECUSA’s situation, particularly since it seems to be very widely shared amongst his Episcopal brethren, is of much greater concern.

The diocesan youth thanked us for voting pro-gay and for passing the resolution inviting them onto our vestries (can’t wait to get there, can you, kids?). And so it ended. I walked out feeling much clearer about why these things feel like a trip through the looking-glass, and neither annoyed nor particularly depressed. I’m sad that so much foolishness substitutes for the timeless truth of the revelation of the Living God, but how could anything that substitutes for His self-revelation be anything but ultimately foolish? Unlike our Bishop, I’m not optimistic. Frankly, I think no Christian has any business indulging in optimism, which is ultimately the self-deluding trust in the fallen world. This stands in stark contrast with the Christian virtue of Hope, the self-denying trust in the Living God. Let us put our trust in Him, then, as he is known, yes, in our own lives, but also as He reveals Himself in scripture and His Church universal and triumphant. He will not give us unity at the expense of truth, but unity in truth (known both in Special Revelation and in Natural Law), who is Himself the Truth. And let us pray for those who were there, particularly our revisionist friends, and for our poor, bedraggled Episcopal Church, even in Maryland. God Bless.

In Him,

- Dan Muth