Speaking Across the Divide: An Interview with Paul Zahl

By Joseph Wakelee-Lynch
Thursday, March 3, 2005

In late January 2005, the Very Rev. Dr. Paul Zahl, president and dean of Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry, in Ambridge, Pa., gave a keynote address at the Epiphany West conference hosted by the Church Divinity School of the Pacific, in Berkeley, Calif. The meeting was focused on biblical interpretation, diversity and dialogue in the Anglican Communion, subjects that are at the heart of Anglicanism's divisions.

Zahl, a leading spokesperson among conservative Episcopalians, is the author of several books, including the forthcoming Understanding the Windsor Report: Two Leaders in the American Church Speak Across the Divide (Church Publishing Inc., 2005), which he wrote with the Rev. Dr. Ian T. Douglas, of the Episcopal Divinity School, in Cambridge, Mass. A few days after the conference, Zahl was interviewed by Joseph Wakelee-Lynch, who reported for The Witness on the Epiphany West conference ("Scripture's Truth and Diversity"). Zahl shared his thoughts about the future of the Episcopal Church (ECUSA) and conservative Episcopalians.

Joseph Wakelee-Lynch: You have suggested that the "winners," so to speak, in the ECUSA sexuality issue could help matters if they adopted Jesus' example and offered concessions to the "losers." Can you say what concessions would be appropriate, and, conversely, what can conservative bishops offer in regard to dissident parishes in their dioceses?

Paul Zahl: That's a vital question. I think that the very liberal, or the ascendant bishops, who are nervous about delegated episcopal pastoral oversight ought to have offered -- and still ought to offer -- dissident parishes the opportunity to decide the conditions under which they will go ahead with alternative pastoral oversight. This means that the people in power cede to the people who don't have the power the decision of who, and under what conditions, should provide episcopal pastoral oversight. Now, this process does not have to be forever. For example, it could be for a two-year period.

I think that the "victims," need to be given, as it were, the grace of control over delegated episcopal oversight. If they had allowed a Network [Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes] bishop, like Bob Duncan of Pittsburgh, or someone like Ed Salmon of South Carolina, to be within the structure, that would've gone a long way. I think that's really what the ascendant bishops, or regnant bishops, haven't been willing to do. The system that they proposed is so complex and so process-heavy, that people like me lose heart very quickly, especially in times of pressure or stress.

Second, I think that parishes that affiliate with the Network should be allowed to do that -- again, without penalty, including without penalty for clergy -- for a limited period of time, and see how it goes. Pray for the best, keep in close contact, and trust that if you give freedom to the dispossessed, they will not abuse it but will rather be grateful for it.

This makes it incumbent upon Network or conservative bishops to be willing to do exactly the same thing in the case of "liberal" dissident parishes in their dioceses. Now, to my understanding, that offer has been made very clearly by Bishop Salmon to at least two parishes that are at odds with his approach. He has given them complete freedom to find an overseeing bishop of their choosing under the conditions they wish. I also know that's the case with Bishop Duncan here in Pittsburgh. He has clearly offered to two dissident parishes the complete freedom to take on whatever arrangements would suit them, as dissident liberal parishes. That at least is what I would want to see from where I sit.

JWL: What can the laity do to help this situation?

PZ: Well, that's a painful question, in fact, in the episcopal polity because most laity don't understand themselves to have any kind of real "power" in any ecclesiastical sense. I find that the lay people are extremely squeamish when they see purple shirts and generally believe that the "right reverend fathers" and gods always know what is right and good. And there is a tendency to not be as democratic in the true sense of that word as, I think, the American laity ought to be. They tend to leave things to their clergy, and they tend to get very nervous when conflict comes up. Perhaps they trust the bishops almost too implicitly and without really doing their homework, or being critical. My experience is that often the laity are not active, not assertive enough, and not articulate enough, or don't believe they can be articulate enough to really make a difference. I wish that the laity really would, on all sides of the question, be more engaged than they are.

JWL: Is it possible that our conflicts could be more readily dealt with if the national province were able to resolve the issues over biblical interpretation internally. Or do you think the involvement of non-ECUSA parties, whether it be the primates, or Archbishop Peter Akinola [of Nigeria] or Bishop Henry Orombi [of Uganda], actually can play a constructive role?

PZ: That is, in a way, the key question procedurally. I'll bet that just about everybody wishes we could do the former. If we could solve our problems on our own, I think it would be, obviously, much to be preferred. The way that would happen, for example, is for the question of gay sexuality or human sexuality to be discussed a little bit more on its own terms and not always reduced to process, and ecclesiastical process. I've always felt that we've tended to shy away from really discussing this in substantial or material terms, and we're always trying to find process answers to it. And what often happens is that process becomes a smokescreen for whatever the governing party really wants to do.

Noam Chomsky, of whom I'm a fan, says that the words "peace process" in the Middle East are a misnomer; they mean any process designed not to have peace. I think conservatives, or orthodox types in the Episcopal Church, have felt for about 25 years that all the talk about process was really just kind of a screen for a strong approach and point of view.

Had the Episcopal Church been able to deal with the question theologically, biblically, and materially as opposed to formally, as it were, in terms of content, then I think we would've gotten a lot further. Speaking for myself, it feels like we have to appeal to external authorities, like Bishop Henry Orombi, who is a good friend of mine, by the way, or Archbishop Peter Akinola, whom I respect very much, because we feel so beleaguered and so uncountenanced.

Having said that, if the kind of tone and the genuine interface that I think occurred at Epiphany West could have happened before, we might not be at this place.

JWL: If you had the opportunity to address the assembled liberals in ECUSA but were given only two things to say to them, would they be? And, conversely, what would you say to the conservatives?

PZ: Two things come to mind. First, "On the basis of a theology of grace rather than control, would you be willing to offer us an authentic, open-ended, Spirit-led moment of grace for us to live our Christian lives as we feel we ought to, in light of that moment of grace, and see what emerged?"

Second, "Would you be willing to discuss the substance of the question of human sexuality and not simply the process and the ecclesiology of it. Would you be willing to discuss the actual question of 'truth' and not just the process of living with difference. Would you take the time with to walk [us] through the biblical arguments and really come to the core of the question rather than the surface of the question?"

I sometimes quote W.H. Auden, who said, "The truth is catholic. The search for the truth is protestant." That means that if you're willing to go for the truth wherever it leads you, then whatever you come up with might possibly be called catholic in the truest sense of the word. I would want to challenge the liberals to walk with people like me through the actual issue itself, for better or worse. Obviously, we both have to be willing to be open to change. I have to be willing to say that I might be wrong. I have to be willing to say that I'm willing to be convinced. But, I think we need to really discuss the issue in substantial depth.

JWL: And what would you say to the conservatives?

PZ: I would say: "Stay in the Episcopal Church as long as you can, until they push you out. We have a contribution to make. It is not a contribution we will make by 'winning,' for I think we have lost. But the ascendant party needs us, not just to feel that they really are 'tolerant,' but to somehow arrive at a finally catholic expression of Christianity. If we leave, there won't be any 'heavy water' for purposes of gospel fusion; there won't be any lodestone by which, one day, a course correction could be made. I feel like we are the lead, in the sense of the comic book 'Superman': the lead that may still protect them from the kryptonite of the world's 'never-failing stores.' Without us, in other words, they will finally choke and tremble in the deadly night air, because the whole thing was derived, was ingested, from the world's ideas -- and those ideas change, like the weather. So, dear brethren and sistren, stay in, so long as you can.

"On the other hand, if they -- the regnant Episcopalians -- really won't give you a shred of space, then, sigh, you will be forced out. Like the character Ripley in the movie 'Alien,' slip through the airlock and tie yourself up in the escape shuttle and push off into the great unknown. And if it really comes to that, then, and then only, watch that you allow no stowaway!"

JWL: Not withstanding those analogies, when you talk about the issues and potential concessions, I think that you sometimes seem to hold a belief that there may be an end, even if it's not in sight now, that could be a tolerable, though not a preferable, resolution for all sides. Do you really have a hope of that magnitude?

PZ: I do. I have a hope. It's obviously very diffuse and very vulnerable and almost has the quality of a potential miracle. I've seen winners make extraordinary gestures to losers that have provoked reconciliation. I've seen this in Northern Ireland.

If Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold and the leadership of the House of Bishops were given to really lay down their idea of Anglican polity and, as it were, step aside from their allergy to what they reflexively call "congregationalism," and if they were -- just on an experimental basis and purely on the basis of core Christianity -- to lay down some of their fundamental principles of church life, I believe that a number of traditionalists would respond, because I see it in life, and I see it in people's relationships pastorally all the time.

So, yes. I think it is possible, with a truly statesmanlike, gracious attitude on the part of the highest leadership. I don't, at this moment, see it in what I read from Frank [Griswold] and David Beers [chancellor to the presiding bishop], and the people who appear to be the leading spokesmen. But, I've seen it in a number of bishops. I recently saw it in Bishop Don Adger Wimberly [Diocese of Texas], in Texas, when he made some very touching comments about repentance and regret. When bishops like that are willing to at least appear to give ground, that always, or almost always, makes traditionalists open to what they have to say. I really believe that; I'd stake my ministry on that principle.

Now, in practice, that probably won't happen, given the history, and given the bad spirit. But, there have been points along the way when that kind of concession would've made a huge impact.

JWL: This has been a very painful process for U.S. Episcopalians. But, are there positive things happening in the church that you have witnessed in this very difficult time?

PZ: Honestly, I cannot see anything enduringly good having come out of our problems since Gene Robinson was approved. Some people will say, well, the issue got focused, things became clarified, great questions were forced to the forefront. Maybe so, but what I see far more of is careers disappointed, many parish clergy taking early retirement, and many more old friends of mine leaving ECUSA for the AMiA [Anglican Mission in America], for the Church of Rome, even for the PCA [Presbyterian Church in America, a traditionalist strain of Presbyterianism].

When I look at a picture I keep on my desk of a clergy Bible study group that met every Monday when I was serving as dean of the Cathedral Church of the Advent in Birmingham, Ala., I weep. Really weep. Only one of the nine priests is still there. Two are licensed under Bolivia, one has moved to Florida, one to Kentucky, one to Texas, one to the AMiA, I, myself, to the Diocese of Pittsburgh, and one "holding the fort" back in Birmingham. That oughtn't to have happened! These were all fine and faithful parish priests. So, I look at this picture, which I now treasure, and ask, Did anything good happen as a result of the crisis? Leider, Nein.

I want to say that if Gene had declined consecration, even after being approved and voted in, it would have had an enormous influence for good on the world. He could have said, "Yes, our views have been justified, and ratified. But out of love for the 'weaker brethren' -- the 20 percent or so of the clergy who dissented, and the 35 percent or so of the laity who dissented -- I shall sit this one out. Maybe in a few years, we can revisit. But right now, I'll let it go on hold."

What an amazing act of Christian statesmanship that could have been. I think most of us on the "traditional" side would have blessed his name forever -- and asked him to preach in our pulpits.

But this did not happen. And many, many, many Episcopal priests who were, are no longer.

Joseph Wakelee-Lynch is a contributing editor to The Witness, and his regular online column is "The View from Sardis." He lives in Long Beach, Calif. He may be reached through email at wakeleelynch@earthlink.net.