As Presiding Bishop of the Universal Anglican Church, I am often asked questions about the philosophy of the UAC. These questions are expressed in many different ways and forms, but essentially the folks asking these questions want to know what it is that makes the UAC unique. There are many ways to go about attempting to answer such questions, some more effective than others.
Some independent church bodies have sought to identify themselves in terms of things to which they are opposed. In the Anglican tradition, the most notable of these are churches that formed in protest to the 1979 Book of Common Prayer and/or the Ordination of Women in the Episcopal Church (ECUSA). These bodies have what I call a negative reason for existence and they define themselves more by what they oppose than what they support. The problems with such a perspective are many. The first is that a Church that exists only because it favors the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, for example, has nothing to say to people who are not particularly energized by that issue, or who come from outside ECUSA. The second is that such an issue is by definition time limited. Very few people under the age of 40 can remember worshiping with the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, and the group of folks who worshiped under that book into their child rearing years are now at least 65 years old. Regardless of its merits, it is an issue without a future.
Other denominational bodies identify themselves in terms of their opposition to the denominations in which they originated or with whom they share a common history. The conflict between the conservative expressions of Lutheranism is an excellent example of this kind of perspective. There are also independent Catholic bodies who define themselves as being in opposition to the Roman Church. While these issues may not be time limited, they are also negative reasons for existing. They lack a basis on which to proceed forward into uncharted territory, tending to view themselves in terms of what they are not rather than what they might become.
At this point it is essential to note that what I am identifying as a problem is not a Church body that makes statements in which they assert that they are opposed to things that are happening in society and/or the Church. Such statements are an essential part of the prophetic mission of the Church. The problem exists when a Church’s sole reason for existence is opposition to something or someone. From such a position, it is a short step to oppression.
In the early days of discussion that would become the Universal Anglican Church there was a shared vision of (1) a radically inclusive Church, (2) steeped in the Anglican spiritual tradition, and (3) focused on social justice. As the discussions continued, we agreed that it was important to (4) allow the local ministries of this Church to have the most freedom possible. Our operating policies therefore have a Congregational influence evident in them. What all of this means in practical terms is that our constituency would be largely comprised of folks who felt marginalized in other places. We would not only welcome but also reach out to the poor, the oppressed, and the marginalized wherever we encountered them and whatever the reason they have encountered oppression. These folks would be representative of people from almost all walks of life – rich and poor; in good health and bad, both physically and mentally; with and without history of addiction, violence, or abuse; married, divorced, single, partnered; heterosexual, bisexual, lesbian, gay, transgendered; employed and unemployed; from diverse spiritual traditions or no tradition at all.
With the conviction that one is called by God to serve a diverse population and to work for justice for all people without exception comes an enormous responsibility – the responsibility to be a voice for those who are not allowed a voice by our culture, both secular and religious. When we see oppression, we are duty bound to address it and to work for its end. While that may seem like a relatively benign mission, we must face the reality that addressing injustice inevitably brings us into conflict with the powers that be – secular and religious. Despite that, ministry to the poor and oppressed is what God calls us to in no less than three thousand verses in scripture. When we contrast that number with the less than ten verses that discuss same gender sexual behavior and the fact that there are no scriptural passages that address either sexual orientation or abortion (the two hot-button issues of the religious right), can there be any doubt but that much of Christendom in America is extremely misguided regarding what God is asking of us? In light of the weight of three thousand scriptural references, can we afford not to act to end oppression?
The plight of the poor, the oppressed, and the marginalized is so compelling that we cannot allow ourselves to remain silent. Despite that, much of the Church throughout history has remained silent. The very people whom God calls us to serve are being sacrificed on the altars of unity and tradition in most every mainline denomination today. It is that same altar of unity and tradition on which the Church sacrificed African Americans when they equivocated on the slavery issue in the 19th century and the civil rights movement in the 20th century. It is the same altar of unity and tradition on which the Roman Catholic Church today continues to sacrifice women. And yes, it is that same altar of unity and tradition upon which member Churches of the Anglican Communion seek to sacrifice our same gender loving brothers and sisters even today.
In his “Letter from a
Katherine Jefferts-Schori, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, has said the following about the issues of same gender loving people in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion:
She said that gay clergy have asked her in the last six months “when, when” they will be able to fully offer their gifts to the church as bishops. “I have not been able to answer,” she said, adding that the Episcopal Church “has a choice ahead of it.”
But “I don’t believe that this church has any will or desire to abandon you,” Jefferts Schori told a
“I know where my heart lies and it’s in a divided place,” she said, explaining that she hungers to affirm the place of gays and lesbians in the church and she hungers to “see this body reconciled.”
“In my better moments, I firmly hope and pray that these things are not diametrically opposed.”
“I fully recognize that this is a heavy time for most of us, but what better way to start Lent? I think it’s a time for us to slow down, to rest in God—which is the only place we can rest—and to realize that we’re not deciding today,” she said. “Whatever we decide, God will continue to be God and this church will continue to be engaged in mission.”
Unfortunately, this is just the sort of thing King was talking about from his
We invite all people to the sanctuary of the Universal Anglican Church. There is no reason to put up with anything less.
+cb
