I have somewhat followed the events within the Anglican Communion leading up to the current state of disunity. Being an outsider it is sometimes difficult to know what is really going on. I found the following story to be interesting because it points outside the well-publicized issues of sexual politics and gets at something much more fundamental to the faith.
Word has got about that traditionalist Anglicans have something against gay people - and that is what is driving the Communion towards disintegration.
Of course some of them might not like homosexual people, but, as they never tire of pointing out, that is not what this historic rift is about.
In reality, the dispute centres on how strictly Anglicans should interpret the Bible, and whether, for example, it should be read as ruling out active homosexuality as a sin.
Homosexuality is simply the presenting issue - the human behaviour that exposes radically different approaches to the Bible, and helps to make this such a fundamental dispute.
However, the traditionalist bishops meeting in Jerusalem to plan their next move in this crisis claim that embracing active homosexuality is only a part of the "liberal agenda".
They still want the American Church expelled for ordaining an openly gay bishop in 2003.
But now there are other issues, among them their suspicion that liberal Anglicans are quietly backing away from their "calling" to evangelise other faiths.
The claim is that liberal Anglicans are, by way of embracing an all-inclusive pluralism, "backing away from their 'calling' to evangelize other faiths." According to the story, there is also the concern that the American Episcopal bishop, Katherine Jefferts-Schori, may be suggesting that Jesus Christ is not the only way to salvation.
For me the issue of evangelization brings to mind the fairly recent clarification from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith entitled Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization as well as Dominus Iesus.
While we cannot back away from the sacred truths of the faith, nor can we take lightly the duty to evangelize all peoples, we still must exercise prudence in the way we present the truths of the faith. In such a sensitive society as we live overall, and given the great hope that lies in our faith, it would appear that we are also duty bound to present the faith in such a way that we do not offend because of our style of presentation.
However, if the Lordship of Christ is found to be offensive, how is this different from what the gospels and New Testament books teach anyhow? Indeed there will be offenses made simply by the message itself, and such has always been known.
Interestingly, I think there is some correlation--a common thread--between the ecclesial politics of sexuality and the question of evangelization and pluralism. It has to do with how willing we are to allow the light of Christ to shine in all quarters of the world and in all aspects of human life. If Jesus is to redeem us, we must allow him to enter our world and engage the multiple variations of human experience. Where Christ cannot go, his love--the power to transform--is ineffective.
Comments