S-C-H-I....

At one point in The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee, Jesus appears to one of the contestants, a hyperachieving young woman named Marcy Park.

“Jesus, will you be disappointed in me if I lose?”

“No, my child, I won’t be disappointed if you lose. I also won’t be disappointed if you win. Mainly, though, this is not the sort of thing I care about.”

I wonder what Jesus must think of us Episcopalians these days. We are taking time out from our mission to be a blessing to other people to engage in a nasty internecine war. It’s been brewing a while – the confirmation of Gene Robinson three years ago may have been a flashpoint, and the election of Katherine Jeffords-Schori as Presiding Bishop poured fuel on the fire, but the powder was spread around good and thick on the ground years ago. In 2000, for example, several bishops were consecrated by the Archbishops of Rwanda and Southeast Asia and sent to America, intended to be "missionary bishops."

I am not claiming the moral high ground -- well, maybe I am. I don't know. I do know that I am sad and angry and tired of all this nonsense. And things are going to get much worse.

We're beyond the pale, the ECUSA, for daring to confirm a gay bishop? But Nigeria, where the Standing Committee of the Archdiocese called for gays and lesbians to not only be excluded from the life of the church but thrown in jail for five years, is not?

Supposedly our position is "non-Scriptural." I think that's wrong (and in any case when did Anglicans become Biblical literalists?), but Archbishop Peter Akinola's, with his view of homosexuals as "beasts," is more "non-Scriptural" by a damn sight. We are faulted for going against the 1998 Lambeth Report (and 2004 Windor Report) because we (in a divided vote) confirmed the election of a gay bishop -- a bishop who had been duly and properly selected by his diocese -- and because we refused to swear never to do it again, since "homosexual practice [is] incompatible with Scripture." Fine. Those reports also say

We commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons and we wish to assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ; while rejecting homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture, calls on all our people to minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation and to condemn irrational fear of homosexuals. . .

Throwing people in jail for five years is "minister[ing] to them pastorally and sensitively." Good to know.

And then there is the matter of gender. The diocese of Fort Worth asked for alternative oversight within forty-eight hours of the election of Jeffords-Schori. This was not a thoughtful, Spirit-driven response to the events at Convention. How could it have been? Dioceses do not move that fast. This had to have been planned well in advance. So much for letting the Spirit speak -- much better to determine what messages are acceptable, before we are faced with them.

The traditionalists accuse us of lack of discipline. And I say, what discipline does it take to adhere to tradition in the face of new knowledge and understanding? Is that discipline or rigidity? And is working for change based on that understanding kowtowing to popular culture, or is it showing strength to fight for what God speaks to us, rather than falling back on what has always been done? Spiritual discernment is a discipline, too: and by its nature discernment must not presupppose the answer being discerned.

It takes discipline to undertake actions in which there is a strong possibility of being treated with scorn, derision or hatred. At the 2000 General Convention, a delegate from Dallas took it upon himself to sprinkle salt for exorcism under the tables of delegations with openly gay delegates. A gay priest said "This happens to us all the time. It is good that it is out in the open." It takes courage, and yes, discipline, to keep trying to affect change in such situations.

Following General Convention, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury suggested a two-tiered Communion: provinces who agreed to abide by "Scriptural principals" (to be defined, of course, by the most traditionalist elements in the Communion) would be full members. Others -- i.e., the ECUSA, and perhaps the Canadian and New Zealand churches -- would be "associates" who would not affect the positions of the Anglican Communion: you can hang around and pretend to be part of the club, but we're not going to listen to you.

Schism. From Latin, meaning a formal division or separation from or between a religious body. As in "Rowan Williams has effectively proposed a schism between the Episcopal Church in America and the rest of the Anglican Communion." S-C-H-I-S-M. Schism.

But then I keep coming back to my original question: does any of this matter? The real work of the Lord goes on in the pews, in the streets, between people. Regardless of what happens to the ECUSA's position in the Anglican Communion, we will still do the Lord's work in the world to the best of our understanding and ability.

Like Marcy Park, it sure would be nice to have Jesus appear and tell us what to do. Unlike Marcy Park, I don't expect that to happen -- we're going to have to pray and listen to discern where to go next.