Two theologies

by John M Gessell

The present crisis in the Episcopal Church (and, indeed, in the worldwide Anglican Communion) is not just about the moral status of homosexuality and its expression. Andrew Linzey and Richard Kirker have edited an uncommonly perceptive and lucid collection of essays by distinguished Anglican theologians (Gays and the Future of Anglicanism) which demonstrates that homosexuality is a convenient emotional wedge issue for conservatives but hardly a defining issue for the Church. As also does Bishop Gene Robinson's biography (Going to Heaven). Both of these volumes, along with other discussions, demonstrate that homosexuality is a convenient cloak for pushing the conservative evangelical agenda.

Nor is the crisis about the authority of Scripture as it is presently defined by the literalist/fundamentalist groups in the church, such as the American Anglican Council and the Anglican Mission in America, who project a theory of Scriptural authority which is clearly exotic to Anglican tradition and who push for what they call "the Windsor process" which promotes a polity that would change the Anglican Communion of churches not only beyond its historical roots, but beyond all recognition. Many of these revisionists seem to be unacquainted with Anglicanism's via media and its three modes of interpretation of Scriptural authority.

These revisionists appear to be seeking to "reform" the Anglican Communion as we know it and change it into a monolithic centrally controlled Church managed by a hierarchy which marginalizes the laity and imposes a confessional theology based on one heretical interpretation of Scripture read literally and enforced by a magisterium.

This novel doctrine, they claim, is mandated by the Windsor Report. Be that as it may, I believe that this unprecedented call for "reform" is based on something less ambiguous than conflicts about Scriptural authority or alternative readings of the origin, meaning, and role of homosexuality in the Church. These debates are important, to be sure, but the underlying foundational base of the (apparently) irreconcilable differences in the present sexual wars besetting the Church are two fiercely competitive doctrines of God.

Homosexuality and scriptural authority in this perspective are wedge issues in a struggle to gain power and to preserve patriarchy in the Church. The blows to male domination which have occurred in the past fifty years threaten patriarchal control and underlie the present hysteria. The end of patriarchal power has engendered conflict, and attempts to force the Church to adopt novel theories of Scriptural authority and to adopt novel systems in its polity under the claim of historical legitimacy and of traditionalism. Those who cannot agree to this takeover are called, ironically, "revisionists."

This conflict is played out through alternative doctrines of God. Though not articulated openly, there is a face-off between the God of love and justice, and the God of judgment and wrath. Both may be found in the Old Testament. On the one hand we can read of a blazing, thunderous, blasting storm-God who strikes down in wrath all who fail to meet his demands. This jealous God of wrath is in contrast to a God of compassion, of a humane God who makes the rainbow promise not to destroy his people. This is God as rescuer, as redeemer, who is relenting and who is ever wooing his people and in whom there is plenteous forgiveness.

God as male authority figure. God as lover. Images of God have consequences that matter. The conflicting images of God profoundly inform the present debate in the Church and its sex wars. The Windsor Report seems to project a God who is judgmental, censorious, legalizing, casting down sinners to keep his Church holy and pure. This is a gospel of intolerance. On the other hand, the Episcopal Church's response to Windsor, "To Set our Hope on Christ," is deeply thoughtful, considering scripture and tradition carefully in its explanation of the Church's actions. It presents a God who is not judgmental, but forgiving, caring, accepting, loving, who seeks to bring all to himself. This God is the firm foundation of a Church that is inclusive and accepting and which calls all to God's table. At this present, the two images are remote from one another and establish unbridgeable gaps in faith.

To put the conflict in alternative terms, we can draw a circle of love and include all of God's children, or we can cast out those we dislike and of whom we disapprove.

At Gene Robinson's ordination as Bishop of New Hampshire, one person said of those gathered to protest, "I feel sorry for them. They don't believe that God is a just and loving God."

[The Covenant Journal, Number 24, March 2007]

The Revd Dr John M Gessell is professor emeritus of Ethics, School of Theology, University of the South, and TCJ consultant.