Visit Your Local PBS Station PBS Home PBS Home Programs A-Z TV Schedules Watch Video Support PBS Shop PBS Search PBS
Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly -- An online companion to the weekly television news program
Keyword Search
Topic Index Stories by Week
Home
Current Stories

Perspectives
Profile
Web Exclusive
Survey
Headlines
Election Coverage
Special Issues
TV Schedule
Calendar
Newsletter
Subscribe or unsubscribe to the E-mail Newsletter, or edit your preferences.
The Series
About the Series
Funding
Biographies
Awards
Credits
For Teachers
Overview
Lesson Plan List
Tips
Teacher Resources
Resources
Viewer's Guides
Videotapes
Featured Sites
Feedback
Contact Us
Story Suggestions

INTERVIEW:
Rev. John Bryson Chane
August 1, 2003    Episode no. 648
Read This Week's November 7, 2008
Go
Read more of Kim Lawton's interview with the Right Rev. John Bryson Chane, Bishop of Washington, DC:

On the Anglican Communion:

Photo of Bishop John Bryson Chane I'm concerned that the visitation of a number of primates from other parts of the Anglican Communion, along with other persons who may have strong feelings about the church's dealing with issues of human sexuality, will not allow for appropriate process to occur, both in the House of Bishops and within the House of Deputies. Each province of the communion is autonomous. I really find it somewhat troubling that there would be efforts -- not in terms of disagreeing with where the Episcopal Church might be and expressing those points of view very clearly, but really coming into this province and aggressively exploiting the situation in ways that I think are not healthy from the larger Anglican Communion, and are certainly not healthy for our denomination, or our branch of the communion, to discuss these issues openly and in good faith.

I think we're all concerned about the communion. The Anglican Communion is one of the largest Christian church bodies in the world. All of us, of course, have great concern about its growth and its future. We all know that its growth and its future currently are based in Africa and in South America and in Central America. We all understand that, and we know that. What we seek, though, within all of that diversity, is the ability to respect each other's differences culturally and theologically, or as theology reflects that culture, without, in a sense, giving away the underpinnings of what it means to be an Anglican in this great communion of ours.

On Anglican identity:

The Anglican Church, of course, considers itself apostolic and holy, catholic. It bases its broad understanding of how it lives into that as a sacramental and hierarchical church, and it bases its principles on the concept of Scripture, tradition, and reason -- which are very important points for us, even though they might sound rather strange to somebody who's not an Anglican.

The place and role of Scripture in our life and how the Scripture is interpreted [are] important. Tradition means respecting what it means to be part of the Anglican Communion, which is not a communion that is centered in the life of one individual, which would be very much like the Roman Catholic hierarchy. We are connected, one to another, as independent provinces of the communion. And reason means utilizing the great gift that God gives each of us to live into the world, that we understand to be part of who we are, part of our culture, and be able to reason in that environment; with Scripture and theology and tradition that are a part of who we are. It's very different in this country, as it would be in any other part of the world. It's different here than it is in England.

On unity and diversity:

I think some people would say that it's [at] a crisis point. From my point of view, the way in which one understands the presence of a living God and the life of the church is through its great diversity. Diversity for me defines the presence of God in creation. What we have to be able to do is to understand how we can live within that diversity and claim it as good, rather than as oppressive or divisive. I think that's really where we are. That's the great gift of Anglicanism -- that we are, by the very nature of our communion, extremely diverse, scattered all over the globe. We represent many different cultures. I experience the presence of a living God in my life through the great diversity not only in this communion, but the diversity that defines my culture. It's important for those of us in the communion to be respectful of that diversity. What worries me is that not only are we not really in dialogue at this point over these very complex issues, we're not very respectful of one another. That's very troublesome during these challenging times.

On independence and autonomy within the Anglican Communion:

I think it's fair to say that it's a messy thing. I mean, some people don't like messiness. I think some folks would like to see us become far more cohesive. I think some folks would like to see the Archbishop of Canterbury have far more authority in the governance of the church. But that just isn't what Anglicanism is. Anglicanism is kind of a messy thing, and it really is a very diverse community within Christendom. So there are problems with that. How do we live with that tension?

There is no structure on the face of this earth that is perfect and ideal. The church is no exception to that. And the Anglican Communion is no exception to that, either. The question that I ask is, do we have the ability and the will and the faith and the compassion to claim that diversity and to live into that messiness, respecting the fact that it's not going to be always that simple?

On prospects for the General Convention:

I'm not a prophet, but I go to the convention with the hope and with the feeling that we're going to be able to engage in this conversation in a centered area of faith, rather than in a position of fear. I hope that is going to be possible, but there's a tremendous amount of pressure that's being placed on the Episcopal Church from the outside not to deal with these issues in an open way, not to allow the process that we talked about earlier to occur.

On the perspectives of gay Episcopalians:

Not only is the Anglican Church hierarchical, but it is centered in a sacramentally focused communion. When we baptize persons, we don't ask them what their sexuality is. When we baptize a baby, we have no way of knowing how the human sexuality of that child is going to be lived out. What we say to them at baptism -- the congregation affirms the statement that, "You are a full member of the body of Christ by your baptism. You are an inheritor of the Kingdom of God, and you have full and equal access to all of the sacraments of the church." Now, that's the sacrament of baptism, one of the two central sacraments of Anglicanism, of the catholic faith.

When I look at where gay, lesbian, and transgender persons are, they have been excluded from the full sacramental life of the Episcopal Church in the United States -- and, in fact, excluded from the full sacramental life pretty much within the Anglican Communion. What I have to say to that is if, in fact, we believe theologically that God created human beings in the good image of God as creator, and if we, in fact, believe that everybody is equal in God's eyes, then how in God's name can we say that we don't have enough theology to work this issue through? And how can we say that a person's sexuality does not allow them to enter into the full life of this communion?

On homosexuality and Scripture:

Scripture can be read in a multiplicity of ways. I mean, if we get into discussions of Scripture, there will be people who will address it from a form-critical point of view. There are others who are going to interpret it literally. And that's okay, because whatever works for the person works for the person. I don't think taking either one of those extremes or something in the middle demeans or disturbs, in a sense, the very present word of God in the life of the communion, let alone the life of an individual.

I would disagree with the statement that came from the Lambeth Conference [that homosexuality is incompatible with Scripture]. I was the dean of the cathedral at San Diego at that time, and I was really saddened by that statement. That statement should never have been a part of the Lambeth Conference. If you talk to some of the African bishops, they will tell you that was not the ultimate intention of what came out of that resolution. It was added at the very last moment, regrettably.

Continue to top of next colum
Tools:
E-Mail this article
Resources
I tend to really focus on the Gospels of Jesus Christ as the compass points for the way in which I try to live my life and the way in which I try to preach. That doesn't mean that the Jewish Bible of the Old Testament does not have a significant impact, or that the epistles [and] other pieces of New Testament Scripture don't have a hold in my life. What it says is that when I look at the Gospels as the compass points for a mission and ministry in the life of the communion, there isn't anywhere in any of the Gospels where Jesus talked about the issue of homosexuality. I have to ask myself the question, why is that so? I have no answer for that. But Jesus is very clear about a whole bunch of other issues. I mean, if we look at the issue in Scripture -- in Matthew, for instance -- Jesus is very clear about divorce. Jesus is very clear that if a man divorces his wife, in fact, that woman is then to be considered an adulteress. And a man who has been divorced and marries, or a man that marries a divorced woman, is considered to be an adulterer. Those are core teachings from Jesus.

We know in the 21st century and even prior to the 21st century that there were a lot of complex issues about divorce and remarriage, and the church has been very adaptive to those changes in culture. So Scripture can be used to prove a lot of things, if you want to have those things proved to your satisfaction. Does it change the power of God's word? I don't think so. In fact, I don't believe that at all. I find arguments that are based on Scripture to be fruitless.

On issues of sexuality:

I think it's important that the church really address these issues and deal with them now and not defer decision making for another time. We need to find out whether we're going to move forward or not move forward. I think for those who are gay, lesbian, and transgender in our culture, they have been patient for a long time. The Episcopal Church started to study this issue in 1972. In 1976, the General Convention of this church issued at least a statement about the status of gay and lesbian persons in its life. We have been told to study this issue for a long time. How long do you study an issue before you finally have to come to a point where you make a decision?

One of the great frustrations for me now as a bishop is having connections with a much larger church. Being in Washington and being the bishop of this diocese provides me with a lot of opportunity that other bishops don't have -- being connected to decision making on Capitol Hill and also being connected to a much larger, shrinking local community. And for me to go to Minneapolis and to deal with these issues, which are important, and carry the truth and reality in my mind and heart that every day in Africa 7,000 children are dying of AIDS or AIDS-related disease, is really an abomination.

The push back from African bishops is an understandable push back when we get to issues on human sexuality. The bottom line for me is that we need each other desperately. I believe that they need the gifts of the North American church and the European church, because of its technology and because of its experience of being able to bring further resources into sub-Saharan Africa and Africa itself. We need to understand the great gift of faith the African church brings to the Anglican Communion. We need each other desperately. We don't need to keep beating each other over the head on this issue -- not when 7,000 children a day are dying, and not when many of the countries in sub-Saharan Africa have an infrastructure that's no longer functional simply because of HIV/AIDS -- the economies that are shrinking, and some countries that are just filled with violence and internecine conflict. I mean, we have got to get the gospel straight.

On the prospect of schism:

I'm a hopeful person. I think we're going to move beyond this, this time in Minneapolis. I think we're going to stay together. I think we'll probably find ourselves to be in disagreement. That disagreement is going to be expressed in a variety of different ways. I don't think we're headed for schism. That, in fact, is a true and faithful response to the current situation. What we're facing is still being in very messy places but now trying to find out, how can we work together, given the fact that we may be very, very different on interpreting human sexuality and Holy Scripture and theology? We have got to get to that point where we can be respectful of each other's cultures.

On Episcopal parishioners in the United States:

I've spent probably the last month on the road, visiting different sections of this diocese from its rural sections in deep southern Maryland all the way into the District of Columbia, to the metropolitan and exurban centers of this diocese. I think one of the great sadnesses I see is the misinformation and the intentional miswording of statements and issues pertaining to what we're going to be discussing in Minneapolis. That misinformation has been very confusing to people who are there on Sundays in the pews and are trying to do their very best to live into the ministry of Christ in their congregations and to do mission as it's defined by that congregation.

I think the people who are really being injured in this are your basic, good church folks who are just caught in the middle of this crossfire. They're not sure what the issues are. People are so confused about the difference between the blessing of committed same-sex unions and marriage. Most people that I've talked to who have real concerns about this thing are talking about marriage. We're not talking about marriage. That's very important to understand, but that has not been sold well by those who would push this church into a position of not making a decision, or making a decision that's not going to move this process ahead.

On influences from outside the Episcopal Church USA:

The integrity of each province is a significant gift of what Anglicanism is all about. We talked about what a great gift diversity is within the communion. Each [province is] autonomous, and so, therefore, it defines its own journey, if you will, within the broad guidelines of what it means to be an Anglican. I really resent bishops coming in from other parts of the world, wherever that might be, and bishops from our own Episcopal Church inviting them in to act as movers and shakers and pushers on this issue. I find it disrespectful of what it means to be a province of the Anglican Communion. I find it disrespectful to the culture that I try to serve and live with. I find it disrespectful for most of the bishops in the Episcopal Church in this country who work very, very hard to keep their dioceses together and to keep their people informed and to try and bring some kind of fair and clear understanding about what these issues are to their people. That isn't Anglicanism. Anglicanism is to agree to disagree, to be very clear and expressive about those points of disagreement. But I'm very fearful when one part of Anglicanism or a small group of people say, "I really know -- I really know what the Bible says." Whenever I hear that, I really become very frightened.

On realignment within the Anglican Communion:

I don't even know what a significant realignment would look like. I think if we do not come out of this convention with some sense of knowing that we desperately need each other, then whatever the alignment that might come following this convention would be extremely destructive and would not be in keeping with the gospel of Jesus Christ, which calls us to be in unity with one another -- even though we might be in disagreement.

I would be very, very saddened if the church would decide, based on the input of a few, that it is expedient to divide. It will weaken the ministry and the ability of the church to deal with some of the most pressing issues confronting humanity today in a shrinking global community. And it will really send a very bad message to a very hungry world that seeks, I think, the presence and power of the church, which teaches, above everything else, unconditional love and acceptance of diversity as at least two points of a compass.

Did you like this story? How can we improve our program or Web site?
Resources

Read the Cover Story on the looming Episcopal Rift.









TOP
© 2007 Educational Broadcasting Corporation. All rights reserved. PBS Privacy Policy Produced byThirteen/WNET New York