What is the Big Tent?
Regarding the essay “Revisioning the Church in a Post-Progressive Society,” Fr. Kevin Martin has a point. Namely, that the dress of secular-progressive jargon sometimes worn a bit too freely in the liberal wings of the church can indeed be deeply alienating to those not already “on that team,” so to speak, and promote a tendency towards insularity. Insularity and self-congratulation are winning formulas neither for reaching people nor making policy.
To wear my colors up front: I’m left of center, historically literate enough to not be Whiggish about progressive narratives, but deeply cynical about conservative claims with respect to their marginalization, particularly in light of the current election and the volte-face from “free speech concerns” to the gleeful abrogation of basic civil liberties.
On to some counterpoints and reflections:
1. Unstated and disputable assumptions: I would argue that one can glean two assumptions that are not stated but are operative throughout his essay: one, that getting people on your team is the prime motive for a religious institution, and two, that the best way to do this is to see where the survey data show converts going to other religious groups and to try to capitalize on that, to divert some of the flow, as it were, from those institutions into something in the Anglican sphere.
Now, to point one, yes, the Great Commission. On some level, maximizing the range of people brought into our religious conversation, so to speak, is a good thing. However, this leads to point two. I get wary when one casts an eye at conservative-identifying young men moving to (let it be said, certain expressions of) Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
I would ask, then, should the church change in such a way to effectively divert some of that demographic into the doors of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada? That, I think, would not be an unalloyed good even if numbers went up. If you think in terms of getting numbers on the roster to boost capital campaigns or save souls in some tally book, I suppose it would be, but then I never thought of Christian ethics as so crassly utilitarian.
On the one hand, drop corporate HR-speak, seek to maximize openness, and actually mean it! On the other hand, a hyper-masculine, loosely nationalist, revanchist Christianity is not something that I think should even be entertained, frankly. To be clear, I don’t think that’s what is exactly being asked for. That said, it’s absolutely a danger, even if highlighted polemically. Witness the drift in U.S. Roman Catholicism since Vatican II. A church that had started to build a legitimately bigger tent has been steadily retrenching (at least in U.S. expressions).
2. (Maybe) a misconceived notion of the big tent: Again, not disputing the Great Commission. If the argument is that all these things represent different Anglicans at their best, then point granted. If the argument is that these things should or even can somehow all sit side by side, I’m less than convinced. The fact is that many of these things were not “socially moderate” or “classically liberal” or even explicitly oriented towards a “big tent” in their context.
The Protestant Reformation, for all that I support it, is quite obviously a fractious thing that has made for numerous smaller “tents.” Those calling themselves “classical liberals” or “moderates” were, by and large, tepid to mildly hostile to the civil rights movement, at least by the numbers. After all, recall who King’s letter from Birmingham Jail was addressed to, that is, tepid white moderates. You can’t really claim, implicitly or otherwise, that progressivism is a problem in the church and try to lay some claim to the civil rights movement (or the social gospel movement) as part of your vision of the church in the same breath.
To be clear: a church that isn’t wedded too tightly to a singly partisan political vision, a single set of jargon (or any jargon), and the tides of one cultural moment? By all means! A church that backs down from commitments made to justice, intellectual honesty, and a vision that reaches out to the marginalized to capitalize on an inevitably temporary, different cultural moment? I’d rather not.
“Progressive”-branded ideas aren’t unilaterally good, historically (witness eugenics). But a church self-consciously rejecting progressive voices because the results of one election point to roster-building opportunities by diverting some portion of conservative young men away from trad-cath or ortho-bro spaces? Again, I’d rather not.
Orry Hatch
Duluth, Minnesota
No ‘Hopeful News’ in Palestine
What is this “hopeful news” from the Holy Land? I am appalled that at a time when the genocide continues in Gaza, with scores of civilian casualties every day; the destruction of schools and hospitals, including the Diocese of Jerusalem’s Ahli Hospital in Gaza; with less and less attention in the media while mass starvation is being imposed by Israeli authorities on the nearly two million residents of Gaza whose homes have been destroyed by Israeli bombs and drones, and continue day after day.
Not only is food being withheld from the population, but medical supplies are being withheld. A humanitarian catastrophe is taking place before our eyes, and the American public is coming to accept this situation as “Israeli self-defense”! It is a crime against humanity. It is collective punishment. The Anglican Diocese of Jerusalem is not giving us “hopeful news.”
I expect The Living Church to call for a moratorium on any pilgrimages except fact-finding, humanitarian journeys to remind the world of the genocide that is taking place with American complicity and with American arms and with American money. Add to this the creeping and deliberate annexation of the Occupied West Bank, where another two million Palestinians are being harassed, brutalized, murdered, and robbed of their land. It is time for pilgrimages with food, medical supplies and moral support for the victims of genocide in Israel/Palestine.
The Rev. Bruce Shipman
Groton, Connecticut
Flags and the Church’s Mission
I read with interest the April letter supporting the presence of the U.S. flag near worship spaces, as well as the recent pastoral letter from the Bishop of Missouri directing congregations to move flags away from the altar. Though both approaches reflect sincere convictions, I believe they falter by reacting to transient political considerations and not enduring truths.
Theologically, flags representing any nation, jurisdiction, or earthly cause have no place near the altar or pulpit. The fundamental issue is which institution is primary: church or state. Does the Church depend on the state’s permission, or does it transcend all national and temporal boundaries? It is clearly the latter.
The Church gathers all of humanity into a universal and eternal community of faith. The Eucharistic moment is the place where heaven and earth, the saints and the angels, and people from every tribe, tongue, and nation come together in Christ. America, remarkable and beloved as she is, remains a human institution—an experiment bound by time. Nations rise and fall, but the Church endures, proclaiming truths not subject to any nation’s fortunes.
Yet we do not worship in a vacuum. We inherit traditions—some good, some flawed. I am concerned that recent efforts to remove flags—such as the Bishop of Missouri’s directive—are driven more by current political tensions than by sustained theological reflection. Would the same action have been taken if the November 2024 election had produced a different outcome? Similarly, the April letter’s defense of flags near the pulpit seems more animated by contemporary political considerations than a deep ecclesiological vision.
I have long believed that the right place for national flags is at the entrance to the nave. Passing the flag upon entry reminds us to leave behind national identity in favor of Christian identity; seeing it upon exit calls us to carry the gospel into the world. Wherever flags are placed, however, decisions should be rooted in the timeless mission of the Church and not the politics of any given moment.
Joshua White
Prospect, Kentucky
