Three Sources of Episcopal/Anglican Theology

I am an Episcopalian. For years, our Church has been the subject of both curiosity and confusion. Are we Protestant? Are we Catholic? An easy answer would be that we are a little of both (with a side of "Reformed" mixed in). With the interest in this Church that has been inspired recently by our Presiding Bishop Michael Curry (the African-American preacher at the Royal Wedding), some explanation might be useful.

First of all, The Episcopal Church is a part of "The Anglican Communion". This is an association of 40 national or regional Church bodies that have their roots in The Church of England. All are self-governing but they all share some basics of theology and worship. They all use their own versions of "The Book of Common Prayer" ("Common" in the sense of "communal"). They all have the same basic structure of bishops, priests, and deacons (similar to the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches), but they also have strong elements of lay leadership.

The theology of the Anglican bodies is more interesting. The English priest and theologian Richard Hooker (1554-1600) originally detailed the three basic sources of theological understanding in the English tradition as it is carried forward by churches in the Anglican Communion. These are:

• Scripture
• Tradition
• Reason

By "Scripture", of course, we mean the Holy Bible. In the Anglican view, we caution strongly against the various forms of literalism that lead to "young earth creationism" and several other misrepresentations of these ancient texts. We also discourage the practice of "proof-texting", where a single verse or short passage of the Bible is taken out of context (or mistranslated) as support for a position that doesn't actually fit the grand overall themes of the complete experience of the people of God.

By "Tradition", we mean the understanding of the "Life in Grace" as people have lived it through all the centuries of our history and through all the cultures that this understanding has affected. This does not mean that we are limited by the thought "We've always done it that way". It means that we carefully sift the experiences of millennia, analyzing and comparing, keeping the ideas that work and discarding the ideas that fail. Tradition is a guiding voice, not an overseer with a whip.

By "Reason", we mean the full range of abilities that people have for analysis and synthesis of information and opinion as we encounter the reality of creation. We prioritize fact over opinion, and opinion over bias. We recognize science as an unequaled tool for encountering the magnificence of God as it is displayed in the intricacies of creation.

Now the question is, "How do we use these sources in deriving the answers to theological questions?" The first principle that I find useful is called "Cromwell's Law". Always consider the possibility that you are mistaken. Then, as we use each of these sources, we will almost certainly come up with different answers to our initial theological question. How do we process the differences? First of all, we do not favor any one source over the others. We also do not see them as co-equal. Is that contradictory? Not necessarily. We see them as a dynamic collection of sources of wisdom. On every question that we present to this theological reflection process, we weigh the results that matter for the question. This is the meaning of "discernment". We do not only look for the intellectual answer, but we also look into our hearts to find the joy (or pain) that comes with the answer.

I hope that this explanation hasn't sounded too academic or theoretical. What we in The Episcopal Church have found from years of experience is that our relationship with God begins with our relationships with each other. "Love your neighbor as yourself" is exactly as important as loving God. We do not leave our understandings of Scripture, Tradition, and Reason up to our private guesswork or to the dictates of the clergy. We gather together in groups small and large,  local, national, and global. We depend on the leading of the Holy Spirit to bring life to all of our neighbors through our relationships.

If The Episcopal Church looks and sounds a bit messy at times, it's obviously because all relationships are messy. Love is messy. Neighbors can be very messy, whether they are seated in the pew next to us on Sunday or are huddled in a shack in Sudan.

Racial Attitudes vs A Network of Racially Unjust Results.

This is a response to a Facebook discussion that seemed to be bogged down in a circular firing squad formation over "who is racist?" One argument seemed to be "No one I know is a racist, so there must not be very many people who are".

If you all are interested in testing your own racial attitudes, go here: 'Harvard IAT'. However, your attitudes are irrelevant. All of our attitudes are irrelevant. What matters are the impacts of our attitudes on our actions. And in a country of 323 million people, we can only look at the aggregates of our actions. That takes statistics and history. Example: blacks and whites use illegal drugs at the same rate, but blacks are incarcerated at a rate that is 6 (SIX) times higher than whites. This is an outcome of a web of legal, political, educational, and economic actions across large communities and generations of history.

Many of the individual actors who create this network of injustice would certainly not be described as "racist", but by "just doing their job" they create an injustice that falls along racial lines. Now, if you all are interested in mapping a path to a future without these kinds of injustices, I would love to hear your ideas.

What is a "Personal Relationship with Jesus"?

The central focus of many Christians today seems to be "A Personal Relationship with Jesus". This idea is a fairly recent development of the last 50 years and appears to be concentrated in the Evangelical branch of the Faith. It has been promoted in others and has led to a great deal of confusion and even pain. Pope Francis has even called the idea "dangerous".

I don't think that this "personal" approach is a bad thing on its own, but I think that we need to look at it from all sides. It seems to spring up from a uniquely American brand of individualism. We have moved from the frontier value of "rugged individualism" to a modern "radical individualism", from self-reliance to contempt for others (particularly those who are of no benefit to us). At the same time, we hold onto the idea (bias?) that religious people are "better" than unreligious people. So then, we need to describe a version of Christianity that is independent of "others". Let's go for a "personal relationship with Jesus".

I don't believe that most people come into this view as cynically as I just described. These sorts of ideas need to be learned slowly and in small doses. They frequently are taught in the family setting as well as in Sunday School. They are also fortified by the "born again" approach that teaches the permanence of salvation. (A "born again" Christian doesn't or can't sin since that would mean you weren't really "born again"). This all can be a very comfortable religious lifestyle, especially if it is reinforced by living in a tight-knit community of fellow believers. 

So much for the origins of this thinking. Now, where can this lead? The isolated nature of this kind of "personal" faith can allow the compartmentalization of many behaviors. As long as I feel warm and cozy in my relationship with Jesus, my feelings toward others can range from mild sympathy all the way to harsh contempt. 

Please consider this bit of Gospel: John 13:34. I generally don't consider "proof text" as a valid argument, but this commandment of Jesus' is in line with so much of his teaching, from the Sermon on the Mount through many of His parables. Matthew 25:31-46 really highlights this. You certainly CAN have a personal relationship with Jesus. There really is no other kind. What I am saying is that you cannot have that relationship in isolation. Jesus is with you in the face of every neighbor you encounter, and you are the face of Jesus to them. (For a definition of "neighbor", see Luke 10:25-37). It doesn't get more personal than that.

Opposition to capital punishment.

The Episcopal Church officially opposes any and all death penalties. Our opposition is both moral and practical. There are many gospel points that can be raised. For example, Jesus prevented the lawful death by stoning of the woman caught in adultery. The practical points are the high costs of execution as compared to life sentences and the built-in racial and economic injustices of our legal system. A study of the California experience with death penalties has an execution costing 18 times as much as a life sentence without parole. Another more fundamental objection is the psychic damage it does to our community. Keep in mind that America has a long and ugly history of lynchings that we have only partially repented of. Our history of celebrating executions in a circus-like atmosphere is disgraceful. (The last public execution drew a crowd of over 20,000). Even more disturbing is the near-religious ceremony with which we perform the executions. The last meal. The last mile. The preacher's words of comfort. This is a human sacrifice to the Gods of Vengeance. I really wish America was better than this.

Pollution is Profitable

The primary idea: pollution is profitable. This results from the fact that polluters do not have to pay for the damage they are doing. The cost of pollution's damage to property and health falls on others (accountants call those costs "externalities"). Finally, the wealthy and powerful are able to rig society (local, national, and global) so that they are never part of the "others" bearing those costs. (Did any rich people live in NOLA Lower 9th Ward? Hell, no!) Now isn't it clear why the wealthy and the powerful are doing their best to protect their profits?

Why spend more for students of poverty?

There are two ways of looking at the object of education of the young. The first is that it is for the benefit of the child. The second is that it is for the benefit of society. People's priorities can lie somewhere between those two, but most people see one outweighing the other. Many who don't have children of their own then complain about and resist paying taxes to benefit other peoples' children. This attitude also shows up when proposals for improving the education of the children of poverty come up. The methods and staff needed to educate these children are more costly than for students from other (well-off) families. Our question as a community is: do we continue the false economy and false equality that has led to these embarrassing test results, or do we step up to the task of properly educating the students that we have been leaving behind?