At The Center
FROM THE RECTOR
One of the bishops in my former diocese claimed a radical identification with the center of all things. Early in his ministry as our bishop, he made it clear that, in any of the church’s debates, his place would always be in the middle. While the edges were occupied by conservatives and liberals, by traditionalists and innovators, he told us that his job—his calling—was to inhabit that space at the center in order to remind the church that, at our best, we are a “big tent” that has enough room for everyone.
At the time, that diocese was struggling to find a way to stay together despite polarizing beliefs about human sexuality and the place of LGBTQ+ individuals in the life of the church. The conservatives were angry because they wanted their bishop to take a stand against gay marriage and the ordination of homosexuals. The liberals were angry because they wanted their bishop to stand up for the full inclusion of all people in our sacramental life regardless of their sexuality. (The exclusion of people based on their gender-identity was not yet being challenged openly.)
As a member of the clergy, I struggled to imagine how our diocese could avoid schism, and, by placing himself firmly in the middle, our bishop tried to accomplish just that. Looking back, it is easy to criticize someone for their lack of moral courage—and I would do well to apply that criticism as much to myself as my colleagues—but I think that there is much to be said for and against placing oneself in the radical center as an expression of Christian faithfulness.
At the opening Eucharist for Diocesan Convention last Friday, Bishop Harmon preached on Matthew 9 and Jesus’ decision to eat with tax collectors and sinners. Our bishop encouraged us to broaden the circle of inclusion ever wider until it reaches even the size of the limitless circle that God draws around all of humanity. As he went on to explain during his address on Saturday morning, this widening of the circle requires that existing boundaries be broken so that they can be extended, and, as came out in the question and answer session on Saturday afternoon, those breaks can have painful consequences for those of us who like our circles just the way they are.
According to this understanding of Jesus as one who ever-widens the boundaries of inclusion, we might expect a bishop’s proper place to be on the edge of our community of faith, always pressing against existing limits and stretching us toward a fuller experience of God’s reign. But what about those whose understanding of God, as revealed in sacred scripture, in the teachings of the tradition, and in the lived experience of the faithful, cannot stretch that far without breaking? When does the ever-widening circle leave behind those who remain back at its center and become a doughnut with nothing but a hole in the middle?
Of course, in this sense, my choice of language fails as the disappearing “middle” of the circle is not the same as the radical “middle,” where my former bishop positioned himself. In a way, however, this failure highlights how a spiritual leader’s identification with the center of polarizing debates can, indeed, be faithful. By positioning himself between the extremes, that bishop managed to allow the circle to widen without hollowing out the center. Perhaps tellingly, later in Matthew 9, Jesus not only ministered to the needs of the outcasts but also went to the house of a religious leader to bring his dead daughter back to life. Similarly, we must not forget that Jesus loves those who disagree with us just as much as he loves us.
Nevertheless, a spiritual leader must often reject the claims of those who would deny God’s love, care, and full inclusion of other people as a mistaken, if not blasphemous, expression of faithfulness. Jesus did not allow those who were made uncomfortable by God’s love to maintain their hollow religious claims without being challenged. We, too, must challenge those who, in Jesus’ name, would restrict God’s love for and inclusion of others, even if it means that we must step away from the center of the circle and bear the consequences of the resulting disunity. In truth, when our desire for unity is based on anything other than God’s love, we have substituted the idol of conflict-avoidance for the true God of peace.
At their ordination, bishops are charged to be guardians of the faith, unity, and discipline of the church. That is a radically conservative approach to a radically liberal truth. Their job is not to maintain a static understanding of the faith but to encourage the never-changing truth of God’s unconditional love to ever widen our understanding of it. Like a ball being swung around in a circle, attached to the center by a string that is being lengthened with every revolution, the reign of God is growing without losing its attachment to the center, which is God.
No one is immune from the challenges that come with a radical reliance on God’s love. It will always widen our circle to include those we find least like ourselves because in them, no matter how marred, is always the same divine image that is within us. We cannot know ourselves to be included in God’s love if we would deny that love to anyone else, even those who would deny that love to others. We cannot afford to hold at our center anything less than the fullness of God’s love. In it, all things hold together. Without it, we are lost.
Yours Faithfully,
Evan D. Garner