Luminous Darkness

I have decided that it is time to state some of my views about the current situation within The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, especially given how much more divisive the conflict has become since General Convention 2006 finished. Much has been said about how The Episcopal Church has either ‘broken away from’ or has ‘moved beyond’ the rest of the Anglican Communion, depending upon one’s views. I however, feel strongly that both sides (if such a narrow division can even be said to exist) have here moved towards the boundaries of orthodoxy by forgetting that we are all called to be one Church in Christ. Please read the whole passage carefully, do not just skim it because you believe you know what it says; we can all always be taught something new by letting the light of scripture illuminate our darkness:

For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. Indeed, the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot would say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear would say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole body were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single member, where would the body be? As it is, there are many members, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” On the contrary, the members of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and those members of the body that we think less honorable we clothe with greater honor, and our less respectable members are treated with greater respect; whereas our more respectable members do not need this. But God has so arranged the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior member, that there may be no dissension within the body, but the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together with it; if one member is honored, all rejoice together with it. Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.

I have heard many people, including close friends, on both sides of this divide say words along the lines of ‘we do not need those people any more’. The passage above is very clear that in saying that these are not words that we are allowed to use regarding our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Now, many people believe that centrists such as myself are perhaps simply ambivalent about our views, or do not actually believe in anything. Nothing could be further from the truth in my case. I have a very strong sacramental and bible-centered faith and a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I understand my Christian life as an equal cooperative effort between word and sacrament, and champion a difference between the word of God in the Bible and the Word of God, the logos, Jesus Christ. In addition, I hold strongly to the via media understanding that our God-given reason serves as the mediator between holy scripture and the historical tradition of the Church, and feel that the Holy Spirit is still at work leading us into all truth.

I firmly believe that change is necessary in the church’s understanding of its faith and life in any age, especially in the world of today where we have not always chosen to acknowledge that our world is very different than it was even a few decades ago, much less a few hundred years ago. However, I do not believe that change should allow different parts of the Church to say that they have no more need of other parts of the body of Christ. I feel that there is value in an historical and international dimension to the worship of God, particularly as expressed in the worldwide relationship between the diverse provinces of the Anglican Communion. In short, neither side in this conflict has convinced me that they are taking the Church itself seriously, and I have heard the same level of vicious, non-Christian behavior from people at both ends of the spectrum.

To lay my cards fully on the table here, I should say that in general, theologically, I support the liberal points of view about such issues as women as leaders in the church and homosexuality. (I prefer, in general, not to use the words liberal and conservative since they are misleading and overused, but since this language is what we have at the moment, I will use them with caution.) Conservatives seem to feel that they are categorically right without any hint of interest in actually listening to the voices of those who have been oppressed both inside and outside of the church for generations. In addition, they seem to forget that for those affected personally by these debates, this is not just an ‘issue’ to be discussed, but the current state of someone’s life, a person created in the image and likeness of God and loved by God. On the other hand, liberals have for many years used up so much of the political and moral capital of a shrinking church to discuss these few issues when there is so much else wrong in the world that is left undiscussed. Many of my friends may be offended by this, but I really do believe that the fact that thousands of children die in Africa every day from starvation is more important than a debate about human sexuality in the United States. I certainly cannot fully understand the pain and prejudice suffered by those who have been oppressed, but I still believe what I have said to be true. The world is broken, we know that it is getting worse, and I do not see the Church doing all it could to help.

In fact, when I look at what is going on in the church right now, what I see is behavior fairly reminiscent of the situation in the United States politically. Everything has become a zero sum gain, where the only option is either 100% or nothing. There is no possibility of compromise, and both sides have decided the outcome before the discussion has even happened. Instead of adopting this behavior, based in the economics of globalization and trade, the church should be arguing firmly against such behavior, in opposition to the prevailing culture. That is what we are called to do as Christians.

I imagine that I many get a few fiery comments regarding what I have said, but that is enough for now. I will post more at another time, and will leave you to find more information about Anglican centrists on the web (not all of whom I agree with fully, but that is the point of course) for yourself. I found this short essay a good place to begin: The Centrist Movement.

I have been spending the last few months in a place where high-speed internet access is not a given, as it has been in the university communities where I had been living for the last nine years. Needless to say, I had gotten used to such a service, and tend to take it for granted. So, I have been on the hunt for free Wi-Fi. The city of Pittsburgh, where I currently reside, is a bit behind the curve in terms of wireless access, especially for free. There is a short list of places downtown where I can get online, but most places that have wi-fi are businesses such as Starbucks and Barnes & Noble, which do not provide the service for free. I remember being in New York City, and almost anywhere in lower Manhattan one could open a laptop and find half a dozen open wireless networks.

However, this brings up an interesting question: Is it ethical to use someone else’s free and open wireless access point if they have not explicitly stated that it is available for public use? I am referring in general here to private networks, usually in people’s homes that they either do not know how to secure or can not be bothered to secure. Many people, I am sure, would say that they have no problem using these networks (and I should say up front that I am, for the moment at least, one of them), but there are some questions here.

One image that I heard recently was the scenario of someone leaving their front door open. Would it be ethical for you to go into their house and watch a DVD on their television? I would say, probably not, as the open door is not necessarily an invitation to use their personal property, especially since this situation carelessness rather than consent is probably at fault. In the case of wi-fi, on the other hand, it is more likely to be indifference at work.

This is especially true because it is unlikely that the person with the open network will ever know that you have connected, especially if you do not use a significant amount of bandwidth that might slow their service down. If they do care, it is fairly easy to secure any wireless connection with a password, and as far as I can see, the burden is on the provider to secure their connection. After all, once the radio waves leave their property, you are just accessing a public resource.

So I would conclude that although it is probably ethical to use a wi-fi network that is unsecured, one should probably not use it excessively, and, if you are feeling guilty about it, see if you can find out whose network it is (probably a neighbor that you might even be friends with!), and let them know and ask their permission.