Valley Episcopalians made a difficult decision earlier this month. In Scholars Speak this week, two Fresno Pacific University faculty—Eleanor Nickel and W. Marshall Johnston—who were on differing sides of the debate, provide a thought-provoking look at the issues, emotions and history behind the vote.

Valley Episcopalians made a difficult decision earlier this month. In Scholars Speak this week, two Fresno Pacific University faculty—Eleanor Nickel and W. Marshall Johnston—who were on differing sides of the debate, provide a thought-provoking look at the issues, emotions and history behind the vote.

Episcopal debate: realignment not schism

By Eleanor Nickel, Ph.D.
December 19, 2007

When I was preparing for my recent wedding at the former St. James Episcopal Cathedral, I had to search through a trunk full of old documents to discover the exact date of my baptism. To my surprise, I found the yellowed bulletin from St. Mary’s Episcopal Church in Rockport, Massachusetts, recording my baptism on November 11, 1973. I was a month and a half old, securing my eligibility for the title of “cradle Episcopalian,” one who was born into the noble sixteenth-century Anglican tradition.

In light of my diocese’s decision to leave the Episcopal Church this month, I find it ironic that the cover of the old bulletin proclaims: “This is the will of God: that you abstain from immorality.” The picture depicts the crucified Christ superimposed on a chalice representing the cup of sorrow that he warned his followers that they would have to drink. The text explains the significance of this image: “For disciples, as for the master, the path to glory is through suffering.”

My baptism into the Episcopal Church turned out to be a baptism into suffering in ways that my parents could not have predicted. Who could have known that by the time I was an adult, the leaders of the Episcopal Church would openly declare that they no longer believe in the authority of the Bible? Who could have imagined that the people of New Hampshire would be faced with a divorced bishop who is living in an openly sexual relationship with another man and who has been compelled to spend time in rehabilitation for his alcoholism?

When it comes to the ethics of church denominations splitting apart over doctrinal issues, I am actually very conservative. The Episcopal Church has always appealed to me based on its deep roots and love for tradition, and I deeply admire the Catholic Church for the same reasons. I have mixed feelings about the Protestant Reformation that splintered the church into so many pieces that Christians can barely recognize one another. Most of the issues that cause churches to split have never seemed credible to me, whether they revolve around baptism, spiritual gifts or the role of women (an issue that, despite some incorrect media coverage, has little to do with the current debate).

How then can I accept my diocese’s decision to leave the oversight of the Episcopal Church? One reason is that this act does not constitute “schism” or “secession” in the way that the news reports would have you believe. The Episcopal Church is part of an international body called the Anglican Communion, the majority of which is appalled by the Episcopal Church’s actions.

When the Diocese of San Joaquin decided to leave the Episcopal Church, we were actually declaring our unity with this much larger, much older tradition, and placing ourselves under the leadership of a different section of the same church. Flashy Civil War metaphors aside, this was not an act of rebellion but of submission to a larger authority—more a realignment than a schism. When the “Remain Episcopal” group preaches the importance of unity, I challenge them to clarify which group they believe should be unified. . . just the United States, or the whole world?

Of course, I also believe that the Episcopal Church’s actions are so serious that they justified our decision to leave their leadership. When Jesus preached on marriage, he made it clear that there was only one action that justified divorce: adultery or sexual immorality. It is no coincidence that this is the issue at hand in the current “divorce” in the Anglican Communion. Adultery has always been a biblical symbol for the breaking of a covenant, and the Episcopal Church, led by the adulterous V. Gene Robinson, has tragically broken its covenant with all those who insist on the authority of Scripture.

Where do we go from here? A few Sundays ago I looked at the beautiful church where I was married and tried to imagine the heartbreak of losing the building if the Episcopal Church decides to follow through on its threats to take everything that we have away from us. The Episcopal Church spends a lot of time preaching the importance of compassion and acceptance for everyone. At the very least, I hope that they will apply these values to their more conservative brothers and sisters in Christ.

Eleanor Nickel, Ph.D., is an English professor at Fresno Pacific University. She teaches courses on literature and film.

Episcopal debate: church should embrace differences

By W. Marshall Johnston, Ph.D.
December 19, 2007

“The Episcopal Church Welcomes You”

This sign is a heartwarming reminder throughout the nation of a denomination called to Gospel mission.

It well represents a church that embraces people of different backgrounds and theological approaches who worship and pray together. Since we “see through a glass darkly” as humans, I hope we can continue to labor for the Gospel with fraternal affection, whatever denominational arrangement prevails.

The Episcopal Church is a multinational body that is unusual even compared to the 39 other Anglican provinces. Most Anglican provinces have remained more authoritarian, while the Episcopal Church has followed our country in becoming quite democratic, such as in creating a very important role for lay leadership. This structure does occasionally create situations that are difficult for those outside our province to understand. Not being a theologian, I can only say that the Holy Spirit seems as likely to move through a democratic process as an authoritarian one.

We in the Episcopal Church are firmly in the Anglican tradition. The Anglican Communion, of which the Episcopal Church has been one of the most active provinces, as well as a founder of its current form, encompasses many worship traditions and honors regional differences. The “Instruments of Unity” that guide the geographic provinces are not designed to force the different regions into a mold, but to help them on their various but mutually supportive paths. Even if there were some kind of coercive ability among the provinces and their leaders, there is little will on their part to exclude the Episcopal Church. Indeed, the Archbishop of Canterbury said in his Advent communication that it would be “ungrateful” for anyone to push Episcopalians further.

A diocese is a unit within the province made up of individual parishes and missions. The four separatist Episcopal dioceses (out of 109) have often criticized the innovations of the Episcopal Church over the last 30 years. Outside of a few oddballs (found in any denomination), the leaders of our church have followed the Holy Spirit with a reverence for Scripture. What has changed most substantively over that time is the role of women in the clergy of our church. The desires of a few to leave have escalated as women have become bishops. Most Anglican provinces now ordain women, but such changes came slowly. The Episcopal Church is committed to honoring those who are not prepared for this new thing.

Recently, the democratic nature of our governance has led some dioceses to seek a better way to show an expression of God’s love toward homosexuals. New Hampshire elected for their bishop a well-loved local priest, Gene Robinson. Since he is a gay man, this selection has outraged many other Episcopalians. However, parishes in that diocese that are uncomfortable with his leadership are able to receive alternative oversight. Any bishop in the church is expected to ask permission for involvement in another diocese, and there is no desire that I can discern on the part of the church to push those of different beliefs toward inclusion.

Christ calls us all to be one, and every time there is schism it wounds all believers. There have been too many such breaks in the history of the Episcopal Church. There are over 20 groups in our country that lay claim to some aspect of the Anglican tradition from outside the Communion. I know that my fellow Episcopalians who voted to leave earlier this month that they voted to stay in the Anglican Communion. However, the tiny province of the Southern Cone (which does not ordain women) has received a refugee bishop before, and he is not invited to the next Communion gathering.

We are lessened by losing the voices of those with different views. My parish is blessed by individuals of every political and theological stripe, and I relished being in a diocese where the same could be said. If we become more monochromatic, we will be a poorer church. And if we need reformation, it should come from within. Members of the diocese have turned away from a church in which some of the most theologically progressive members, e.g., bishops Spong and Swing supported Bishop John-David Schofield when there were questions about his consecration. They felt that within our Anglican ideal of tradition and reason grounded in Scripture there was plenty of room for Schofield. There is much sadness in this season for our church. But an Episcopal diocese will continue in San Joaquin, and it continues to welcome you.

W. Marshall Johnston, Ph.D., teaches ancient history and classics at Fresno Pacific University.