Beginning the Conversation

by The Very Rev. Keith Emerson, Chair of Living a Holy Life Task Force and rector of St. Paul's, Suffolk

In Lent 2010, the House of Bishops received a report titled Same-Sex Relationships in the Life of the Church.  It was prepared by eight theologians who, in the course of their work, split into two “affinity groups,” one conservative, the other liberal.  In the preface, the document’s editor acknowledged that the terms ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ have limitations, but still used them because people easily identify what each confers.  

I share this apprehension.  As we Episcopalians in the Diocese of Southern Virginia begin a twenty-five week electronic conversation, I worry that defining our positions as liberal and conservative will have negative consequences.  I fear it will encourage us to mirror the most unhelpful elements of our nation’s political discourse; incivility, narrowness, and “I’m right/you’re wrong” thinking.   

I wonder if there is a better way to frame our discussion.

The Rev. Canon Win Lewis, rector of Christ & St. Luke's in Norfolk, suggested I read two books by Barry Johnson – Polarity Management and Managing Polarities in Congregations.  Johnson differentiates between problems that have a solution, i.e. if the furnace won’t kick in, you call a repairman, and problems that arise out polar opposites - situations you must manage and monitor, but can never ‘solve.’  

Johnson’s classic polarity example is inhaling and exhaling.  You simply cannot do one and not the other.  The goal is to maximize the benefits of each through a process known as breathing.  Other polarities include activity and rest, planning and action, individual and team, and stability and change.  Individuals and organizations that focus on one pole to the exclusion of the other don’t thrive.  In fact, singular focus on a particular pole brings out its most negative qualities.  For example, if your life is all activity/no rest the end result is burnout and if it is all rest/no activity boredom sets in.   

I believe it is helpful to see the Episcopal Church’s discussion around issues of same-sex relationships through the polarity lens of stability and change.  We might even want to use words more closely aligned with our church’s culture: tradition and reform.  Anglicans have a strong history of managing both well.  The English Reformation differed from that on the European continent in that we Anglicans incorporated the benefits of reformation thinking while maintaining what was elegant and useful in our tradition.  We managed to do much the same at the founding of The Episcopal Church by maintaining certain aspects of the Church of England and reforming others.

So here is my modest proposal: as we begin this conversation about human sexuality in the life of our diocese, let us identify ourselves as traditionalists or reformers and let us refer to our positions, ideas, and proposals as being traditional or reforming.  While being just words, they create a climate of mutual respect and dignity by affirming that people and positions at polar opposites need each other.  We the Church would be all the poorer if we lost one of these perspectives.

Question for Posting: Generally speaking, what do you see as the strengths of tradition?  What do you see as the potential weaknesses?  What are the strengths of reform?  What are the potential weaknesses?