The following is an original piece by The Rev. Jeff Murph, Rector of St. Thomas Episcopal Church Oakmont PA. (Diocese of Pittsburgh)The Lesser of Evils: False Teaching or Schism?
Peter Lee of Virginia elicited howls of protest and outrage a few years ago when he observed that heresy was better than schism. In fact, though I have known and loved and respected Peter for decades, I was pretty sympathetic to his critics, mostly because I believed that he was being rather self-justifying (to defend his decision to give consent to the consecration of Gene Robinson—which the ensuing years have clearly revealed to be a schismatic action) as well as my concern that he was awfully quick to accept that the “lesser evil” of false teaching was necessary (since the lives of the ordained are supposed to be an example to the faithful then living in a sexual relationship outside of marriage constitutes an implicit false teaching).
Though I still think Bishop Lee was being disingenuous, in the light of impending realignment in our own diocese, I have begun to reflect on his claim from a different perspective. For years, I have prayed and counseled and spoken and voted against the drift of the Episcopal Church toward simply reflecting the cultural norms of our society. That certainly is not because I hate those who disagree with me (in fact, often I believe they are motivated by a sincere commitment to a particular biblical interpretation). It is just that, as hard as it sometimes can be, I still have personally seen the power of God’s Word written, interpreted by the apostolic tradition which has been passed down to us as a precious legacy, to renew and transform individual lives and even institutions. A commitment to a desire for holiness, whetted by an obedience in accord with that of the saints and by the help of the Holy Spirit, has led to the change even of nations over the course of Christian history. To depart from this inheritance, on the basis of culturally influenced values, seems a dangerous and precipitous decision to make. As the Anglican primates have said, the onus to justify such changes clearly lies upon the innovators. So, as a consequence, I view the lobbying agenda of certain interest groups in TEC with intense dismay and as being, at the very least, insensitive and unfaithful.
Many, at least in our diocese, sharing this dismay, have concluded that the jig is up, the battle lost, the retreat sounded. No longer is an “interior” strategy viable, my friends say. And based on this argument, they enthusiastically support realignment, which is a fancy way of describing the decision to split from the American Church and connect with the Argentine Church. Many have even argued that it is not really a split because they are just unplugging from the Anglican Communion in one room and plugging back into it in another. I have not been able to buy it. The vast majority of Americans, among whom we do the ministry of Jesus Christ, can only see this move as a church split. There has been no endorsement for this action from the Anglican Instruments of Unity (that we used to say were agents of accountability for us). And clearly it will represent a break, for the clergy, in our ordination vows to conform to the discipline of TEC. My critics, of course, retort that the leadership of the Episcopal Church has broken so many promises and vows themselves as if they were pie crusts. Yet, does that justify similar behavior?
Reflecting on all this, I began to re-examine Bishop Lee’s supposedly cynical self-justification. Looking through church history, clearly there have been unfaithful leaders in the church from the very beginning (just read Paul’s letters). Sometimes, in fact, these unfaithful leaders were in great majority and power (read about the life of Athanasius). Yet as history has proved, despite these terrible times of error, the Holy Spirit has always been faithful to bring the Church of Jesus Christ back into truth and unity, a tremendously hopeful witness that Jesus is indeed Head and Sovereign over his Church. Yet, on the other hand, when human leaders have divided the church because of disputes, then those divisions seem to calcify and remain (as if the spiritual baggage the leavers take with them acts as an obstacle from ever coming back together). So I have begun to see that perhaps Bishop Lee’s message should have been that schism simply compounds the evil of false teaching. It is using another wrong to combat a wrong. As messy and as infuriating and as terrifying as living in the Episcopal Church is for an apostolic and biblical Christian, breaking away is not the answer that the catholic witness of the saints throughout the ages have given—especially for those who still can worship in faithful parishes.
