On the divisions in the Episcopal Church of the USA
Better late than never, I suppose?
I think I owe everyone a post on the current state of the ECUSA or, rather, the Anglican communion as a whole. In case you hadn't all noticed, the ECUSA had it general convention a week or so ago. Inevitably, it was an event that was going to cause controversy or, at least, seemed highly likely to. Last year's appointment of Bishop Gene Robinson, ECUSA and the Anglican communion ass a whole's first openly gay bishop was a hugely divisive issue, threatening not only to split the ECUSA but also the Anglican communion as a whole. Various compromises, agreements, and deals were reached, agreed upon, and there was an uneasy peace. The Canadian Episcopal Church especially seemed willing to build bridges and try to compromise to hold the whole mess of different national Churches together.
But of course, we don't expect compromise from the Americans, do we? I don't think they know the meaning of the word.
So, we got the obligatory "like hell will we stop consecrating gay Bishops," statement (later, a resolution which seemed to compromise this was made, but the upshot is that individual diocese will likely feel able to carry on regardless), and the election of Katherine Schiori as the new presiding Bishop. This was not a compromise candidate, in any sense you could possibly mean it. While conservatives were likely to be offended by the fact that she's a woman, it's not something which would likely provoke some sort of schism - we've had female priests for a while now, and only a minority see them as controversial. But her opening statements have been anything but reconciliatory, and oftentimes they've been outright provocative. Her first homily after election used imagery which would probably best be characterised as an outright attempt to spit in the face of more conservative factions.
Now, you'd think as a good liberal, I'd be happy that the American Church is forging ahead in such a progressive manner. To be clear, both gay clergy, gay marriage and (does it even need pointed out?) female clergy are something that, in principle, I support.
But I am, frankly, absolutely appalled at how the ECUSA has chosen to conduct itself. I guess you might argue that if the ECUSA wants to tear itself apart (as now seems inevitable) then that's their business, but they seem determined to do it in such a way as to cause the Anglican communion as a whole to fall apart, too.
I think the thing that bothers me most is the unilateralism of the whole thing. After discussions attempting to heal various rifts, the US Church has chosen to ignore everything and go its own way, ignoring the fact that it's part of something larger. We condemn President Bush's unilateral actions, but as soon as the world disagrees with what liberals want to do, they're unilateralists too. Multilateralism only when it suits is just maddenningly hypocritical. So, the world wants to push back against the forces of tolerance and modernity? Let it - the clock will not go back, and things will change anyway. There's really only one thing that can be done to delay this change and, ironically, it is the path that the American Churches have taken - cause a confrontation that will unite the conservatives under a common banner. Without this confrontation, things would just have progressed on their own, but now there will be a concerted effort to push back, ironically delaying further those principles the ECUSA claims to be fighting for. It's the flaw that occurs whenever we choose aggression over negotiation, and those who would likely claim to know that best have trampled all over the principle, with all the negative consequences that causes.
Another major concern that I have is that in the ECUSA's desperation to address this issue NOW! they have, I feel, lost sight of a large part of what the Church is about. As the Episcopal Church in the USA disintegrates, the fallout will be felt not by those insisting that their sense of morality is the right one, but instead by individual parishoners who will, most likely, see an important source of support and spiritual fulfilment taken away and consumed by anger and recrimination. Money that could be far better spent will instead go to lawyers, battling over hugely valuable pieces of real estate (anyone care to bet how much St. Thomas', New York is worth?). And the wider Church, too, will suffer. I would expect funds which flow from the ECUSA to places like the Nigerian Church to slow to a virtual trickle. Now, while I have little respect for Archbishop Akinola's bigoted, sexist, homophobic opinions, it has be be borne in mind that as far as religion in Nigeria is concerned, he's on the left. The alternative is a form of militant Islam that, if you all remember, likes to do things like bury women who are pregnant out of wedlock up to the neck in sand and throw rocks at them one by one until the unfortunate woman in question has either had her head staved in or bled to death through the many cuts (a process which can take as many as five hours). Make no mistake, there they know what culture "war" means, and pulling the rug from under the Anglican Church in Nigeria will be a tragedy, despite their many, many flaws.
Still, all this is naught to the ECUSA. Rather than attempt to find a middle ground to allow things to inevitably develop in a more positive direction, and try to maintain a unity which is enormously important to many individual lives, they've chosen a path of aggressive confrontation and division, for a principle which will, in my view, most likely suffer a setback because of these actions.
It's a selfish act that screams "to hell with the world and the rest of you!" showing a complete disregard for the rest of the world and a belief that they are the most important thing in the Anglican communion. No one else matters. This is the sort of action that liberals are, I think, better known for condemning. And rightly so.
I think I owe everyone a post on the current state of the ECUSA or, rather, the Anglican communion as a whole. In case you hadn't all noticed, the ECUSA had it general convention a week or so ago. Inevitably, it was an event that was going to cause controversy or, at least, seemed highly likely to. Last year's appointment of Bishop Gene Robinson, ECUSA and the Anglican communion ass a whole's first openly gay bishop was a hugely divisive issue, threatening not only to split the ECUSA but also the Anglican communion as a whole. Various compromises, agreements, and deals were reached, agreed upon, and there was an uneasy peace. The Canadian Episcopal Church especially seemed willing to build bridges and try to compromise to hold the whole mess of different national Churches together.
But of course, we don't expect compromise from the Americans, do we? I don't think they know the meaning of the word.
So, we got the obligatory "like hell will we stop consecrating gay Bishops," statement (later, a resolution which seemed to compromise this was made, but the upshot is that individual diocese will likely feel able to carry on regardless), and the election of Katherine Schiori as the new presiding Bishop. This was not a compromise candidate, in any sense you could possibly mean it. While conservatives were likely to be offended by the fact that she's a woman, it's not something which would likely provoke some sort of schism - we've had female priests for a while now, and only a minority see them as controversial. But her opening statements have been anything but reconciliatory, and oftentimes they've been outright provocative. Her first homily after election used imagery which would probably best be characterised as an outright attempt to spit in the face of more conservative factions.
Now, you'd think as a good liberal, I'd be happy that the American Church is forging ahead in such a progressive manner. To be clear, both gay clergy, gay marriage and (does it even need pointed out?) female clergy are something that, in principle, I support.
But I am, frankly, absolutely appalled at how the ECUSA has chosen to conduct itself. I guess you might argue that if the ECUSA wants to tear itself apart (as now seems inevitable) then that's their business, but they seem determined to do it in such a way as to cause the Anglican communion as a whole to fall apart, too.
I think the thing that bothers me most is the unilateralism of the whole thing. After discussions attempting to heal various rifts, the US Church has chosen to ignore everything and go its own way, ignoring the fact that it's part of something larger. We condemn President Bush's unilateral actions, but as soon as the world disagrees with what liberals want to do, they're unilateralists too. Multilateralism only when it suits is just maddenningly hypocritical. So, the world wants to push back against the forces of tolerance and modernity? Let it - the clock will not go back, and things will change anyway. There's really only one thing that can be done to delay this change and, ironically, it is the path that the American Churches have taken - cause a confrontation that will unite the conservatives under a common banner. Without this confrontation, things would just have progressed on their own, but now there will be a concerted effort to push back, ironically delaying further those principles the ECUSA claims to be fighting for. It's the flaw that occurs whenever we choose aggression over negotiation, and those who would likely claim to know that best have trampled all over the principle, with all the negative consequences that causes.
Another major concern that I have is that in the ECUSA's desperation to address this issue NOW! they have, I feel, lost sight of a large part of what the Church is about. As the Episcopal Church in the USA disintegrates, the fallout will be felt not by those insisting that their sense of morality is the right one, but instead by individual parishoners who will, most likely, see an important source of support and spiritual fulfilment taken away and consumed by anger and recrimination. Money that could be far better spent will instead go to lawyers, battling over hugely valuable pieces of real estate (anyone care to bet how much St. Thomas', New York is worth?). And the wider Church, too, will suffer. I would expect funds which flow from the ECUSA to places like the Nigerian Church to slow to a virtual trickle. Now, while I have little respect for Archbishop Akinola's bigoted, sexist, homophobic opinions, it has be be borne in mind that as far as religion in Nigeria is concerned, he's on the left. The alternative is a form of militant Islam that, if you all remember, likes to do things like bury women who are pregnant out of wedlock up to the neck in sand and throw rocks at them one by one until the unfortunate woman in question has either had her head staved in or bled to death through the many cuts (a process which can take as many as five hours). Make no mistake, there they know what culture "war" means, and pulling the rug from under the Anglican Church in Nigeria will be a tragedy, despite their many, many flaws.
Still, all this is naught to the ECUSA. Rather than attempt to find a middle ground to allow things to inevitably develop in a more positive direction, and try to maintain a unity which is enormously important to many individual lives, they've chosen a path of aggressive confrontation and division, for a principle which will, in my view, most likely suffer a setback because of these actions.
It's a selfish act that screams "to hell with the world and the rest of you!" showing a complete disregard for the rest of the world and a belief that they are the most important thing in the Anglican communion. No one else matters. This is the sort of action that liberals are, I think, better known for condemning. And rightly so.