Eurocentric Anglican Progressives?

Deconstructing Mark Harris' Article

By Ernesto M. Obregon

In his recent article for The Witness (“ Contending with Anglican Realignment ”), the Rev. Mark Harris presents a post-modern justification for the actions of ECUSA's (the Episcopal Church, USA) General Convention in 2003. For despite his analysis of Anglican history, he shows himself well aware of the possibility that the Global South Primates — representing the majority of the Anglican Communion — may well take some type of action. This is why he makes interesting claims in his paper that I doubt would stand up to profound analysis. Among them are equating “unity of the faith” with fascism, and charging that wars are a result of the desire for a “unified world view” — this despite the fact that philosophers and scientists have been searching for a such unity for centuries, whether one calls it metaphysical or cosmological unity, without going to war. Moreover, in his historical analysis, he seems to have often lost the forest for the trees, confusing diversity with “the discomfort of a more fractured world and a shadow of a substance,” and unity with a forced “common ecclesial culture.”

It may help the reader to understand Fr. Harris' article if it is deconstructed using two key paragraphs of his monograph and some key historical facts. The key historical facts are (of course): the overwhelming vote at Lambeth 1998 where nearly 90% of the assembled bishops voted for the approved sexuality statement, the Primates' statement of 2003, and the request of the Archbishop of Canterbury. These are the statements with which Fr. Harris has to contend.

First paragraph

The western world was brought kicking and screaming into modernity, and parts of the church never got over it. To some extent the missionary efforts of the western churches gave voice to faithful people who found modernity difficult. In new places the old worldview could still be voiced without the need to make science and religion mesh. And now, as modernity is undergoing a transformation into we know not what—that is, as we enter the post-modern period—the church is kicking and screaming again. And now the discontented are both the holders of a classical or pre-modern worldview and those who took on modernity in all its complexity. Those opposed to what the Episcopal Church is doing represent a cloud of witnesses from increasingly un-useful worldviews, and it is no wonder these brothers and sisters are often at odds with one another as well as with the actions of General Convention.

This connection between missionaries and primitive worldviews makes it obvious that Fr. Harris is charging that 90% of the Anglican bishops hold “un-useful” worldviews, and, by implication, that most of those bishops are the ones located in the old mission lands, which means Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Oceania.

Three charges are made in this paragraph. The first charge is that many, if not most, of the missionaries who went out and evangelized large parts of the Global South were non-adaptive personalities who were incapable of integrating their lives to allow science and religion to mesh. This is an incredible generalization that I doubt is backed up by any scholarly studies. It rather reads more like some Hollywood mythos or a progressive's wish-fulfillment than of solid fact, given the charges that follow. The second charge is that the “discontented” hold a “pre-modern” worldview, that is a primitive one. This connection between missionaries and primitive worldviews makes it obvious that Fr. Harris is charging that 90% of the Anglican bishops hold “un-useful” worldviews, and, by implication, that most of those bishops are the ones located in the old mission lands, which means Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Oceania. There is a third charge that those bishops are conflictive personalities who cannot even get along among themselves, a most interesting charge given the unity of statement on these issues.

Who then is capable of a correct post-modern viewpoint? It is no surprise that his conclusion is that, “what the Episcopal Church is doing,” is holding up the banner of post-modernity and correct thought. However, to people of color, this does not sound like post-modernity and not even like modernity, but like old-fashioned Victorian colonial thinking. That a mostly white Eurocentric denomination considers most of our viewpoints “un-useful” and “pre-modern” and that they do not need to listen to us but us to them is of no surprise to us. We were told that back in the 1800's heyday of British imperialism. This makes it the more interesting that Fr. Harris mentions colonialism by the third paragraph, contending that the plethora of Anglican cultures makes this impossible now. It seems that it is not as impossible as Fr. Harris contends.

Additionally, Fr. Harris shows a high level of naiveté about American culture. He fails to consider the possibility that the actions of General Convention do not show any principled stand but rather show only typical American behavior. It is not that difficult to show that the Episcopal Church's rejection of the resolutions the Lambeth Conference and doing what it wishes is no different than President Bush's (and Congress') relationship to the UN. That the Episcopal Church then fails to carry out an agreement reached at the Primates' meeting is no different than the failure of President Clinton to present the Kyoto treaty to the Senate. That the Episcopal Church is upset over the possibility of repercussions and possible discipline, arguing that no one can judge us, is a typical USA attitude towards the world. That many in the Episcopal Church insist that any expressions of disagreement, or demonstrations, or financial boycott show disloyalty is no different than the way those who strongly opposed Iraq were charged with lack of patriotism. It needs no appeal to the Holy Spirit to explain ECUSA's actions, only a study of modern American culture and European attitudes to its colonial holdings during the 1800's.

Second paragraph

. . . We are in the church mess of our times because national churches, denominations, and world church structures cannot stand solid in a world where the notion of a single overarching narrative is no longer considered either relevant or possible.

While it is true that post-modern scholars make the claim that an overarching narrative is not possible, it is precisely the opposite claim that Christianity makes. Apparently 90% of the bishops appear to think that such a narrative is possible, which is why Fr. Harris found it necessary to dismiss their viewpoints as “un-useful” and “pre-modern.” They are certainly un-useful to the cause he wishes to support.

The claim of classical Christianity is precisely that in Christ we have our overarching narrative, that which unites heaven and earth and makes sense of all of history. “He is before all things, and in him all things hold together,” (Colossians 1:17, NRSV). The Christological principle is the beginning point of our philosophy. Moreover, to classical Christianity, it is not surprising that outside the Christological principle, it does become impossible to reach a metaphysical overarching narrative. Interestingly enough, science still searches for its Holy Grail of a Grand Unified Theory, uniting electromagnetism, gravitation, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force believing that an overarching cosmological narrative is not only quite possible, but also attainable. But I digress from Fr. Harris.

It is in the context of these two paragraphs that the rest of Fr. Harris' monograph can be interpreted. In order to support his post-modern claims, Fr. Harris does two things. One, he exaggerates differences among Churches, as though any difference, cultural or theological, is proof of a different fundamental narrative. That is, he forgets the difference between adiophora and essencia . Two, he implies that the “unity of the faith” always included an ecclesiastical unity of culture, something which it actually never included.

From the earliest days of the Church, we have a picture of both diversity and unity that belies Fr. Harris' claims. The Pauline arguments with Peter over whether it was necessary to establish an ecclesiastical unity of culture are well documented.

It is helpful at this point to give an extremely brief summary of early Christian history that will be helpful in answering the question of how to establish a truth claim. From the earliest days of the Church, we have a picture of both diversity and unity that belies Fr. Harris' claims. The Pauline arguments with Peter over whether it was necessary to establish an ecclesiastical unity of culture are well documented. The decision of the Church was that the unity of the faith did not demand a unity of practice, as is documented in Acts, Galatians, Colossians, etc. Nor did it require that all agree on all theological points, as the vigorous discussions recorded in Scripture attest. In one of the books called by Peter's name, it is even admitted that Paul's writings are sometimes hard to interpret.

Sub-apostolic and post-apostolic Church History continue this pattern. The Ecumenical Councils consistently decided for minimalist statements of faith, allowing wide-ranging theological discussion to continue. The well-known schools of biblical interpretation, the Antiochene, the Alexandrian, etc. attest to this healthy and ongoing theological dialogue. Neither was full unity of practice necessary. The various liturgies of that time period attest to the variety allowed within the Church. And yet those liturgies had a common skeleton which attested to a received apostolic practice. While the Councils did bring ecclesiastical order, varieties of expression, as diverse as the Eastern monarchial bishop and the Celtic peripatetic bishop existed alongside one another. Thus for Fr. Harris to argue that the developing variety in the Communion somehow destroys the possibility of unity is to ignore that very same development of the early Church. Variety of expression and the unity of the faith go side by side with each other.

What the Church did insist was that on the things in which it had made a decision, obedience was required. It also insisted that a truth claim could not be decided by one culture alone. A Council of Jerusalem or a later Ecumenical Council was a gathering of peoples from different tribes, nations, peoples, and tongues. Local mono-cultural decisions could be overturned by a multicultural Council. The Early Church was not as “pre-modern” as Fr. Harris would have us believe. They realized that truth claims require input from various worldviews and a healthy presence of the Holy Spirit in order to test them. This is why the Orthodox will not change doctrine or worship to this day. While we may not agree with them, they are making a claim that they cannot change their received truth without such a gathering in the presence of the Holy Spirit. To put it in post-modern terms, the Early Church was making the claim that in the meeting of the various local narratives, in the presence of the Holy Spirit, Truth could be found, and that such Truth could be enforced on the local narratives. But that Ecumenical Church also recognized the integrity of the local narratives, allowing for much variation, as is well documented.

That is, the post-modern claim that there are various narratives, none of which is overarching, is contradicted by the Church, which claims that Truth is possible and that a multicultural multiethnic gathering in the presence of the Holy Spirit is one of the best way to ascertain that Truth. As over against the fascism claim of Fr. Harris, the Church Catholic does indeed claim that a local Church can be held to obedience to Truth, and that such is not fascism. Moreover, there is an illogical discrepancy in what Fr. Harris states. If it were fascism that the Communion insist that ECUSA obey its resolutions, is it not also fascism that Fr. Harris insists that the Communion must remain in relationship with ECUSA?

All narratives are local, to a post-modernist; there is no way to judge, in post-modernism. However, Fr. Harris does not truly believe in post-modernism. As pointed out above, Fr. Harris makes a universal truth claim of his own. . .

If ECUSA is free to follow its local narrative, so is every Church in the Communion, and thus ECUSA cannot insist on retaining unity lest it also be guilty of that same fascism of which it accuses others. Once a unity of narrative is discarded, no one local body can insist on the compliance of another local body in another situational setting. This is the illogicality of some of the post-modern arguments. Should ECUSA appeal to previous Lambeth resolutions, Fr. Harris has already made the case that such are not binding on ECUSA's narrative, thus they are not binding on anybody else's narrative. All narratives are local, to a post-modernist; there is no way to judge, in post-modernism. However, Fr. Harris does not truly believe in post-modernism. As pointed out above, Fr. Harris makes a universal truth claim of his own, that the worldviews (narratives) held by the 90% are inadequate.

When Integrity established a Ugandan chapter, it was making the argument that its narrative is indeed overarching and to be applied even against the opposition of the local narrative. [ Ed. Note : Integrity USA did not establish a chapter in Uganda. A group of gay Christians in Uganda sought in 1999 to use the name “Integrity,” modeling its work after the U.S.-based organization. An article by gay Ugandan Christopher Senteza discusses the history of the founding of that organization, which has collaborated with the U.S. organization but is not a chapter of it.] In fact, the use of post-modernism by Fr. Harris is somewhat disingenuous since the advocates of a change in the Communion's position argue in terms of universal human freedom, and seek to base their arguments in biblical reflection in such a way that it is obvious that they do believe in an overarching narrative of Truth.

Thus Fr. Harris is neither a skeptical or an affirming post-modernist. He is simply a modernist who does believe in the ability to construct universal Truth claims. His arguments are, at best, disingenuous. But what troubles me is the Eurocentrism of his claim to truth that allows him to discard the call of 90% of the bishops of the Communion and the call of the Primates. Fr. Harris has not answered the question of what claim to knowledge allows a predominantly white, middle-class Church to discard so easily the considered decisions of a multicultural multiethnic assembly. Nor has he answered the question of why that assembly may not choose to either discipline or withdraw membership to such a Church, or to even recognize only a part of that Church.

The Rev. Ernesto M. Obregon is the Diocesan Missioner for Hispanic Ministries in the Episcopal Diocese of Alabama. Born in Havana, Cuba, he has served congregations in Peru and Bolivia and is a member of the South American Missionary Society. He may be reached by email at obregon@bellsouth.net .

Obregon's Overreach

by Mark Harris

I have read with a mixture of surprise and sorrow Mr. Obregon's response to my essay in the Witness, titled “Contending with Anglican Realignment.”   He claims or implies that I said things I never said, which saddens and surprises me. He also points to places where I might well have erred. That of course also surprises and saddens, but in a different way.

First concerning what Mr. Obregon thinks I said:

(i) Mr. Obregon writes: “He makes interesting claims in his paper that I doubt would stand up to profound analysis. Among them are equating “unity of faith” with fascism.”  

Well, it may be that profound analysis will reveal flaws, but it would be helpful if Mr. Obregon at least referenced what I said, not what he thought I said. What I said was “Those working for realignment are not countering fascism; they are supporting precisely the binding together and unity of belief and practice (on their terms) that is the mark of fascism in practice.”  

I did not, and do not, equate unity of faith with fascism.   I do believe that the bundling of belief and practice into an orthodox framework, from which there can be no deviation without the charge of heresy, bears the marks of fascism in practice. Thus my surprise and dismay that the Theological Charter uses the unity of belief and practice to denounce and expose the failings of many of us who are less than properly orthodox and leads them to the claim that we deny the Name of Jesus.   

(ii) Mr. Obregon contents that I am “charging that wars are a result of the desire for a “unified world view.”

Well, again, that is not what I said. What I said was, that there was in the full bloom of modernity, “the effort to grasp a unified worldview, be that political, economic or religious. That effort led us to astounding warfare. . .”    Wars are not the result of the desire for a unified world view, they accompany the grasping.

(iii) I have no idea how Mr. Obregon gets to the idea that I confuse “unity with a forced ‘common ecclesial culture.'”

Regarding the paragraphs Mr. Obregon suggests are crucial:

He suggests that I charge that “many if not most of the missionaries who went out. . . were non-adaptive personalities. . . etc.” I made no such charge. “Many if not most of the missionaries” is a far cry from my statement that “to some extent the missionary efforts of the western churches gave voice. . .” I suggest that my statement is precisely damning of the Western imperialism and colonialism of which Mr. Obregon is justly critical.

. . .in the western world we now find people – all convinced Christians I would maintain – who hold pre-modern (or classical), modern, and post-modern understandings, and that those opposed to what the Episcopal Church is doing mostly represent pre-modern (or classical) or modern worldviews.

He states “The second charge is that the “discontented” hold a “pre-modern” worldview, that is a primitive one. . .” This is quite outrageous. In no way do I suggest that the pre-modern worldview is “primitive.” That is his wording, not mine. What I do say is that in the western world we now find people – all convinced Christians I would maintain – who hold pre-modern (or classical), modern, and post-modern understandings, and that those opposed to what the Episcopal Church is doing mostly represent pre-modern (or classical) or modern worldviews.

Mr. Obregon says, “This connection between missionaries and primitive worldviews makes it obvious that Fr. Harris is charging that 90 % of the Anglican bishops hold “un-useful” worldviews.” That is quite a stretch, and by the way personally insulting. I don't suppose there is any way Mr. Obregon knows of my strong commitment to, and respect for, the office of bishop and my respect for the actual bishops I know throughout the Anglican Communion, but he might have asked.

Mr. Obregon's implication is that what I have written sounds like “old-fashioned Victorian colonial thinking. . .” He also seems to think that I am proposing that “what the Episcopal Church is doing” concerns “correct thought.”   He seems to accuse me of equating what we have done in General Convention with “correct thought” and seems to identify himself with the “we” who have been the recipients of colonial thinking.

I have never asserted that what we did was “correct thought.” Rather, I have suggested that in the post-modern context the pre-modern or classical worldview and the modern worldview make claims to universal value that do not hold. I do not claim “correct thought” and certainly do not believe that some segment of “the West” or “the North” represent such thinking. That is precisely the point: the distrust of meta-narratives extends even to the distrust itself. Instead of a new worldview, the post-modern condition consists of proximate narratives in a multi-cultural context.

I have the deepest respect for Mr. Obregon's experience and observations. If he says that I am involved in colonial thinking I take it seriously as a criticism. As a fellow believer I am obligated to listen to him.

I am not, however, obligated to put up with his suggestion that “the actions of General Convention do not show any principled stand but rather show only typical American behavior.” His assertion that “it needs no appeal to the Holy Spirit to explain ECUSA's actions, only a study of modern American culture and European attitudes to its colonial holdings during the 1800's” is interesting if only because it seems to suggest that the workings of the Holy Spirit were not present at General Convention.  

I find Mr. Obregon's summary of early Christian history very helpful up to the point where he says, “the post-modern claim that there are various narratives, none of which is overarching, is contradicted by the Church. . .” He makes a telling comment when he asks, “If it were fascism that the Communion insist that ECUSA obey its resolutions, is it not also fascism that Fr. Harris insists that the Communion must remain in relationship with ECUSA?”

It is telling because resolutions of the Lambeth Conference have never been understood as requiring obedience, nor for that matter have resolutions of the meetings of Primates. I am quite willing to say that there is a strong imperative attached to such resolutions, but they have never been understood as requiring obedience. And, by the way, I have not in any way insisted that the Communion must remain in relationship with ECUSA. I have stated quite clearly that I believe living together with conflict will require creative ways to deal with our differences.

Mr. Obregon charges that I make a universal truth claim, “that the worldviews (narratives) held by the 90% are inadequate.” I won't quibble about the percentages – that is a figment of his imagination. But I do use the word inadequate quite purposefully, for I am not saying that these narratives or worldviews are wrong, but that they are inadequate to the sorts of questions I believe we face in addressing the matters that came before General Convention. I am suggesting perhaps that new occasions teach new duties, and if new duties then new ways of seeing things.

The Lambeth Conference or the Primates might well put in place ways to limit inclusion of the Episcopal Church in their assemblies, and might even find ways to limit inclusion to bishops who submit to some form of discipline. However, in doing so [they] will be taking on powers not previously understood as their own.

The crux of Mr. Obregon's argument against what I have written is in his last paragraph, and in it he poses a quite troubling question. But in order to get to that question it might be helpful to clear the air. I do not discard the calls of the bishops and the Primates, but I do suggest that there are limits to the power of such calls. The Lambeth Conference or the Primates might well put in place ways to limit inclusion of the Episcopal Church in their assemblies, and might even find ways to limit inclusion to bishops who submit to some form of discipline. However, in doing so the Lambeth Conference or the Primates will be taking on powers not previously understood as their own. Having not agreed to the primacy of those resolutions over those made in the Episcopal Church, we might well discover a point in the future where there is the need to disassociate. I think this would be lamentable, but in a divided Christendom not surprising.

His charge of Eurocentrism is of course the crux of his criticism. And in some ways I see that charge as a gift, for it is always important to ask such questions. Division on the matters of contention seem to involve separating the Global North from the Global South, with a few notable exceptions – some bishops in the Global North being in opposition to what has been done at General Convention and some bishops in the Global South being supportive.  

Mr. Obregon asks, “what claim to knowledge allows a predominately white, middle-class Church to discard so easily the considered decisions of a multicultural multiethnic assembly?” I know of no such claim to knowledge.  

I suggest that General Convention did not discard, easily or otherwise, the decisions of Lambeth or of the Primates. What General Convention did was to vote on matters that came before it, quite mindful of the opinions of others in the Anglican Communion but obviously not finally guided by those opinions. It is not a claim to some sort of special knowledge, special or otherwise, that led to the decisions made; rather it is a claim to jurisdiction that required that General Convention act.

Still, as a middle-class white male in a predominately white middle-class Church I know full well the possibilities of sinful arrogance. I confess a certain anger with the workings of the American Anglican Council and the Network, and such anger often leads to the excesses that appear as arrogance. For all such offenses truly present, I confess my sorrow and pledge repentance.  

At the same time I suggest it is not arrogance or willfulness that lies behind the decisions made. They were decisions taken by deputies and bishops genuinely mindful of the tasks before them.  

Mr. Obregon does not seem to like the decisions that were made. He is in company with others on that, both within and without the Episcopal Church. He may believe if he wishes that these bad decisions are the product of people acting badly, or even bad people acting as one might expect them to act. Fair enough. He has every right to be wrong, a right enjoyed by us all up to a point.

The Rev. Canon Mark Harris is author of The Challenge of Change: The Anglican Communion in the Post Modern Era , and a member of the Episcopal Church Publishing Company's ( The Witness magazine) board of directors. He lives in Lewes, Del., and may be reached by email at poetmark@worldnet.att.net .