Episcopalians

You may have noticed by now that I have a bit of an interest in the debate currently engulfing the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. The short version — the mainstream Episcopal Church is being deemed too liberal, particularly when it comes to homosexuality, and some folks within the Anglican Community domestically and abroad are seeking to sever ties.

This editorial which appeared in the Courant a couple of days ago does a pretty good job highlighting how the debate seems to be degenerating into a mess by folks who are missing a bigger point:

Further, the Tanzanian bishops declared that “the Anglican Church of Tanzania shall not knowingly accept financial and material aid from dioceses, parishes, bishops, priests, individuals and institutions in the Episcopal Church that condone homosexual practice or bless same-sex unions.”

For our congregation - and our family - the partnership was more than a feel-good exercise. Twenty Tanzanian teenagers who expected to start school in January did not, because the scholarship money we sent for them was not accepted.

A big issue I have with organized religion today is that so much energy is spent in posturing and politicing on issues that, in the grand scheme of things, really shouldn’t matter.

It’s one thing to alter affiliations based on theological differences. However, when it comes to helping others…shouldn’t that transcend other issues?

More news on the ongoing schism within the Episcopal Church in the U.S., from the Memphis Commercial Appeal:

Delegates from a dozen churches in Memphis and across the South will ask the Anglican Church of Kenya to form a diocese and appoint a bishop for them in America.

The unprecedented request was given to Archbishop Benjamin Nzimbi of Kenya, who was in Memphis over the weekend for meetings and services hosted by St. Peter’s Anglican Church in East Memphis. [...]

Nzimbi cautioned the U.S. delegates not to expect too much too soon. The next step might be to form an American deanery, a less formal collection of parishes, which could grow into a larger diocese headed by a bishop.

It’s still sad to watch a demonination fracture in a “them” versus “us” debate.

Having been raised Episcopalian, I’ve been following the intra-denominational bickering between conservative and liberal Episcopalians with some sadness for years.

While the news in this New York Times article isn’t particularly surprising, I do find it particularly depressing:

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.

If all eight Virginia churches vote to separate, the Diocese of Virginia, the largest Episcopal diocese in the country, will lose about 10 percent of its 90,000 members. In addition, four churches in Virginia have already voted to secede, and two more are expected to vote soon, said Patrick N. Getlein, secretary of the diocese.

Two weeks ago, the entire diocese in San Joaquin, Calif., voted to sever its ties with the Episcopal Church, a decision it would have to confirm in a second vote next year. Six or more American dioceses say they are considering such a move.

In the last three years, since the Episcopal Church consecrated V. Gene Robinson, a gay man who lives with his partner, as bishop of New Hampshire, about three dozen American churches have voted to secede and affiliate with provinces overseas, according to The Episcopal News Service.

The question of same gender marriage has re-ignited in the wake of this week’s New Jersey Supreme Court ruling that state laws require the legislature to change the law to permit gay & lesbian couples to marry, or to create a legal construct equivalent to marriage (i.e., civil unions).

I hold the position that the government ought to get out of the marriage business. Leave the definition of “marriage” to churches and social institutions, and simply package up the legal rights afforded to families under the heading of “civil unions”. A religion-based argument for this is as follows:

• Marriage comes from God
   
• The state cannot legislate whom God can or cannot join together in marriage. Any attempt to do so is at best silly, and at worst constitutes an attempt to give official preference to one set of religious views over others.
   
• There is however a societal benefit to having a civil package of rights and privileges associated with the creation of families.
   
• Therefore maintain that package of rights/privileges, but avoid the inherently religious question of who can/can’t get married by calling it something other than “marriage”.

According to Father Jake, the Episcopal diocese of Massachusetts seems to be approaching the question from the other direction, by considering a resolution to require marriages to be officiated by an agent of the state, and simply be blessed by Episcopal clergy.

Father Jake quotes the Boston Globe in providing an explanation of the proposed measure:

Episcopal priests in Massachusetts have been particularly engaged in the issue of gay marriage, because the diocese here has been strongly supportive of gay rights, but the national church’s regulations define marriage as a heterosexual institution. The local bishop, M. Thomas Shaw , a supporter of same-sex marriage, has decreed that local Episcopal priests cannot sign the marriage licenses of same-sex couples, but can bless those couples after they are legally married by clergy of another denomination or by a civil official.

“I feel this is a way to equalize an inequity in what Episcopal clergy can do for gay folks and straight folks,” said the Rev. Margaret (Mally) E. Lloyd , rector of Christ Church in Plymouth.

It’s an interesting idea, but I think the resolution ought to be re-worded.

It’s understandable that Massachusetts Episcopal priests feel bound to offer the sacrament of marriage only to opposite-gender couples, but OK to bless the unions of same-gender couples. (I disagree with that position, but I understand it and will accept it as a “given” for this post.)

Therefore, I think a better approach would be to rephrase the resolution to exhort priests to not sign government marriage certificates…at least not as agents of the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts.

That provides essentially the same distinction between “church marriage” and “state marriage” that I seek by proposing that the government get out of the marriage business.

I haven’t blogged too much about some of what I’ve been sadly observing on the net regarding the church I grew up in. However, this WaPo article was too much for me to not comment on:

On June 18, the Episcopal Church’s General Convention elected Jefferts Schori to a nine-year term as the denomination’s presiding bishop, making her the first woman to head any branch of the Anglican Communion, the worldwide family of churches descended from the Church of England.

Although she will not take up her new role until November, six U.S. dioceses already have rejected her authority, and that number is rising. Many church leaders expect that by the time she takes office, about five more, for a total of 10 percent of the nation’s 111 Episcopal dioceses, will have joined the rejectionist camp.

The six currently wayward dioceses are Pittsburgh, South Carolina, Central Florida, San Joaquin (CA), Fort Worth, and Springfield (IL). That doesn’t include scattered individual parishes that are considering bolting as well.

Some of the blueness I have over the matter is seeing an organization that for so many years managed to find a moderate path, focusing on common ground splinter apart over one or two seemingly irreconcilable issues. The vitriol from the right and the left in this matter is huge, and there seems to be intense pressure for folks in the middle to pick their sides.

As seen on the Reuters wire:

The U.S. Episcopal Church chose Bishop Katharine Schori on
Sunday as the first woman leader of the 2.3 million-member denomination, a
vote likely to produce more controversy in a group already divided over the
ordination of its first openly homosexual bishop.

Her election came 30 years after the Episcopalians, the U.S. branch of
the worldwide Anglican Communion, approved the ordination of women to the
priesthood. The selection seemed likely to provoke controversy, since most
other Anglican communities, including the Church of England, do not allow
women bishops.

(Please forgive any “typos” in this post. The keyboard on my tablet PC is
fried. I’m writing this post out in longhand.)

As seen in the Los Angeles Times:

The IRS threat to revoke the tax-exempt status of All Saints
Episcopal Church in Pasadena because of an antiwar sermon there during the
2004 presidential election is part of a larger, controversial federal
investigation of political activity at churches and nonprofit groups.

Over the last year, the Internal Revenue Service has looked at more than 100
tax-exempt organizations across the country for allegations of promoting -
either explicitly or implicitly - candidates on both ends of the political
spectrum, according to the IRS. None have lost their nonprofit status,
though investigations continue into about 60 of those.

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I don’t like the idea of
religion and government mixing too greatly as both types of institutions
have a documented history of corrupting one another. On the other hand,
religious organizations should be permitted to advocate certain moral and
social causes. Indeed, the law only Prohibits campaigning for specific
candidates or attempting to directly influence legislation.

The article headline and lead-off would have you believe that these is a
conservative bias in the IRS’s campaign. However closer reading suggests
that this may not be the case. In fact, there is some discussion about
religious conservatries coming to the aid of liberals in monitoring IRS
activities. that enough to give one hope that maybe political polarization
today isn’t too great to be overcome.