Wayne Besen - Author, Activist, Columnist, Public Speaker

Tuesday, July 04, 2006

(Weekly Column)

Is size all that matters to the Anglican Church? It appears that the Most Rev. Rowan Williams, archbishop of Canterbury, is willing to steamroll gays to prevent a seismic schism that would decrease membership rolls. In a document titled "theological reflection," Williams asked all 38 regional churches in the worldwide Communion to agree to a "covenant" that could stymie a church's ability to elect openly gay bishops. Those churches that did not adhere would have their status downgraded and become second-class affiliates.

This plan would create an ecclesiastical caste system, with conservatives playing the role of Brahmins, while GLBT affirming churches would become the new untouchables. Yet, it would still allow the demoted denominations to share in Communion.

Not surprisingly, such a convoluted compromise pleased neither faction. Six right wing dioceses declared they would bolt the Episcopal Church, while the Diocese of Newark named an openly gay priest as a candidate for Bishop.

What disturbs me about this debate is that Williams is known for his supposedly liberal views. So, if he sees gay people as equals before God's eyes, how can he so easily relegate them to the back pews with an admonition to behave and be quiet?

The painful nature of this debate brings up existential questions that leaders such as William seem unprepared to face. For example, is the more successful church the one brimming with members based on bigotry or is it the smaller institution walking in righteousness?

While keeping the Communion together is a worthy goal, the price that conservatives are asking is too high for Anglicans of conscience to pay. Those who have embraced full inclusion of gay and lesbian leaders have embarked on a journey and have been enlightened. Once they see homosexuals as spiritual soul mates, it is impossible to go back into the darkness.

What Williams is essentially asking is that liberals subjugate wisdom and undermine understanding for the greater good. But in their hearts, liberals know that something so bad can't truly be for the greater good. They are being asked to reconcile the irreconcilable and it will never work.

The Archbishop of Canterbury cannot expect progressive Episcopalians to look their gay friends in the eyes and then treat them as inferior. Gay people are either equal and deserve full inclusion, or they are not equals and deserve castigation. The search for middle ground in this equation is futile. If the church thinks Equal-lite is the solution, it is headed for a schism.

In a sense, this skirmish is no longer about gay people in the Anglican Communion. It is about whether the church is still a conduit for spiritual integrity and intellectual honesty. If members can no longer be true to their beliefs, then the institution will have lost much of its power and meaning. Is a church that dictates one's conscience rather than allowing one to live as his conscience dictates worth saving?

Liberal Episcopalians should take comfort in the fact that history does not look kindly on splinter church groups that broke away because of intolerance towards minorities. The Southern Baptist Church will always have the stain and stench of slavery hanging over its biography. I can't think of an instance where a religious group that chose the side of discrimination turned out to be right in history's judgment. In recent years, for example, the Vatican apologized for its treatment of women and Jews. Although there is little hope that the current Pope will change his archaic views, his embarrassing actions will cause a future Pontiff to grovel over today's abusive treatment of gays.

As a practical matter, most church-goers won't even notice the missing malcontents if the Anglican Church splits. The New York Times reported that a Connecticut priest asked his flock how many of them had even heard of the Anglican Communion before the war over homosexuality erupted in 2003, and only a third raised their hands. Given this tenuous connection, it is hard to see how leaving the backward churches behind will cause significant trauma.

I'm not a marriage counselor, but my untrained eye sees a pretty good case for divorce. Many in the Episcopal Church have evolved into a new spiritual species and it will only be stalled by the Neanderthals that remain stuck in another era.

Yes, bigger can be better, but the Anglican Church may soon learn that the size of ideas matter more than the size of membership lists.

17 Comments:

fuuny thing is - the more conservatice churches are growing again. you might check barna.org on that.
posted by Anonymous, at 7/04/2006 5:53 PM

Anonymous - encouraging bigotry or using a class of citizens as a scapegoat is the hallmark of "con-servative" churches. Any growth is hardly something to be proud of, particularly among those congregations who somehow feel more secure in God's Word because they've elected to worship the direction their peepee points as somehow sanctified exclusively by heaven.

I think the notion of a religious caste system merely underscores why this nation cannot merely be defined as some "inspired by God" notion - it is not a religious covenant to author documents that view all men as created equal. The churches are showing that on a regular basis.

Church membership is also always fluid - it's amazing that the very people who can come and go as they please from denominational affiliation also attempt to claim these are "deeply-held beliefs" which deserve respect in their persecution of others rather than admit that those beliefs are deliberately chosen.
posted by Anonymous, at 7/04/2006 7:03 PM

i was just stating a fact not promoting a position.
posted by Anonymous, at 7/04/2006 9:20 PM

use the information instead of arguing.
posted by Anonymous, at 7/04/2006 10:00 PM

Quantity doesn't equal quality--usually it's the exact opposite. You can almost hear the Sieg Heils bouncing off of the cold, stark walls of those mega-churches with their tacky big-screen televisions and neon crosses. But, of course, one can always stop to buy Krispy Kreme donuts from the vendors outside of the church--or so I've read. UGH!!!
Gary (NJ)
posted by Anonymous, at 7/05/2006 10:00 AM

Apparently, the Anglican Church wants to make the statement that all are equals under their god, but some are more equal than others. Which is, of course, exactly what that Jesus guy talked about in the one book they always read from.

--Johnny in Minneapolis
posted by Anonymous, at 7/05/2006 10:14 AM

Not surprisingly, churches that don't challenge their members and do provide opportunities for their members to feel more moral than others are going to prosper. So what, anon? The "liberal" churches tend to have less divorce among their members than the conservative Protestant churches. That suggests to me that the conservative churches are simply not doing their job in pre-marital and marital counselling and support. One wonders if the conservative appeal is that of being forgiven, but never having to forgive.

NancyP
posted by Anonymous, at 7/05/2006 12:25 PM

Nancy, one of the appeals of conservative religions and politics is that everything is spelled out in black and white. For the intellectually lazy, easy answers and a simplistic code of dos and donts is appealing.
B. Queer
posted by Anonymous, at 7/05/2006 2:56 PM

wayne, one of the purpose of church is "to dictate" conscience because the implication that man is by nature sinful and cannot rely on his own understanding. that is is the bible several times. i understnad that you are not c achristian or a religous man which is fine - but the purpose of the church is to provide sound doctrine for others to follow. whether or not we agree with that doctrine is arguable that is why there are so many factions or denominations of christianity.
posted by Anonymous, at 7/05/2006 3:04 PM

Rowan Williams and other liberals focused on church unity, overlook not only bigotry affecting gays in places like the US and UK, but gays in places like Nigeria who are in a struggle for their very existence, and sometimes individual lives.

It is irritating as hell that church unity takes precidence over protecting gays who are subjected to draconian legislation that would outlaw gay advocacy, public assembly and organizations to say nothing of marriage equality.
posted by Anonymous, at 7/05/2006 4:11 PM

As a follow-up to Nancyp
What the conservatives believe is that once they declare their "rebirth" they are quaranteed heaven. No questions asked, no further obligations to follow the Gospel.Saying you are saved means you are saved. Liberals unfortunately believe that actions speek louder than words, which is why they are not conservative
posted by Anonymous, at 7/05/2006 4:59 PM

When we appear befoe the judgment seat of God, the defense that "I was only following authority." won't be any more successful than the same argument was after WW2 when nazi war criminals stood trial for their part in Germany's great shame. Paul says that we must work out our own salvation in fear and trembling. Certainly one role of the church is to advise, but it is an individual's responsibility to consent.
posted by Glynn Harper, at 7/05/2006 7:27 PM

History does look kindly on splinter church groups - ie: Protestants vs. Catholics. Pretty large splinter church group - wouldn't you say??
posted by Anonymous, at 7/05/2006 9:26 PM

A highly anxious community crave control, control over themselves and to control others. They find scapegoats to make them feel more in control, more okay.

You have to ask has America become an overly anxious culture ? Surviving on hyped up television, out of control prescription and non prescription drugs, caffeine and terror fear.

Are Americans, becoming like victims of ravished Africa who out of share fear and anxiety too easily follow religious leaders lacking in transparency and accountability and who invent pseudo beliefs that involves beating up on others to make themselves feel righteous ?
posted by Anonymous, at 7/06/2006 6:05 AM

this is not an american issue - humans have always been afraid. you find people everywhere grasp for a place to belong and find acceptance. even gay people.
posted by Anonymous, at 7/06/2006 11:54 AM

Just FYI, most of the so-called anti-gay passages of the Bible and Torah are unclear in their intention. The problem compounds when they are translated from the original language. Not only do these passages read differently but they mean different things in the context. To quote them out of the context is to cherry-pick them for your own ends, a tactic that is explicitly forbidden repeatedly in the Bible and in any theological institution.

For instance:

The Leviticus passages refer to 'male beds' or something similar. As I recall it's from the Greek and a word that appears for the first time in Leviticus. It seems to have been a law to restrict men from attending pagan sites and engaging in erotic experience as a means of religious worship. The message, worship our way or you're in violation of law.

Genesis in the original Hebrew imparts the message that the side of Adam was removed to make Eve. It gets more complicated when one understands that 'Adam' is Hebrew for 'the people'. Rabbi's tend to interpret the creation story to mean that we were made different because in our differences we would see, and learn to know, the face of God. This interpretation, of course, frightens fundamentalists because their interpretation is based upon an inaccurate translation into English.

Sodom is another classic example. There are so many holes in the story that do not add up to a condemnation of anal intercourse that the entire UPS fleet could be driven through. Needless to say, the fact that all the women and children of the Sodom came to 'abuse' the male angels is not covered in Pat Robertson's sermons. Neither is the fact that Lot offered his teenage virgin daughters to be raped instead of the angels. What does this say to us? Jesus and others state that the crime of Sodom was inhospitality - leaving people outside the gates - which at that time could often mean death from exposure, or attack by criminals. The residents of Sodom were greedy and selfish. What does this say about Ken Lay and our 'salvation by shopping' culture? When will Jimmy Swaggart preach that sermon?

The message most often repeated in the sacred texts is to love one another as we love ourselves. It's time to repeat this to people who claim to be followers of Jesus. How do they know the face of God in everyone?

The answer is they are looking from a fearful perspective, as are we, sadly, who respond with fear and distrust of most people of faith. The most extreme ones are great with modern media. Time to put the fire in the ones who love this world. They could do well to adopt modern media. One of the lessons that will be most necessary is that to communicate effectively you must know who you are, what you stand for, and how your beliefs will benefit society. Rowan Williams has removed that as a possibility for Episcopalians. A divided house cannot take any time to communicate the benefits of their message, to paraphrase an old saw.

D Pecan

P.S. The argument that liberal congregations have lower divorce rates neglects an important fact. Most people drawn to evangelicalism and fundamentalism come because their social skills are not well developed. They need boundaries because the ones they learned are often abusive at worst, and counterproductive at least. Many people are coming out of the mega-churches and joining smaller congregations where loving 'the other' is a real possibility. When mainline denominations begin to address the needs of these communities, listen to their pain, and make a committment to providing assistance that allows people to mature, we will experience a sea change. I believe one's on the way since the pressure is on the mainline to change or disappear. Some will go more conservative out of fear and self preservation. Others will embrace the tenets of the Bible to love one another, even in times when we feel imperiled.
posted by Anonymous, at 7/06/2006 3:32 PM

i can love the sinner but not the sin sort of speak?
posted by Anonymous, at 7/06/2006 9:34 PM