From Temptation to Transformation:
3. Tempted by self-righteousness
Lent 3, 14th March, 2004
The Rev'd Dr Craig D'Alton
Assistant Priest, St Peter's, Eastern Hill
Do you remember the Port Arthur massacre? It was some years ago now, but there's a true story of something that happened in its wake which never fails to disturb me and even to make me feel ashamed of my fellow Christians.
I won't embarrass the denomination in question, but let's just say that one rather fundamentalist parish church of a certain protestant denomination in Melbourne did a letterbox drop of their suburb a few weeks after that horrific event. On one side of the pamphlet were details of that Church, its services and contact details. On the other side was the main heading, which ran something like: "Have you ever wondered why people died in the Port Arthur Massacre?" The pamphlet text then explained that the reason that these people died is that the massacre took place on a Sunday, and they were not in Church. So if you want to be saved, come to Church. All are welcome.
It would almost be funny if it weren't a true story. If it happened now I hope that I would have the presence of mind to send the minister of that church a very simple note. Dear Sir, Luke 13:2-3. Yours faithfully. "Do you think that because these Galileans suffered in this way they were worse sinners than all other Galileans? No, I tell you, but unless you repent, you will all perish as they did."
Self-righteousness can lead Christians down dangerous, bizarre, and even offensive paths.
Of course, Biblical fundamentalists like these have no monopoly over self-righteousness. Liberals can be guilty of it too: you know the sort of thing, "You can be anything you like, as long as it's liberal".
Conservatives at the Catholic end of the spectrum can be in danger as well. Here the temptation is, if anything, even clearer. "I'm right and you're wrong" is so much easier to articulate when you've a few hundred years of tradition on your side.
Something which has struck me in recent debates within the Anglican communion is the way in which those usually of more conservative bent, particularly on the Catholic side, have adopted what seems to me to be the ultimate liberal position. Instead of arguing for the traditional position on any given issue and taking the high moral ground of those whose position is anchored in Scripture and tradition, they have instead accepted inevitable defeat and opted for a "solution" to their failure to argue their case strongly enough to win. Some have said, in effect, if you won't play the game with our preferred rules, we'll set up another game elsewhere. Thus we have the phenomenon of "Catholic Anglican Churches", which define Catholicism (which I was always taught meant universal) in the narrowest of senses, and make the test of orthodoxy one's "soundness" in peripheral matters – like women's ordination or issues of human sexuality. Such issues, important though they be, are not and have never been central tenets of the faith to be believed by all for salvation. How bizarre and even sad that a few temporally and societally-specific moral issues have led some into the temptation of religious self-righteousness, and in the process even into schism. It makes me sad, because I think that both the Church at large, and such folk themselves, are harmed by such actions. How can the fig tree bear fruit when it has an axe cutting it in twain?
This ultra-liberal "I'll believe and do what I want and the rest of you can go hang" position has also been adopted, ironically, by some other social conservatives who have remained in the Church. Once again this has been in response to the issues of women's ordination, the ordination of gay people and blessing of same-sex unions. I refer to so-called "alternative episcopal oversight".
I am not interested, in this sermon, in commenting one way or the other on the question of the ordination of women as deacons and priests, or the consecration of women as bishops, or the ordination of gay men and women, or the blessing of same-sex couples. I do, of course, have a views on each of these, but please understand that what I am about to say is a comment on the structure of the debate, not on its content.
Let me begin by quoting from, of all things, the thirty-nine articles of religion:
Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ's, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in receiving of the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ's ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God's gifts diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ's institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.
(Art. 26)
Thus, EVEN IF one counts the ordination of gays, for example, to be evil (a very strong word indeed), nonetheless, if that ordination was valid and canonical, and such priests minister by the commission and authority of Christ and his visible Church, then Article 26 is clear: "we may use their ministry". This is of key importance. The argument that "your bishop ordains gays, and I don't approve of that, so I want a special bishop for my parish who is 'sound' " directly contradicts the articles of religion which are part of the fundamental constitutional background of the Anglican Church worldwide. Indeed, such a position is soundly against over 1700 years of Church history. After the persecutions of the early Church there was a great argument about the validity of the baptism of those who had been baptised in heretic Churches: should that baptism be re-done, in order to make it "legitimate"? The Catholic position became, in effect, that the unworthiness of the Minister hinders not the effect of the Sacrament. If heretics whose beliefs had been pronounced anathema could validly baptise and, indeed, ordain, then surely whether a bishop has ordained a gay person or a women is no argument at all against accepting their ministry. Indeed, one might wish to extrapolate this argument even further, but I will leave that for another time.
My point is this: in seeking to maintain at all costs an "orthodox" position conceived largely in negative moral terms – "We OPPOSE this, that or the other" – I wonder whether some in the Church have fallen into the tempting sin of self-righteousness just as much as those who argue that liberalism is the only valid position or that there is only one way of interpreting the Bible? It is, I believe, of the greatest importance that we tread warily around such issues, as the General Synod meets later this year and may well discuss the setting up a structure of alternative episcopal oversight within the Australian Church. But it is my fervent belief that Newman, Pusey, Keble and the rest would be horrified at the prospect. I think that, as twenty-first century Anglo-Catholics, we should be horrified too. Whatever our beliefs (and within this congregation and parish I know that opinions are divided), but WHATEVER our beliefs on these issues of ethical praxis in relation to the sacrament of holy orders or of marriage, or of anything else, we must always resist the temptation to the kind of self-righteousness that sees us hive off into a ghetto of like-minded believers, growing ever smaller and more bitter. We must remain as firm and engaged members of the Church, and contribute to robust debate. And when our Church in legitimate fora comes to a mind on an issue, those who find themselves in the minority must, to coin a couple of phrases from politics, either accept the umpire's decision or work in a constructive way to "keep the bastards honest". However we can only do that legitimately if we have maintained our allegiance to the Church, flawed and human as it is, which is also God's instrument and the Body of Christ in our day.
I wonder whether parishes like St Peter's may in fact have something specific to offer the wider Church in this regard. Like the Church at large, we are a diverse community of folk who hold many different views on many different things. Even the clergy associated with the parish would not be of one accord, for example, on whether women should be consecrated as bishops. Yet we all worship together and receive the sacraments from each other's hands. People are baptised, make their communion, are married and are even buried by the priest who is there – not by "the priest who agrees with me." The person on your left may well think that all gays should go to hell. The person to your right may well be in a committed gay relationship. Yet we all worship together.
It is in spirit-filled sacramental community that self-righteousness is defeated. It is such a community that can perhaps model how a barren tree may yet grow and bear fruit. I wonder whether, as we move through this year, we might not simply resist the temptation to self-righteousness and religious arrogance, but might find new and inspiring ways to communicate the truth of the Gospel, which is that God loves us all, and welcomes us all into his kingdom and into his Church.
|
Views is a
publication of
St Peter's Eastern Hill, Melbourne Australia.
|
