The Serbian Orthodox Church recently chose its new patriarch in time-honored, scriptural fashion: by lottery. For those unfamiliar with the scriptural basis for this practice, the narrative in the book of Acts reports that following the resurrection and ascension, the disciples drew straws to determine who would replace Judas as one of the twelve disciples. Limiting the possibilities to two men, both of whom had followed Jesus from the beginning, they prayed, and then cast lots. Matthias was chosen. (Acts 1:12-26)
What if the Episcopal Church followed a similar practice to select its leaders? Use prudential wisdom and objective criteria (e.g., who was Jesus from the beginning) to define a small pool of candidates. Pray that God might act through the casting of lots (throwing dice, drawing straws, etc.). And then cast lots, trusting that the choice will be God's choice.
Several questions come to mind:
Would the quality of our new leaders improve, remain the same, or become worse?
Would this process expedite, de-politicize, and helpfully depersonalize searches for new leaders? Or, would the process create an unhelpful sense of chaotic randomness and result in the best-qualified refusing to participate in selection processes?
Most importantly, how do I and how does the Episcopal Church, believe that God works in the world? Does God leave humans to their own devices? Does God somehow make God's will known within psychic, neural, or limbic processes (i.e., cognitively or affectively)? Does God act by altering sub-atomic processes in non-humans such as those that determine the results of unloaded dice rolls or only within humans or both ways?
Ultimately, discerning God's will is very “dicey,” as proven by the long litany of people across the ages who, claiming to respond to God's will, have acted in exceedingly harmful, hateful ways.
Understanding how God moves in the world is beyond human abilities – at least currently. Thus, humans should do everything (thorough research, careful analysis, thoughtful consultation with knowledgeable experts, much praying) they can do ascertain the best possible choice, trusting that God will somehow move in and through that process. Casting lots seems an abdication of human responsibility premised upon a rather superficial determination of how God works in the world.
Given that conclusion, how should the Church respond to the election of the Rev. Canon Mary Glasspool as an Assistant Bishop in the Diocese of Los Angeles?
When I was stationed at the
The Diocese of Los Angeles, after what one can safely presume is thorough research, careful analysis, thoughtful consultation, much prayer (I’ve yet to hear of an episcopal election that did not meet those criteria) has elected a priest whom I have every reason to believe will not only make a fine bishop but is also God's choice for the position. To believe that the good people of Los Angeles have acted for any other motives insults them and reflects unfounded hubris on the part of anyone who asserts that ulterior motives lay behind the election. Her sexuality – lived out within a healthy monogamous relationship – is and should not be relevant.
The election, given the Archbishop of Canterbury’s reaction, will probably be the catalyst for further dissension within the Anglican Communion. The election is highly unlikely to cause anyone to change her or his mind about same sex relationships or openly gay bishops living in a same sex relationship. The election may cause some of those who have already decided to become schismatic to act with more dispatch than might otherwise have happened.
That’s no bad thing. The Church will be healthier and able to focus more on mission once this non-productive controversy is well behind us.
0 comments:
Post a Comment