Conservative episcopals voting on alignment with a fascist archbishop

[dewdrop_world]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/us...rtner=homepage

Emphasis mine:

In Virginia, the two large churches are voting on whether they want to report to the powerful archbishop of Nigeria, Peter Akinola, an outspoken opponent of homosexuality who supports legislation in his country that would make it illegal for gay men and lesbians to form organizations, read gay literature or eat together in a restaurant. Archbishop Akinola presides over the largest province in the 77-million-member Anglican Communion; it has more than 17 million members, dwarfing the Episcopal Church, with 2.3 million.

Not that American churches would try that in the US, but if they see a worthy role model in a spiritual leader who essentially advocates fascist suppression of gays and lesbians, then it reflects a moral compass gone horribly wrong.

I become more and more convinced that such religionists (I can't call them Christians) are so shrill about others' morality so as to deflect attention away from the rot in their own souls.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"... it's hard to imagine a much less Christian moral calculus than that. Indeed, I think this is why Jesus warned against thinking in terms of friends and enemies -- because it leads to this precise, deeply depraved point of view.

James

[suzer1013]

As a lifelong Episcopalian (minus a brief foray into the Methodist church), I have followed these stories with interest. The structure of the Episcopal church and its relationship to the Anglican communion is almost more than I can comprehend.

Those voting for schism should realize who they are aligning themselves with. I see in this the work of the IRD and other related groups. And, sometimes, I care not whether a small percentage of the Episcopal church decides to break away -- then the rest of us can get back to furthering Christ's teachings instead of arguing about GLBT people all the time.

What the schismatics should realize, though, is that they are aligning themselves with bishops in countries where things like epilepsy and autism are still considered witchcraft (and children with these diseases are routinely banished from villages), where female genital mutilation is accepted (though some officially denounce it, they turn their heads at the actual practice), and where people are jailed or executed for being gay. I'm not sure the average churchgoer in the U.S. realizes the implications of this alignment, or if they just are so uncomfortable continuing to welcome GLBT people in the church that they prefer the likes of Akinola.

If anyone is interested in following the Episcopal church workings more closely, I can recommend a few excellent blogs on the subject.

Susan

[BenL]

All this is couched in theological terms, but I can't help but feel that it sounds so much like a playground argument. Instead of taking one's ball and going home, it's church property. Larger scale, same difference.

The genius of the Anglican tradition has been for centuries that it is neither Catholic nor Reformed, but a combination of both. There was much blood shed to get to this "agreement to disagree agreeably," often credited to Elizabeth I. It was under her reign that the question was settled politically in England, but it was Richard Hooker's theology that gave it its shape, still recognizable in the Anglican Communion today.

George Washington served on the vestry of one of the churches mentioned in the article. As a product of the Enlightenment, he would not have recognized the conservative brand of Anglicanism favored by the current rector of the church. As a slaveholder he would have been aghast at the thought of being under the rule of an African bishop. Not that that is right or makes any difference in the current situation, but it does make for an ironic twist or two.

It is conservative evangelicals who are complaining now, but the argument has tipped back and forth between conservatives and progressives for years. But seceding from a diocese or from the national denomination is a new kind of hardball.

Neither extreme -- rabid conseratives or rabid liberals -- will win the day with the broad middle of the church. In my opinion, it is important for gay Episcopalians to remember this if they want to swing the denomination in favor of their inclusion at every level of hierarchy. The best way to convince folks that you belong is to take your place in ministry, shoulder to shoulder with other Episcopalians. Hatred of a class is most often overturned by love and respect for individuals. The strident tone of most conservatives is alienating the majority of people in the pews, who do not want to be so boxed in theologically.

The thoughts of an active gay Episcopalian.

BenL

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by suzer1013

If anyone is interested in following the Episcopal church workings more closely, I can recommend a few excellent blogs on the subject.

Thanks Susan- Yes- interested. Please post away!

[suzer1013]

Hi Daniel! One of the best blogs I read is "Father Jake Stops the World." There's alot of interesting posts and much (often argumentative) commentary on his blog. I've found it very informative, though sometimes the comments keep beating a dead horse, so to speak.

http://frjakestopstheworld.blogspot.com/

Another good site, which hasn't been as active of late (I think simply because the bloggers are busy!) is The Episcopal Majority.

http://episcopalmajority.blogspot.com/

(I just looked, and it seems they've posted quite a bit today!)

For more "personal" takes on the situation, I enjoy Susan Russell's and Elizabeth Kaeton's blogs:

http://inchatatime.blogspot.com/

http://telling-secrets.blogspot.com/

To be fair and present an opposing view, you can go to Kendall Harmon's blog. Though I can't stomach some of the commenters, his is one of the more tolerable sites from the conservative side. Be warned, it can get brutal there at times, but I think he does have someone "policing" the site for any comments that get too ugly.

{edit -- I forgot the link to Kendall Harmon's site: http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/ }

For a completely hilarious, witty and observant "take" on all things Anglican, go to Mad Priest. I've gotten many a chortle from him when things get to "hot" in the Episcopal waters.

http://revjph.blogspot.com/

Mad Priest also has fabulous taste in music.

Susan

[dewdrop_world]

After one of the usual suspects at umc.org cited the secession of the two Virginia congregations without any criticism of Akinola's extreme positions, I thought it was time for a little discourse over there on what passes for integrity in certain conservative circles.

---

Yes, the beginnings of a conservative Episcopalian alignment around Archbishop Akinola is one of the recent noteworthy news items of late. The other is James Dobson being caught in a lie in the pages of Time Magazine.

In the first case, it's certain that the archbishop holds many positions that American conservatives would find appalling and inhumane. But, it seems they are willing to latch onto the archbishop's intolerance of gays and lesbians, and because of this intolerance, they suddenly find room for plenty of tolerance of facets of his belief that could be called, frankly, fascist.

That smacks of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" -- which is about as cynical and un-Christian a moral calculus as I can think of.

The other observation to draw from this is that, as with former Congressman Foley, conservatives love to preach intolerance of what they perceive to be immorality in others, but when it's a fellow conservative, a member of the club, they're quite content to look the other way. Yes, I'm well aware that liberals do this too, but liberals don't make a big deal about how this kind of intolerance makes them morally superior, either. (Foley was not the only Republican hypocrite on Capitol Hill.)

In other words, intolerance, supposedly a sign of a morally upright believer, is corrupted by its linkage to ideological concord. The true Christian both challenges the presence of sin, and also forgives it -- for everybody, equally. She does not first decide who is a friend and who is a foe, and treat the two differently.

Now, Dobson -- in a recent editorial in Time magazine, he cited the work of two developmental psychologists, Carol Gilligan and Kyle Pruett, as evidence off the absolute need for a two-parent, heterosexual upbringing. Perhaps he thought that quoting liberal scholars would lend bipartisan support to his position. What happened instead is that both researchers have publicly denounced, vehemently and in no uncertain terms, his misrepresentation of their work.

Carol Gilligan wrote to Dobson:

Dear Dr. Dobson:

I am writing to ask that you cease and desist from quoting my research in the future. I was mortified to learn that you had distorted my work this week in a guest column you wrote in Time Magazine. Not only did you take my research out of context, you did so without my knowledge to support discriminatory goals that I do not agree with. What you wrote was not truthful and I ask that you refrain from ever quoting me again and that you apologize for twisting my work.

From what I understand, this is not the first time you have manipulated research in pursuit of your goals. This practice is not in the best interest of scientific inquiry, nor does bearing false witness serve your purpose of furthering morality and strengthening the family.

Finally, there is nothing in my research that would lead you to draw the stated conclusions you did in the Time article. My work in no way suggests same-gender families are harmful to children or can’t raise these children to be as healthy and well adjusted as those brought up in traditional households.

I trust that this will be the last time my work is cited by Focus on the Family.

Sincerely,

Carol Gilligan, PhD
New York University, Professor

Kyle Pruett wrote:

Dr. Dobson,

I was startled and disappointed to see my work referenced in the current Time Magazine piece in which you opined that social science, such as mine, supports your convictions opposing lesbian and gay parenthood. I write now to insist that you not quote from my research in your media campaigns, personal or corporate, without previously securing my permission. You cherry-picked a phrase to shore up highly (in my view) discriminatory purposes. This practice is condemned in real science, common though it may be in pseudo-science circles.

There is nothing in my longitudinal research or any of my writings to support such conclusions. On page 134 of the book you cite in your piece, I wrote, "What we do know is that there is no reason for concern about the development or psychological competence of children living with gay fathers. It is love that binds relationships, not sex."

Kyle Pruett, M.D.
Yale School of Medicine

I can anticipate that conservative voices here will leap to defend Dobson, because, after all, gay parenting is so heinous that a small lie in its opposition must be morally justifiable. They will probably also change the subject to deflect attention away from the plain, indisputable reality that Dobson did, in fact, lie. He knows very well that these researchers don't support his views, and he deliberately made it sound like they do.

If the social science evidence in favor of his position is so strong, why would it be necessary to risk charges of intellectual dishonesty? If one is "proclaiming the truth" about homosexuality, wouldn't it be wise to avoid even the appearance of distortion? In the end, it only weakens his position and is self-defeating -- but he keeps on doing it, time and time again. Think carefully before trying to defend this.

It is, again, evidence of a cynical moral calculus: anything, even moral error, is justifiable if it opposes that which one believes God hates.

I think Jesus had it right: pray in secret, give alms in secret, keep your nose clean and don't cast the first stone unless you are without sin yourself. If someone acts in a way that suggests true Christians should point fingers at others to keep their neighbors from seeing their own faults, it is exactly the same thing as Dobson's misuse of the research -- fixating on one or two trees and missing (or willfully ignoring) the forest.

James

[BruceChris]

And I can only hope that such sarcasm is acceptable to God, even when laid on so thickly, as long as it's for a good purpose.

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[novaseeker]

I know both of the congregations involved, they are both here in the Northern Virginia area. The saddest part of the tale is that now there will be massive, expensive litigation about the church buildings and facilities (which, in the case of these two particular churches, are worth quite a lot of money) between the Diocese of Virginia and these two congregations, and that will lead to sowing much, much bitterness and ill-will on all sides.

[revtj]

I would just like to point out that this alignment of African theological conservatives with western homophobes (in this current Episcopal fracas) disturbs me on a level that goes beyond equal rights and full communion for lgbt people in society & churches. It disturbs me that an unnatural fear of same-gender love can unite 2 very dissimilar cultures in a way that poverty, civil war, genocide, or rampant disease never could.

What does it say that some christians can unify and and work together across class, race and national boundaries to try & 'rid' the church of homosexuality when they could never find the same kind of unity to address these other other vital social issues?

As a professor of mine in seminary said, "5000 children dying every day from poverty & disease is a moral crisis. Two men who love each other is not."

How did the body of christ arrive at such a warped sense of values?

[Deb]

Originally Posted by revtj

. It disturbs me that an unnatural fear of same-gender love can unite 2 very dissimilar cultures in a way that poverty, civil war, genocide, or rampant disease never could.

As a professor of mine in seminary said, "5000 children dying every day from poverty & disease is a moral crisis. Two men who love each other is not."

How did the body of christ arrive at such a warped sense of values?

YUP... Very disturbing in deed.

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by revtj

...It disturbs me that an unnatural fear of same-gender love can unite 2 very dissimilar cultures in a way that poverty, civil war, genocide, or rampant disease never could.

What does it say that some christians can unify and and work together across class, race and national boundaries to try & 'rid' the church of homosexuality when they could never find the same kind of unity to address these other other vital social issues?

As a professor of mine in seminary said, "5000 children dying every day from poverty & disease is a moral crisis. Two men who love each other is not."

How did the body of christ arrive at such a warped sense of values?

From The True Believer: Thoughts On The Nature Of Mass Movements:

Unifying Agents – Hatred:

Hatred is the most accessible and comprehensive of all unifying agents. It pulls and whirls the individual away from his own self, makes him oblivious of his weal and future, frees him of jealousies and self-seeking. He becomes an anonymous particle quivering with a craving to fuse and coalesce with his like into one flaming mass. Heine suggests that what Christian love cannot do is effected by a common hatred.

Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without belief in a devil. Usually the strength of a mass movement is proportionate to the vividness and tangibility of its devil...

For the record I recognize this effect within myself as well and I'm not proud of it.

[Daniel]

Susan- Thank you for the links. Interesting- and- at times- funny reading. MadPriest is a hoot! The following analysis seems about right to me, as someone who has watched this less than epic struggle (more like a tussle for power) take place over the last year or so. The bold is my emphasis.

http://episcopalmajority.blogspot.com/

There is another thread as well. It is the contempt for a church which in its own makeup mirrors something of the plurality of the nation, in which dialogue - even within difference - is honored, in which some (but not all) secular modes are treated with respect. It is no accident that many of our adversaries use a rhetoric dotted with anti-Western slogans or with flagrant attacks on secularism. The bishop-elect of South Carolina himself criticized the "ethos of democracy" in the church.

What we do see lurking behind these infamous attacks is a wholesale rejection of modernity, its messiness, its permissiveness (against which our adversaries are guaranteed the right to say no), its unwillingness to sign on one truth, its tolerance of differences. Many of us have learned to live in this climate and without selling out remain faithful to the gospel. But for our adversaries this unstable climate has brought out a different response. They naturally gravitate to older forms - those dealing with one faith, one church, one rule, with order and hierarchy. And to get this they are not hesitant to use every lever of power they can come across. Hence the manifest impatience in their recent statements in which seek to pre-empt the process set up by the Archbishop of Canterbury - the creation of an Anglican Covenant - to try to adjudicate our present difficulties. They prefer by bluster or intimidation some shortcut, in which they will control the Anglican Communion - along lines we shudder to contemplate.

Who are these people who will not talk with us, who attack us incessantly and who envision a pure church of order and discipline (where according to Canon Anderson the guilty are punished)? Who then are these people? We have a descriptive phrase, harsh indeed, but by now it fits. These are ecclesiastical fascists.

Eccesiastical fascists indeed.

The two Virginia congregations that broke away undoubtedly believe they are acting as the tugboats which will steer the big mothership church in another direction. I have no fear of that.

Gay people aren't going to go back to in the closet. Far from it.

And those same churches may be in big trouble: the courts have, up until now, sided with the Anglican Church as far as who owns the property. And apparently, Uganda will no longer accepting assistance (money) from the US church. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[suzer1013]

Daniel -- that's actually the quote that I thought summed it up best, too. It seems very clear that the problem is that some cannot live without the personal discomfort that tolerance and inclusiveness often brings, and so they gravitate toward older forms of religion in which the safety blanket of black and white rules. I understand it -- sometimes I long for certainty, too, but I realize the world is not so neat or perfect, and that God is more complex and undefinable than we could ever grasp. It is hard to live in the gray, but preferable, I think, to living any other way. One does not have to lose the Gospel message in order to live authentically and inclusively, and that, I think, is the fear of those who are more fundamentalist in nature.

TJ -- Even more interesting and ironic, is two Southern (and rather fundamentalist and Baptist in nature -- a commenter on another site mentioned how Truro and Falls Church are essentially Southern Baptist in the way they are conducted) churches in what historically was a slave holding state running to Africa for their primatial oversight. And yes, how sad that hate can bring people together more strongly than the need to overcome poverty and disease, etc.

Bruce Chris -- Glad you like Father Jake! I've enjoyed his blog for about 6 months now. Sometimes things get heated and I take a break, but I've generally enjoyed his commentary and insight.

Susan

[Emproph]

This is uglier than I thought.

From the NYTimes article:

“Our Anglican tradition has always been a very large tent in which people with different theological emphases can live together,” Bishop Lee said in a telephone interview. “I’m very sorry some in these churches feel that this is no longer the case for them. It certainly is their choice and their decision. No one is forcing them to do this.”

~~

The presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts Schori, said in an e-mail response to a request for an interview that such splits reflect a polarized society, as well as the “anxiety” and “discomfort” that many people feel when they are asked to live with diversity.

“The quick fix embraced in drawing lines or in departing is not going to be an ultimate solution for our discomfort,” she said.

*coo* Even her cogent assessment of division is unifying. The sound of schism coming from her lips is practically romantic...I think she’s officially my new hero.

Brace for FOF spin:

The Rev. Canon David Anderson of the American Anglican Council said the breakup was "breathtakingly exciting" -- but it wasn't caused by the churches in Virginia. They were simply being faithful.

"The perpetrators of schism are, in fact, the top levels of leadership of the Episcopal Church," Anderson said. "They have taken up another Gospel. They believe now that there are many ways to God -- and Jesus is simply one of them. We argue that that's not the case -- that what the Bible says is still accurate."

So true Canon Anderson, I’ve never seen such a flagrant abuse of the will to unite. Surely they waste God's unusurpable Love.

~~

The members of Truro and the Falls Church have now declared that belonging to a church that permits gays and lesbians to become bishops is too great a tax on their conscience, while belonging to a church that believes gay people should be imprisoned for eating together in public is not...

...But, if Bishop Minns and his followers do, indeed, believe that gay Nigerians should be imprisoned for visiting a restaurant together, they need to inform us whether they believe gay Americans should be imprisoned for similar activities. And if they do not support the criminalization of such behavior in the United States, they need to explain why they favor--or, at the very least, acquiesce--in depriving Nigerians of rights that Americans enjoy.

Jim Naughton

washingtonpost.com:

The Rev. Martyn Minns of Truro Church, who is missionary bishop of the splinter group known as CANA (Convocation of Anglicans in North America), said that although the dissident Virginia churches believe that homosexuality is banned by Scripture, they do not support criminalization of gay sex.

Akinola's spokesman and his advocates have said he does not advocate aggressively pursuing the jailing of homosexuals.

His advocates say he is trying to navigate an explosive cultural situation in Nigeria and appease Muslim leaders.

The Church of Nigeria .. (<this and the link below were working earlier)

..met for the Standing Committee on Thursday 14th and 15th September, 2006, with the Most Revd. Peter J. Akinola DD, CON presiding.

Human Sexuality

The Church affirms our commitment to the total rejection of the evil of homosexuality which is a perversion of human dignity and encourages the National Assembly to ratify the Bill prohibiting the legality of homosexuality since it is incongruent with the teachings of the Bible, Quran and the basic African traditional values.

From what I can tell this is the bill in question – their version of a "constitutional amendment." (pdf file) A couple monsters in it:

A BILL FOR AN ACT TO MAKE PROVISIONS FOR THE PROHIBITION OF SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERSONS OF THE SAME SEX, CELEBRATION OF MARRIAGE BY THEM AND FOR OTHER MATTERS CONNECTED THEREWITH

One might even call it a criminal act to make an act criminal.

~~

Criminalizing Homosexuality the Nigerian Way

Interestingly, homosexuality is already criminalized in Nigeria. Depending on whether the accused is Christian or Muslim, the penalty is either 14 years imprisonment or death by stoning.

Furthermore, the Nigerian government proposes to criminalize any organization that works on gay and lesbian issues, even if it doesn't do so overtly.

Effectively, the new law will isolate gays and lesbians from community and from legal recourse.

From the looks of the political landscape, it isn't hard to imagine why Nigerians might need some distracting.

While disagreeing on many issues, Muslim and Christian leaders in Nigeria seem to agree on the nefariousness of homosexuality.

There but for the love of hatred go I.

~~

[Edit] P.S. Thanks for the links Suzer – 'lot a good thinkers in there, though I haven't gotten past the first one yet. From that – one thing lead to another – and then all the above.

[novaseeker]

Apparently the diocese and congregations involved have agreed to a month long cease-fire while trying to settle the property-related issues. Hopefully this can be done without resorting to a rancorous lawsuit.

[revtj]

Emproph: re: hatred and mass movements...I do not disagree, but hastily add that the power of resurrection created the greatest mass movement in history. As I have been discussing these subjects on other blogs I have been amazed at christians who see the crucifixion as far more significant than the resurrection. Huh? One person replied to me Jesus' resurrection would have no meaning without his crucifixion.

It is hard for me to understand but it seems like a choice to ground their theological perspective in violence and death rather than in hope and new life. And the consequences seem to be that those obsessed with the crucifixion also have a shopping list of people they hate and people they reject. Sends a shiver up my spine!

I also want to say the African christians are getting used by American Anglicans as much as they are using the Americans. I say this because the rubric which reconciles them is mutual hatred of homosexuals, a common enemy.

But are the African churches not also hoping it will bring them access to American privilege, material goods, and an uplifting of their standard of living? It's a wicked arrangement, isn't it, to say, in essence, 'We'll help you get food to eat, clean drinking water and housing, if you help
us defeat these awful homosexuals.'?

[dewdrop_world]

More coverage:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/25/wo...rtner=homepage

The story in the first paragraph illustrates exactly what I was saying about 99% hating the sin and 1% loving the sinner.

The way he tells the story, the first and only time Archbishop Peter J. Akinola knowingly shook a gay person’s hand, he sprang backward the moment he realized what he had done.

Archbishop Akinola, the conservative leader of Nigeria’s Anglican Church who has emerged at the center of a schism over homosexuality in the global Anglican Communion, re-enacted the scene from behind his desk Tuesday, shaking his head in wonder and horror.

“This man came up to me after a service, in New York I think, and said, ‘Oh, good to see you bishop, this is my partner of many years,’ ” he recalled. “I said, ‘Oh!’ I jumped back.”

Well then. Good to know he's got the spirit of Jesus in him, you know, the one who treated hookers and lepers with respect. Did he spray his hand for cooties afterward?

It recalls Eddy berating Saffy in AbFab: "You may dress like a Christian but the similarity ends there."

James

[Zerbie]

Slight tangent, but we have a state legislator like that. She refuses to shake hands or in any way touch anyone lobbying for LGBT causes: we met her once, she shook my hand, and we went home wondering if we should tip her off - maybe an anonymous phone call - and see if she has her hand amputated.

[BruceChris]

And if thine hand afflict thee, Chop it off"? I think a biblical literalist could make a case for that.

P&L, BC

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

Slight tangent, but we have a state legislator like that. She refuses to shake hands or in any way touch anyone lobbying for LGBT causes: we met her once, she shook my hand, and we went home wondering if we should tip her off - maybe an anonymous phone call - and see if she has her hand amputated.

Thanks, I needed that – a good cackle.

Originally Posted by BruceChris

And if thine hand afflict thee, Chop it off"? I think a biblical literalist could make a case for that.

P&L, BC

You guys are great, I forgot all about that part.

"Shouldn't thou be plucking thy brain out about now..."