liberal churchmanship and muddled thinking

Often at school one hears a lot about holding mutually exclusive positions simultaneously. This is usually spoken of as a good thing, a virtue, something that is particularly "Anglican". It is often expressed in the form of "holding in tension" things that seem to be contrary to one another. In other words, "A & ~A." No compunction about obeying the rules of rationality that enable us to function an interact with things in the world.

(Could this feeling that "I don't have to obey the rules" be, in part, made possible by an anterior feeling that the invisible world of spirit is not really there? Or possibly that it operates irrationally? Maybe it does, but in order for the spiritual to interpenetrate the material, it must submit itself to the laws of nature -- including rationality. This maybe is part of the kenosis of Incarnation. Just thinking out loud.)

To return to the main point: the erroneous assumption that Anglicanism is all about holding mutually exclusive propositions together and "in tension" is really just an excuse not to submit oneself to rational scrutiny. An example.

Once in class I suggested that, even assuming that ordaining Gene Robinson was a matter of "justice" and done in response to the urging of the Spirit, as part of an effort to dwell in and to be conformed more deeply to the mind of Christ, bringing us into new truth, etc. etc. Even granting all that, I suggested, we ought to be seriously examine what the consequences of our actions might be for our brothers and sisters around the world. I expressed concern that we did not seem to care to listen to the dismay of certain Anglicans around the world, particularly some who live in close proximity to Muslims, and who are in serious competition with the Muslims for the souls of the people. Sometimes these folks (I am thinking about northern Nigeria, Pakistan, Egypt, etc.) even suffer martyrdom at the hands of Muslims. And when we hear that the Muslim critique of Christianity is that it is a western religion, imperialistic, decadent, etc., our actions might seem to vindicate the persecutors of our brethren in the minds of the "lukewarm" or the uncommitted -- and certainly in the mind of conservative Islam. My point, in class, was that we should be aware of the consequences of our actions for others. I was not saying that we should not have acted, but merely that we ought to be aware that by acting we are causing others to suffer, and maybe even facilitating their deaths. Its easier to pursue justice if you are the one that will suffer for justice's sake. But when you are doing something which is very questionably just, and for which others will suffer, it is rather less defensible to my mind.

Response to these comments was shockingly hostile, with an underlying feeling of ad hominem. At first it was asserted by several that their problems are not our problems, that pursuing the good for ourselves is not incompatible with others paying for it. Finally (this is the point at which pretense to rationality was abandoned) it was asserted, by a young woman who wept while she asserted it, that while the consecration of Robinson might be painful for some, that if there was just one homosexual teenager out there who would not now kill him/herself because of it, then it was all worth it. To this the class responded with sighs and grunts of acknowledgment of an ineffable profundity.

Now hang on. First of all, how many suicidal teenagers (homosexual or otherwise) can there be who care enough about who the Episcopal Bishops are that the particularity of one of them would save that teenagers life? I would wager that there are very few, if any. Even if there were a healthy number, it is still far from clear to me that the goodness of ordaining Gene Robinson is guaranteed by its saving certain lives -- especially in view of the fact that it seemingly imperils lives elsewhere. (And the lives it imperils in Africa and the Middle East seem much less a figment of imagination than suicidal American teenagers with a life-or-death interest in Episcopal politics.)

But the fact that suicidal homosexual teenagers were the topic of discussion, and the fact that discussing them was accompanied by weeping, these sufficed to guarantee the soundness of the young woman's argument. Because Anglicanism is about holding mutually exclusive ideas in tension.