A few months ago I offered a brief workshop on the Lambeth Conference for a small rural church that I serve in my retirement. To prepare, I read through each of the 1500 or so resolutions considered by the conference since its inception as a way of learning more about the issues that have been raised, the voices that have been heard, and the changes in “orthodox” theology that have been experienced.
For instance, one might take the issue of polygamy among the laity, clergy and even bishops of certain parts of the church in Africa. It was an issue hotly debated over multitudes of decades during which bishops of Europe and European cultures had very strong things to say and demand about the need to stop this abominable practice. Still, no one ever suggested a divorce, and in the end there were a number of accommodations allowing African leaders to work things out within the context of their own cultures.
What kept an issue like that from becoming a threat to communion was, I believe, the lack of an Internet. Look back in the local church publications, city newspapers and radio, or even television, broadcasts of the times. You will find little or nothing about the problem for Anglicans of polygamy in Africa. It meant that there was room for a very difficult issue that raised all kinds of emotional responses to be aired in an environment that permitted plenty of time for reflection and among those whose patient, prayerful and considered judgment might eventually find a path forward illuminated by a subtle re-understanding of orthodoxy.
The Internet, for all its good, including this post, has deprived us of an environment rich in time for prayerful reflection. The instantaneous communication of news, gossip and hysterical rumor mongering has deceived us into thinking that there is an ultimate imperative for our immediate decision on complex issues because the very fate of the church hangs in the balance. The argument rages with almost no concern for wandering off and taking the time, like Balaam, to find out what God might have in mind. Because of the Internet we have the impression of being surrounded by a herd of Balaks stomping up and down in juvenile tantrums demanding curses, and demanding them right now! C.S. Lewis’s Wormwood could not have come up with a better plan A.
It seems to me that we, and I mean we in every conceivable context, in a new age of instantaneous global communication, have got to learn a new way finding time and place for long, slow reflective prayer and discernment. It seems to me that we need to learn that not every decision should be the product of an undisciplined shouting match unleashed in the name of democracy. I don’t have a clue how we might do that. How about if the bishops at Lambeth agree to go behind closed doors and offer not a peep of gossip about their discussions until the ecclesiastical paparazzi have given up and gone home? A couple of them might have to be locked in solitary confinement for the duration. We could bring back the iron mask. It might work.
Steve,You’re right about the Internet, of course. And when it comes to Lambeth and surrounding issues, the quantity of words is way out of proportion to the information conveyed. Cheap talk, cheap ideas.I subscribe to several gay listserves, and the overwhelming majority of the megabytes they put out over the Net is devoted to reiteraring how nasty and mean and utterly absurd the bad guys are and how leery we are of the good guys, who could turn bad without a moment’s notice (viz. the ABC) if they are not watched. It reminds me more of a rally or demonstration than a conversation. I think it’s called phatic discourse.And yet a rally or a demonstration does say something; sometimes more than a conversation does. I remember back in the bad old days before the Internet and when the Internet was first being developed – nobody really gave a damn about gays or gay issues. That was worse. Perhaps there isn’t a whole lot of new information to be conveyed about the situation in the Episcopal church at this moment. But still it’s usually just nice to hear the words: We’re here, we’re queer, we’re fabulous, don’t fuck with us.All the best,Vern
Hear, hear, or is that here, here (?)….I\’ll have to look it up on the internet. Well, anyway, couldn\’t agree with you more re the over-information that we have at our fingertips. Sort of gives us all more reason to find a time for serious thought and reflection. One of our daughters told me this week, via an email, of course, that I had too much time on my hands (blogging, painting, writing, reading). I wrote back to let her know that I have more discretionary time on my hands now with fewer \”other\” folks deciding my fate in terms of job duties. So, with that time allotment back in my own good hands, I am trying to more seriously consider issues, whether they be political, personal, or church related, with thoughtful consideration and deliberate research before making a hasty decision…..that does not, however, exclude the fact that I still give myself plenty of time tojust critically \”fly off the handle\” (what does that mean – I\’ll look it up) about anything that pops onto my radar or computer screen unexpectedly.Thanks as always CP for your thought provoking post:)
The Internet probably does significantly impact the discussion.However, when the problem of polygamy in Africa was being discussed, that would not have been of much interest to people in the United States and Europe, and it wouldn\’t have received much media attention in the West. I think that\’s why the issue of polygamy in Africa would not have divided the Anglican Communion. It was a cultural issue, even though its practice is also unbiblical, according to traditonal Christian understanding of the Scriptures.Polygamy must have been of some concern for the earliest Christians, because the Apostle Paul told Timothy that a bishop must be the husband of one wife. That, as well as the Scriptural story of Adam and Eve, show that God designed marriage to be the union of one man and one woman.Even though many Old Testament patriarchs practiced polygamy, the practice didn\’t come about until after Adam and Eve sinned. I don\’t think, however, that the Communion\’s struggle with polygamy in Africa is exactly the same thing as its struggle over ordaining gays, blessing gay unions and gay marriage.Even though there might be a lot of heat generated in the discussion, I think it still needs to take place publicly.
Firefly,Actually, the issue of polygamy was a big deal and very hotly debated throughout the church. it was of interest to Americans who were fond of bashing Mormons over the practice. However the rant and rave did not explode into the daily lives of ordinary people with the same kind of force that the Internet provides. The curious thing about the Adam and Eve story is that there is no mention of marriage. They were just there together, one as the helpmate to the other. Even in the NT the evidence is spotty. A man should leave his family and cling to his wife. The woman at the well had five husbands and the one she was living with was not her husband. The bishop should be the husband of one wife. Possibly the instructions on divorce. That\’s about it. The ideal of monogamy, it seems to me, has more of a historical/cultural base that scriptural. But before anyone decides to leap into polygamy, it should also be pointed out that none of the polygamous marriages in the bible worked out very well – nothing but discord, backstabbing, jealousies, etc. I imagine God saying something like, \”It\’s not illegal but it\’s not very smart and if I were you I wouldn\’t do it.\”As for the gay issue, I\’m just taking a wild stab but I bet you and I probably don\’t hear God speaking through scripture in the same way.CP
I\’m going on about this stuff mostly for myself. I recall my mom telling me about a boy in her high school who blew himself up with dynamite while fooling around trying to make a bomb. That was in the 30s in a small rural Kansas town. I made all the local headlines and was talked about for months, but the rest of the world didn\’t hear about it, it didn\’t generate instant chats from Nova Scotia to Texas, and CNN didn\’t blab on about it incessantly for 24 hours straight. That\’s what I \’m talking about. Strange, sensational, controversial things happened all the time. They were talked about locally in local newspapers and around the coffee pot, but they were not subject to instantaneous global communication. Our current ability to receive news and engage in conversation about it is a good thing. But it also creates such a discordant noises that the truly important matters are easily drowned out by the trivial, the need for immediate analysis leaves little time for thoughtful reflection, and polarization of opinions that might be mediated in local circumstances become solidified into global mutual animosity almost over night.
CP, I\’m sure you\’re much better acquainted than I am with historical controversies, not only of the Anglican Communion, but of the various Christian denominations in the United States, so I bow to your superior knowledge regarding how the early Mormon practice of polygamy was received here. I guess I was thinking about how it was discussed by the Anglican Communion as they tried to minister to people in Africa where it was a common practice.I still think Scripture makes it quite clear that the original intent of God for marriage was one man and one woman. Obviously, for Adam and Eve, there was no state to issue a marriage license and no minister to officiate at a wedding ceremony.I would be most interested to hear what you believe you hear God saying through Scripture about the gay issue. I wonder if you\’d be interested in hearing what I think I hear Him saying.I\’m also intrigued by the idea that people who agree that Jesus died for humankind\’s sins and was resurrected each hear God saying something markedly different from each other about something so intrinsic as human sexuality, which God designed.Thanks for the response. I very much appreciate the conversation.
CP, I\’m sure you\’re much better acquainted than I am with historical controversies, not only of the Anglican Communion, but of the various Christian denominations in the United States, so I bow to your superior knowledge regarding how the early Mormon practice of polygamy was received here. I guess I was thinking about how it was discussed by the Anglican Communion as they tried to minister to people in Africa where it was a common practice.I still think Scripture makes it quite clear that the original intent of God for marriage was one man and one woman. Obviously, for Adam and Eve, there was no state to issue a marriage license and no minister to officiate at a wedding ceremony.I would be most interested to hear what you believe you hear God saying through Scripture about the gay issue. I wonder if you\’d be interested in hearing what I think I hear Him saying.I\’m also intrigued by the idea that people who agree that Jesus died for humankind\’s sins and was resurrected each hear God saying something markedly different from each other about something so intrinsic as human sexuality, which God designed.
Aargh! Sorry about the double post.
Firefly,Perhaps you would be kind enough to send me an e-mail address. I would be pleased to enter into conversation with you. The best way to reach me directly is at sewoolley@mac.comCP