Our Common Life: A Report on Episcopal Identity
Our Common Life: A Report on Episcopal Identity
Send mail to: lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu
OUR COMMON LIFE:
Being An Episcopalian In The Decade of Evangelism
THE REVISED REPORT
OF
THE TASK FORCE ON EPISCOPAL IDENTITY
to
THE 118th CONVENTION
OF
THE DIOCESE OF NEWARK
January 24-25, 1992
=================================================================
Note: I have scanned only the body of the report from the Journal of
the 1992 Convention. I have not scanned the extensive and informative
appendices. Unfortunately the appendicese do not scan because of the
exceedingly small type. The small type of even the report itself has
left several errors in the scansion.
For a printed copy of the full, inquire about costs from:
Diocese of Newark
31 Mulberry Street
Newark, NJ 07102
201-622-4306
Louie Crew
=================================================================
I. Membership of the Task Force
Mr. Michel Belt, St. Peter's, Morristown
The Rev. William R. Coats, St. Clement's, Hawthorne
The Rev. Nicholas T. Cook, Co-Chair, St. Luke's, Montclair
Dr. Louie Crew, Grace Church, Newark
Ms. Lyn Headley-Moore, The Church of the Transfiguration, Towaco
Gerrie Jeter, Co-Chair, St. Andrew's, Harrington Park
Ms. Laurie Matarazzo, St. Mary's, Belvidere
The Rev. Jo-Ann R. Murphy, The Church of the Transfiguration, Towaco
The Rev. Bonnie Perry, Christ Church, Ridgewood*
The Ven. James W.H. Sell, Archdeacon for Program and Communications*
The Rev. Steven L. Steele, St. Thomas', Vernon
Mr. F. Phil Storm, St. Paul's, Morris Plains
David E. Crean, Editor
*(Appointed to the Task Force but unable to complete their tenure.)
II. Introduction
In an initial meeting with the Task Force on
Episcopal Identity, Bishop Spong challenged
the members with some provocative questions:
What demands does membership in the
Episcopal Church make of its members?
What does the Episcopal Church stand for?
Is there a minimum creed for Episcopa-
lians? If so, what is it?
What are the demands specifically of the
Diocese of Newark?
How far should we go in the toleration of
differences?
What is the common ground that we need
to hold onto?
What does a dying church look like? W hen
does a church cease lo be a church?
When tradition and reason clash, which
prevails?
What do we understand by inclusiveness,
especially with regard to language, race,
color, creed, and sexual orientation?
These questions raise important issues -- issues
which this document addresses. Precisely what
does it mean to be an Episcopalian in this day
and age? Underlying this is a deeper concern:
as we enter the Decade of Evangelism, what
can Episcopalians point to that is uniquely
ours?' Is the Episcopal Church "relevant" or
is it, as Bishop Stephen Bayne noted, a church
"of Gothic architecture and Tudor prose"?
Who are we?(2) The Episcopal Church can
be characterized in a variety of ways: it mani-
fests racial and other diversity; hears other
viewpoints; is inclusive; has a proud tradition,
particularly in its liturgical pageantry; embrac-
es a via media (the middle way"); respects
intellect; and fosters personal growth.
These characteristics are, of course, not
necessarily unique to the Episcopal Church.
We balance the richness of catholic tradi-
tion with the creativity of protestant progress-
ivism; we thus blend elements that can appeal
to the whole spectrum of religious experience.
This has enabled our members to listen to each
other, to guard against complacency and
renew faith. In other words, we can point to
an inherent dynamism, an ability to live within
the tension that exists between change and
tradition.
The Episcopal Church is sacramentally
centered. We respect tradition and are willing
to experiment with change. We believe that
the Bible is authoritative and we also examine
Scripture in the light of experience. Following
the example of Jesus, we hold Scripture to be
a narrative of redemption. We combine disci-
pline and freedom -- the discipline to be faith-
ful to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the
freedom to be people who constantly examine
what this faithfulness implies.
We respect tradition. We are a liturgical
church, using the forms of worship in The
Book of Common Prayer. Within this for-
mality there is a variety of liturgical expres-
sion. The Eucharist is central to our worship;
in addition we have the richness of Morning
and Evening Prayer and have reclaimed other
more ancient services such as the Great Vigil
of Easter.
These are some of the characteristics of
our church. Not surprisingly, sometimes we
experience great tension. There is a rift be-
tween those who accept abortion and those
who do not with little common ground for
genuine discussion between two sides. Dis-
agreement still exists regarding the 1979
Prayer Book. We are polarized over the ordi-
nation of women, especially to the episcopae,
and of open and avowed gays and lesbians.
We differ concerning the blessing of non-
traditional relationships. The tension between
tradition and change has reached such a level
that some fear that it threatens to tear the very
fabric of Anglicanism. Have these tensions
grown too great for the famous Anglican
toleration and compromise, the "via media,"
which has long guided and governed us.
An answer to these concerns will emerge
from this document. In it we examine some of
the facets of being an Episcopalian. We exam-
ine Scripture, authority, tradition and reason
and see how these have been tempered by
openness and experience.
III. Identity
A. The Traditional Identity
WHAT IS THE IDENTITY of the Episcopal
Church? Who or what is an Episcopalian?
Until relatively recently, it was generally
perceived that an Episcopalian was literate,
educated, middle- to upper-class, conservative,
open to the concerns of the "less fortunate,
reserved in worship, formal, tolerant of differ-
ent views to some small degree. An Episco-
palian's membership in the church sometimes
appeared as much a mark of class standing as
a mater of intense religious interest.
Theologically, the Episcopal Church was
generally Protestant in sensibility, though
aware that it was different from Rome and
from other Protestant bodies. The Church
often expressed that this difference was the
result of the classical Anglican notion of the
via media, "the middle way: the church in
between, a bridge between Protestantism and
Catholicism. But in spite of theological atten-
tion to the notion of the via media, for the
average parishioner the distinction between our
church and others may have been more a
matter of class than theology.
About a generation ago, it became appar-
ent that our social identity was changing.
Many, including a large proportion of the
upper classes, drifted away. Our class identity
once provided us with coherence. With the
erosion of our identity as a class of the proper-
tied and privileged we have had to redefine
who we are.
This is the context of our present-day
search for identity in the Episcopal Church.
B. The Emerging Identity
THE OLD IDENTITY was set in social or vague-
ly ecclesiastical terms. These no longer apply.
We are now a multi-class and multi-racial
church (though still more heavily weighted
with persons from the middle and upper-mid-
dle classes).
How do we define ourselves? In particular,
how do we define ourselves in the modern
world? What does it mean "to be in the mod-
ern world"? We cannot use a set of defini-
tions, social or ecclesiastical, from the past.
We propose to identify the Episcopal Church
in a different way. We suggest that who we
are as Episcopalians is determined by our rela-
tionship to modernity. It is this identity that
we now explore.
This relationship is already perceived in
our church in which progressives and tradi-
tionalists differ in matters which directly relate
to the challenge of modernity. Progressives in
the church are more ready to embrace modern
developments in science, to contemporary
social movements (e.g. feminism, social jus-
tice), to the development of norms of thinking
and acting which have come into place over
the last 200 years (and especially in the last
50). They often see in these developments the
movement of God's Spirit.
Traditionalists, on the other hand, tend to
question much (though not all) of modern
thought and wary of social movements which
seem to contradict the theological, social and
sexual views of Scripture and tradition. They
worry that concessions to modern trends are
all too often ill-thought and accepted too easily
at the expense of the solidity of tradition. For
them, the preservation of the tradition is
honoring God's Spirit.
In other words, the differences in our
church are differences over how to perceive
and react to the developments of the modern
world. The question of modernity, therefore,
lies at the heart of the issues which concern
our church.
IV. Modernity
IN ONE SENSE, our church has already defined
itself as being open to modernity.(3) Recall that
this church has taken the following initiatives:
it has refused to be literalist in its interpreta-
tion of Scripture; has generally accepted
modern scientific thought; has authorized
remarriage (1973); has sanctioned the ordina-
tion of women (1976); has been generally, if
unofficially, tolerant of sexual relations before
marriage; has, in several of its dioceses, wit-
nessed the ordination of openly homosexual
persons; and there have been, in the Diocese
of Newark and elsewhere in the church, bless-
ings of the unions of committed homosexual
persons.(4)
These changes have provoked a reaction
within the church. They have caused others
outside the church to characterize us as a
"liberal" church. Not all Episcopalians (or
Christians) are aligned with this new emerging
identity. Not only are they anxious to re-
establish many forms of traditional morality
and belief within the church, but they are also
increasingly worried that the Church has
engaged in change merely for the sake of
change. In the dialogue with the modern
world, some Episcopalians are not convinced
either that modernity is benign, or that every
adaptation to modern custom is for the better.
Increasingly, there is a tension in our church
around the issues of the authority of Scripture
and a call for a return to the authority of
Scripture and tradition as normative, if not
exclusive, sources.
The Episcopal Church has, from its incep-
tion, granted a wide voice to the laity (the
House of deputies pre-dates the House of Bish-
ops at General Convention). It has always
been open to straightforward political pressure
for change. In many ways it is a democratic
church. All of the initiatives enumerated above
support the argument that the emerging identi-
ty of the Episcopal Church involves an open
dialogue with modernity; one which requires
certain changes on our part.
V. Scripture and Tradition
IN THIS DIOCESE we take seriously the charge
that the changes which our church and our
diocese have authorized are contrary to Scrip-
ture or to tradition. We acknowledge that
many of these changes go beyond anything the
church has heretofore approved. At the same
time we believe that these changes do accord
with and, in a powerful sense, are authorized
by our sacred sources. We maintain that we
are faithful to our past.
How can we make such a claim? We make
it because of how we view our sources. We do
not believe that these function merely as
frozen deposits from the past, unalterable
givens which, by virtue of their antiquity,
mandate habits, thoughts and practices
throughout time.
We believe that the Holy Spirit cannot be
contained like a genie in a bottle. Our sacred
sources are not rigid and frozen deposits of
sterile traditions, but vital, vibrant springs of
renewal and challenge. They themselves are
products of change and, by nature, dialogic.
To be faithful to Scripture and tradition is,
therefore, to be in a conversation with con-
temporary life. Since our sacred sources are
themselves a product of the ongoing dialogue
between the church and the world, we can be
faithful in our day by continuing to adhere to
that animating intention.
As a church we place ourselves in the
midst of, indeed we are the mediators of, the
continuous conversation between God and
God's ongoing creation in time. That is how
we describe ourselves.S
Does dialogue between modernity and
"open sources eventually mean capitulation?
Is it a wry, clever way of putting in place the
full range of modern customs and habits,
jettisoning everything from the past?
These are important questions. They make
us think about criteria. To say that our sources
are "open" does not mean that they ratify the
entire apparatus of modern life. We have to be
clear how we use our sources of authority:
how we distinguish the claims of modernity
from the claims in our sources, and how we,
if we do not accept the claims of modernity
wholesale, judge them.
VI. Reason
AT THIS POINT we introduce two considerations:
First, we employ what has often been
called the third leg of the Anglican stool of
authority, after Scripture and tradition:
reason. Reason is too often perceived as a
purely subjective enterprise. Reason has,
however, supplied reflections on doctrine
and ethics with an element of contemporaneity.(6)
Can we grant authority to contemporary experience?
We believe that we
can. Contemporary experience raises up
questions concerning the adequacy of that
which we have received from the past. It
is that which initiates the search for a
usable past. In that sense, experience
criticizes the past. In particular we believe
that experience, especially the cry of those
demeaned, excluded or oppressed in our
world has authority: an authority that can
lead to change.(7)
Second, if there is to be a true dialogue
with modernity, then the church must have
some distinctive contribution to make. This
involves expressing the Gospel message to
people in this age of indifference. We are
under no illusion that the assumptions of
modernity are in any profound way hospitable,
or even open, to the
Gospel message. While we as a church can learn from
certain questions and developments of
modernity, the modern world does not
seek to learn from us. There is no easy fit
between Christian faith and the modern world.
We thus preserve for ourselves a
loving but critical stance. We see this as
our prophetic role. It is important for us to
suggest in what ways we think modernity
deficient. In so doing. we seek also to
reassure those who regard us as merely an
echo of modern trends.
Christianity is generally differentiated from
the modern world on moral terms. We do not,
however, believe that the church and the
world separate along a moral divide.
Furthermore, we are not convinced that our age is
morally any worse than any other.
We differentiate Christianity from the
modern world along a spiritual divide. God, in
the modern world, has been replaced with the
self. This, of course, has been a human intent
since Adam, but our day has seen the removal
of most restraints or distractions from this
primitive drive. We can say much positive
about the self, the person in the relatively
unfettered exercise of his or her potential:
creative, discovering, active, choosing; the
central actor in the elaboration of this
extraordinary project, the modern world. At the same
time, what is there to say about a society
which revolves around, rewards and celebrates
self-promotion, self-referentiality,
self-absorption? These are elements of modernity
which drive our culture.
We propose a message of renunciation,
suffering love, solidarity with the poor,
prayer, and self-forgetfulness; in short, we
propose Jesus the Christ. Why are we surprised
that so few will listen? We are dealing
with two different, indeed conflicting, spiritual
experiences, two distinct organizing systems.
The bridge between them is conversion. We
confess Jesus and the power of his resurrection
over and against the claims of modernity.
It is clear that we are at once open to modernity
and criticize it. We are, as St. John
says, in the world but not of it, (John 17:16).
With this in mind, we believe that we can
further elaborate the nature of our identity by
selecting some of the major issues of our time
and working through them..
VII. Beliefs and Creeds
IN THIS ONGOING DIALOGUE with modernity,
in which we stake out our identity as an open
yet critical body, what is it that we understand
to be our basic theological beliefs? Clearly, we
are more than a people who struggle with issues;
we have our own set of beliefs.
Beliefs, however, function in context. What
are they and, more importantly, what is the
context within which they are offered? The
Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Formula
of Chalcedon set forth the Church's
understanding of God, Jesus Christ and the
Holy Spirit for their time. We affirm those
e creeds. We recognize the need to employ our
credal faith in a contemporary context.
Our beliefs, or creeds, are best seen as a
response to the spiritual wasteland in contemporary life.
Christianity is primarily a faith
about redemption. Whatever we may say about
Creation, it cannot be considered as a separate
enterprise in which we speculate about what
Genesis may say about the created order in
contrast to what an empirical scientist says
about the universe. Our notions about the
universe are controlled by the primary events
of redemption. Many modern movements--Marxism,
or psychoanalysis, for instance--
have sought to perform redemptive tasks. But
the early promise of Marxism has given way
to tyranny and self-annihilation. While
psychoanalysis has helped people adapt to the terrors
of existence, its organizing myth of psychosexual
freedom has never taught anyone to love.
Today we are faced with the claim of
redemption by scientific pharmacology.
None of these has touched the core of
modernity's nervous ailment: the glorification
of the self. Thus, when we recite our basic
beliefs we do so not out of some need to
reiterate the views of the fourth and fifth
centuries, but in order to speak to the realm of
death in our own time. Our creeds are defiant
statements. They refuse the excessive rationality of
a so- called scientific age.9 They are
claims about human redemption which differ
from modernity's claims about redemption.
VIII. Authority
It is one thing to suggest an identity for the
Episcopal Church; it is quite another when that
proffered identity is spurned and opposed. For
no matter how much we argue for our right,
many others argue for their right. How can we
be a church with this cacophony?
Certainly the question of the order and
unity of the Church is important. But we are
a church which encompasses radically different
points of view. How we deal with this reality
is also important.
At this point we wish to argue for a particularly
open form of authority. This form has
similarities with the older form of Anglican
authority, but it takes into account the depth of
present day disagreements -- something Anglicanism
never had to face in the past.
There is another approach that we commend:
we prefer an inclusive church.
IX. Inclusiveness
WE SPEAK OF INCLUSIVENESS in two ways.
First, we want to stretch forward to those who
are excluded by society. We are convinced that we,
both as a church and as a diocese, do
not do enough to minister with the hungry, the
homeless, and the afflicted. At a time when
social justice has been swept off the national
agenda, we wish it to remain. We would like
to reverse the patterns of greed and violence
which are at the center of our national experience.
We would like to reverse the systematic
attack on our environment and the resources of
this earth. We cannot continue to live, as a
nation or a church, at the expense of others
and of the earth. We must promote a more
equitable distribution of our resources, cultural
as well as economic. There are too many
ways, subtle as well as obvious, that we as a
church worship wealth, encourage accumulation, and
invidiously honor size and success.
We want to include in our ministry, our parishes and
our lives the excluded, the forgotten
and those whom we have driven away. As a
church, we cannot, intentionally or unintentionally,
exclude those of any cultures whose
habits, lore and customs are, in and of themselves,
a blessing in our midst. We want to
invite back those who have been made to feel
unwanted because of their habits or lifestyles
and have therefore stayed away.
Second, we want to be a church which
includes those who disagree. We want to be a
church which tolerates disagreement. So we
speak of love as inclusiveness, and inclusiveness
as a paradigm of love.
Our inclusiveness is theologically based.
Jesus called into his company those whom
society maltreated, saying, "I have come to call
not the righteous but sinners to repentance."
(Luke 15:32) But his call did not demand that
they first change. He loved first -- unconditionally.
Repentance, far from being the condition for entrance
into his company, was rather
the hoped-for response of those touched by his
love. We can be no less open, either to those
who have been hurt or to those who demand
of us a love dependent upon repentance 2(Mark 11:14).
The Gospel is the basis of what we do. We
do not believe that the Gospel can be reduced
to social action, or "human values," or as an
equivalent for tolerance and good will. It is
the Good News of Jesus Christ who died for
us all. This calls for another kind of
discipline--the discipline of tolerance, the discipline of
forbearance, the discipline of love.
It is not easy to live in a time of ambiguity.
In a time of ambiguity and uncertainty the
temptation is that the church is reduced to a
club where people are asked and expected to
believe the same thing in the same way. We
believe the Episcopal Church must resist this
temptation. To those who wish for more
clarity and discipline we say, please stay with
us and continue the dialogue.
X. Amendment
We value those who would remind us of our
scriptural and traditional heritage, and believe
that they must shape our prayer, thought and
action.
For many of us, being an Episcopalian in
to day's world means being able to affirm that
which has been delivered to us. This was
expressly stated in the preface to the first
American Book of Common Prayer, which
was born out of a conflict which separated
brother from brother, sister from sister, friend
from friend. It read as follows: "That this
Church is far from intending to depart from
the Church of England in any essential point
of doctrine, discipline, or worship; or further
than local circumstances require."
For many of us, being an Episcopalian in
today's world means acknowledging the Scriptures
as the primary source of all our teaching,
treating them, both Old and New [Testaments],
in the same manner that Jesus treated
the Old. As he himself said of those who
were ignorant of scripture: "Is not this why
you are wrong, that you heed neither the Scriptures
nor the power of God?" (Mark 12:24) Or
again, on the road to Emmaus on His use of
Scripture: "And beginning with Moses and all
the prophets, he (Jesus) interpreted to them in
all the Scriptures the things concerning himself."
(Luke 27:27). Reason, tradition and
experience provide guidelines to our understanding.
For many of us, being an Episcopalian in
to day's world means being under authority
--the authority of Scripture. The bishops of the
Anglican Communion, meeting in Lambeth in
1958 wrote: "the Church is not 'over' the
Holy Scriptures but 'under' them .... To that
apostolic authority the Church must ever
bow." So, too, must we. In reality, without
that authority and acknowledgment of that
authority, no one in the Church has any authority,
including councils, conventions,
bishops and clergy. Without this authority the
end result is dysfunction and chaos. We need
authentic authority without which we have no
claim to be the body of Christ.
For many of us, being an Episcopalian in
today's world means offering to the world a
liturgy which is both rich and precious. Was
it not our forebears who, in 1549 introduced
to the world The Book of Common Prayer, a
book which was to be stained by their blood.
It is still cherished in its modern forms by rich
and poor, young and old, sophisticated and
unsophisticated, educated and uneducated, in
many different languages and numerous and
varied cultural settings.
For many of us, being an Episcopalian in
today's world means acknowledging that we
live in a world of rapid change. Yet the new
must be reinterpreted by the old, as the old is
interpreted by the new. Jesus Christ, as the
author [of the Letter] to the Hebrews states,
"is the same yesterday, today, and for ever."
(Hebrews 13:8) Jesus himself affirmed, referring
to the law and the prophets, "I have not
come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
(Matthew 5:17) Though change is ever present,
it is not always, as history has taught us,
for the better.
Finally, for many of us, being an Episcopalian
in today's world acknowledges the
challenges both to and from society, challenges
to and from the changing mores of people.
We need to be open and honest in our quest to
solve these dilemmas and conflicts. However,
they can only be resolved on the basis of truth
not fiction, fact not feelings, love not anger,
acknowledging, in the words of St. Paul, our
thanks "to God who gives us the victory
through our Lord Jesus Christ." (I Corinthians 15:57)
Notes
1. See the excerpt from Bishop Spong's address to
Convention in Appendix B.
2. When we say "we" in this paper, this represents the
Task Force's perception of where this diocese stands or
may be preparing to stand.
3. Modernity is that set of principles and assumptions
which guide the modern age and shape prevailing
values.
4. The Diocese of Newark committed itself, in 1985, to a
thorough study of issues in human sexuality. A Task
Force, established in response to the actions of that
Convention, reported to the 1987 Convention and
urged that the Diocese move toward a creative ministry
to those for whom traditional marriage was, for various
reasons, not an option. In particular, the Task Force
urged that appropriate means (liturgical and otherwise)
be found to affirm relationships that were entered into:
prior to marriage; by gay and lesbian persons; and by
older people who deemed marriage inappropriate to
their circumstances. Although the Convention's
resolution was confined to "receiving" the report and to
commending it for study and although it did not
formally endorse Task Force findings, the resolution's
effect has been to stimulate both discussion and
controversy, which are ongoing in the Diocese, on the
subjects of sexuality and family life.
5. We develop this case more fully in Appendix C.
6. We are uncomfortable with the definition of reason
proposed by Richard Hooker, the great 16th century
English theologian. For Hooker, reason was an
immanent principle of the world not the act of thinking
which we in our time conceive it to be, We want to
employ some contemporary authority to interact with
Scripture and tradition. We find reason too subjective
and arbitrary to be reliable and instead propose the
authority of contemporary experience.
7. We develop this argument more fully in Appendix D.
8. Appendix E suggests how we, as a church, differ from
other churches and from modernity as well.
9. In Appendix F we try to articulate a minimum creed
for our day.
10. In Appendix G we sketch out more fully what we
mean by authority.
11. This Amendment is not the work of the Task Force,
but was added at the 118th Convention