With the consecrations of John Rodgers and Chuck Murphy in Singapore [TLC, Feb. 13, 20], it appears the gloves have come off in the ongoing battle between the liberal majority in the Episcopal Church and the conservative / traditionalist / evangelical / Anglo-Catholic / charismatic minority. For many years I have stood on the sidelines and observed this debate. I have been concerned by some of it, amused by much of it, and amazed by most of it. And so now, as an unarmed man in this battle of wits, I offer my humble observation that a number of myths seem to have become generally accepted in the debate, largely without any challenge, and I wonder why.

MYTH 1: We should not use labels (e.g., liberal, conservative) when describing ourselves or our positions. This seems like foolishness to me. Labels have always been useful in religious dialogue, not just in Christianity, and long before Christianity. For instance, I find book reviews to be useless to me, unless I know the theological bias of the author of the review. Since words are now subject to anyone's interpretation, using a phrase like "faith in Jesus Christ" means something very different if it is used by Marcus Borg or by Alister McGrath. I can illustrate this point further if I state that I am an evangelical conservative. Now everyone has a more certain expectation of where I am coming from in whatever follows. So my questions are these: Why are liberals afraid to call themselves liberals? Why do so many people say they are in the "center" when there is no "center" to be in?

MYTH 2: The Presiding Bishop's Year of Jubilee is to allow the Holy Spirit to work in the church and help us discern the mind of Christ. Are the conservative bishops so naíve as to think that this is an effort to maintain the status quo until we discern God's will? The liberal bishops are already doing whatever they want, so why do they need to bring anything to a vote? So I ask, Is it the Holy Spirit at work in the Episcopal Church or is it Satan? Who needs the time? Hasn't the church answered these heresies before?

MYTH 3: All truth is pluriform and has many facets. If we are talking about the color of the sky, and one person says it is blue and another person says it is gray, I can understand that compromise, by agreeing that the sky is blue-gray, can be a good thing. But, if one person says two plus two equals four and another person says two plus two equals six, I do not understand how it is a good compromise to say two plus two equals five. So my questions are these: If we say truth is pluriform, and personal, how could we ever say that any opinion is not true? Aren't we really saying that there is no truth?

MYTH 4: If you don't agree with me, we just have to keep on discussing the issue until you see it my way. I get into this with my wife all the time. If I don't agree with her she says I don't understand her. In 25 years of marriage I admit great susceptibility to this criticism. But I also insist that it is at least theoretically possible that I understand her perfectly; I just happen to disagree. That means one of us is wrong. Doesn't it seem like "more discussion" is just a ploy by the majority to wear down the minority? How does a minority ever get a majority to admit they could be wrong?

MYTH 5: We in the Episcopal Church are "the Church." When I hear liberals say "we the church have discerned God's will on moral issues," I cringe. When I hear a bishop say "the church wrote the Bible, we can rewrite it," I am amazed. The arrogance of these statements is astounding. We, the Episcopal Church, are 2 million out of 70 million just in the Anglican Communion. That's less than 2 percent. And we are about one millionth of 1 percent of the worldwide Christian Church. Who do we think we are?

MYTH 6: The unity of the church is more important than anything else. It seems to me that this is another ploy of the majority to get the minority to conform. If unity is the foremost consideration, then we should repent of the protestant reformation and return to the Roman Catholic Church. If we cannot justify schism under any circumstances today, then we cannot justify the separation from Rome by the English Parliament in 1534. But then 1 Cor. 11:19 says, "for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized." Then I ask, If there is a distinction between the church and the world, what is it and how do we maintain it? If we cannot define a boundary between the church and the world, doesn't that really mean there is no church?

MYTH 7: The Anglican way is not based on theological authority. This is not true. Christian/Anglican teaching has always been based on authority. Until 1517 the pope and the councils were the authority. In the protestant reformation the Bible became the authority. In the Church of England the king was the head of the church. It was only in 1789, when the Episcopal Church was established, that we rejected the authority of the king. It has only been in this century that we have rejected the authority of the Bible, by our historical biblical criticism. For the first time in our Christian history we have no theological authority. So I ask: On what basis, greater than ourselves, do we evaluate Christian teaching? Is each of us our own authority? Is there no danger of false teaching?

MYTH 8: The consecrations in Singapore are not valid because "the Church" did not approve them; it was not done the Anglican way. "The Church" did not approve the ordinations of women in Philadelphia; was that the Anglican way? "The Church" has not approved the blessing of same-sex unions, yet many bishops have allowed the blessing of same-sex unions. Isn't this hypocritical? If the Holy Spirit was doing a "new thing" in Philadelphia and in recognizing human sexuality, isn't it possible that the Holy Spirit was also doing a "new thing" in Singapore?

MYTH 9: The real issue is homophobia. This part of the debate has been a struggle for me. I kept asking, how is human sexuality connected to the gospel of Jesus Christ? Is the liberal gospel a different gospel? I have come to the conclusion that it is, and for these reasons. The liberal gospel is half the gospel; it is only half of the covenant. The liberal gospel is God loves everyone, God forgives everyone. That is true, but a covenant is a two-party agreement. What about our part? The message of Jesus Christ and the apostles was — repent, the kingdom of God is at hand (Mark 1:15, 6:12). Thus, a gospel that does not lead people to repentance is not the gospel of Jesus Christ. So my questions are these: If the liberal gospel is a different gospel, then in God's eyes hasn't the schism already occurred? If the liberal gospel is based on love, is there anything more unloving than for the blind to lead the blind into the pit?

MYTH 10: It's not about winning or losing. This is another ploy by the majority. The whole gospel is about victory and defeat, light and darkness, life and death, good and evil, truth and deceit. Not only is it about winning and losing but it is all about winning and losing.

CONCLUSION: It is my observation that we have, in the Episcopal Church, a liberal majority with hierarchical authority, but which recognizes no theological authority. A church with hierarchical authority but no theological authority cannot remain a Christian church because it has no boundary beyond which it will not drift theologically, and it will repress any attempts by a theological minority to reform it. A church without theological authority, however, will inevitably lose its hierarchical authority. Singapore is probably just the beginning. We have seen the liberal bishops leading us into congregational Unitarianism. But now, when the minority steals a page from the liberal playbook, the Unitarians respond with intolerance and judgment. Does that tell us something? Well, the people in the parish I serve really don't care about all this stuff, so I think I'll just go back to the sidelines where I belong, and pray. o

The Rev. Donald O'Malley is the rector of Church of the Good Shepherd, Hayesville, N.C.