The news is out. Parishes in The Episcopal Church (TEC), which is the U.S. branch of the wider Anglican Church, or communion, have voted this month, and more will be deciding in the weeks and months ahead, to disassociate from the TEC and join another Anglican province, most likely the Nigerian Province, headed by Archbishop Peter Akinola.
The reason? These departing churches hate homosexuals. They absolutely can’t stand them. Why not? Because gays have the horns of the devil protruding from their heads, which the escaping Episcopalians can clearly espy when these deviants walk down the street.
Do you believe that? Don’t. Neither do I. Yet many published stories, letters, and commentaries this year essentially advance that simple, hyperbolic assessment.
Even the Bishop of Washington, DC, the Rev. John Bryson Chane, in a 2/26/06 letter in The Washington Post said “It's no secret that the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion are engaged in a bitter internal struggle over the role of gay and lesbian people within the church. But despite this struggle, the leaders of our global communion of 77 million members have consistently reiterated their pastoral concern for gays and lesbians. Meeting last February, the primates who lead our 38 member provinces issued a unanimous statement that said in part: "The victimization or diminishment of human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex is anathema to us. We now have reason to doubt those words.”
The reason, per the Bishop, is that Archbishop Akinola “recently threw his prestige and resources behind a new [Nigerian] law that criminalizes same-sex marriage in his [Akinola’s] country and denies gay citizens the freedoms to assemble and petition their government. The law also infringes upon press and religious freedom by authorizing Nigeria's government to prosecute newspapers that publicize same-sex associations and religious organizations that permit same-sex unions.”
Pretty damning stuff, eh? Yes, it is, yet the nuances of political wrangling in Nigeria, where the Christian-Muslim population is nearly equally split, are difficult for U.S. citizens to appreciate. There have been recent killings between Christians and Muslims in African countries, and Nigeria, Archbishop Akinola, and others are doing what they can to prevent any recurrence of that.
That’s the Nigeria landscape, yet Bishop Chane notes that “[S]urprisingly, few voices -- Anglican or otherwise -- have been raised in opposition to the archbishop. When I compare this silence with the cacophony that followed the Episcopal Church's decision to consecrate the Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson, a gay man who lives openly with his partner, as the bishop of New Hampshire, I am compelled to ask whether the global Christian community has lost not only its backbone but its moral bearings.”
Perhaps American repudiation of the Nigerian law did not occur at the time of the Bishop’s letter. I do not know the precise timing, but I do know that today many American religious leaders who are breaking away from TEC have clearly and vocally disagreed with this law. Of course, this is the U.S., not Nigeria, and certainly no one is proposing such laws or conditions here, and Bishop Chane’s veiled implication of such is grossly irresponsible, incendiary, and inaccurate. Besides that, the man, like anyone else, is entitled to his opinion.
Now, for the real issue, according to me.
TEC has been moving away from the authority of Scripture (The Bible) for about four decades. In the 1960’s, Episcopalian Bishop James Pike's views on the Trinity caused theological consternation and ultimately led to his censure and resignation from the Church. Since then, many, including the newly-appointed Bishop of TEC, have questioned – or at least seriously recast – the primacy of Jesus Christ as God, the way to salvation, and the need in Jesus’s own word in the now so-called Great Commission to “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” (Matthew 28: 18-20)
This is huge. It’s like saying Jesus was merely a cool dude who had some really neat ideas about how to live and interact with people.
So, what did Jesus teach and command? The limits of length for this article don’t lend themselves to such a discussion. The best I can do is invite you to read the 2,000 verses Jesus uttered in the four gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Of course, when he says he didn’t come to earth to abolish the law and the prophets, which would require more extensive reading of the Bible, i.e., the Old Testament, I believe Jesus said enough in the gospels to provide an understanding for the concern of many American Episcopalians today that TEC is not abiding my Jesus’s commands.
How is TEC failing to follow Scripture?
It’s as unfair to paint all of TEC with one brush as it is for TEC and others to portray as homophobic those now leaving the church. Those breaking away proclaim that TEC has left them and the larger Anglican communion. Many years of TEC resolutions emanating from their General Conventions indicate a distancing from the concept of “sin” and the need to repent from it, i.e., cease doing whatever is sinful behavior.
Some of those leaving the church now say that TEC doesn’t believe anything is a sin anymore. I’m unwilling to go that far, but TEC’s “triggering event” for this schism – the ordination to the leadership position of an openly gay man, Gene Robinson in 2003 – is a de facto acceptance of abandoning the need to repent for sin. After all, if a church leader need not turn away from his sin, why should anyone else? If there is no need to repent, God’s and Jesus’s commands to do so are meaningless.
And who determined that? God? Man? Herein lies the issue. Those who wish to stay within the traditional Anglican communion are leaving TEC because its leaders, not God, have redefined sin and the need to repent of it. Jesus clearly states in the gospels, to “sin no more.” If Jesus prescribes repentance as the way to forgiveness and salvation, why aren’t the TEC leaders endorsing that? Under what authority are TEC leaders able to supercede Jesus’s commands and teachings?
Now do you see why this issue is not merely a question of whether homosexuals should be church leaders? In fact, many critics have incorrectly portrayed this issue to mean that gays are not welcome in the church.
This month Harold Meyerson’s 12/20/06 op-ed column in The Washington Post stated the seceding parishes “had voted to up and leave the U.S. Episcopal Church to protest its increasingly equal treatment of homosexuals.” Nowhere does Mr. Meyerson acknowledge the difference between church laity and leaders.
In an e-mail to Mr. Meyerson, I said: “Without a whole 'lotta' hard, mental machinations, I can't now put this matter into proper, cogent and objective perspective within the context of this e-mail. I will say, however, that the roles of homosexuals in the church is an issue, of course, based on scripture reading that such behavior is a sin, and repentance (i.e., turning away, or ceasing) is necessary for one's proper relationship with God. Failing to repent, in my mind, seems very reasonable grounds not to expect elevation to a position of leadership within the church organization. Should a known compulsive liar be head of The Washington Post's public affairs office?”
I continued: “Your column would seem to imply that those voting to leave TEC stand guard at the doors of the church to restrain any gay individual or couple from entering or worshipping. That couldn't be farther from the truth. The issue for me, and I think for most others, but I can't speak for them, is that careful and thoughtful reading of the Scriptures, even Jesus's words, would preclude practicing, openly gay individuals from holding leadership positions. To permit that, in my mind, clearly ignores what the Bible says repeatedly in both the Old and New Testaments. The issue is sin, which is never a pleasant topic for people to discuss, for all are sinners, and heterosexuals are no more immune to sin than homosexuals.”
“Allow me to end now, although this doesn't even scratch the surface. Having attended an Episcopal church for the past four years, which will be voting in the near future to join -- or not -- The Falls Church, Truro, et al, I can say that this is a gut-wrenching process, and not one that would be so blithely undertaken as a means to remove gays from our sight or presence, as your article would suggest.”
“I believe the biggest component, which is not being discussed, is how does TEC view Jesus and the authority of God's Word versus (Wo)Man's? Is Jesus the only way to heaven, is there a Trinity, etc.? Those are foundational issues, far greater, in my mind, than interacting with gays, which is neither the primary problem nor issue which you assert. Yes, it was the trigger, the ultimate straw, but that was because it demonstrated Man's desire to shape the Word of God based on the noble desire to get along with everyone. Unfortunately, many believe that subjugates God's Will to ours, which would clearly be blasphemy. I believe this is the driver behind the split much more so than the gay issue, but gay-bashing sells newspapers.”
Yes, gay-bashing sells papers, and sours souls. No one should be marginalized through the love of God, yet God has commands and following them doesn’t marginalize us, it magnifies our goodness as we strive to be more holy, more like Jesus.
Despite all the emotions surrounding religions and personal beliefs, studying theology can be both fun and challenging. I recently read a piece by noted Anglican clergyman, John Stott, which was fascinating, although a but long (4,800 words). In his paper, he said: “Truth is hard if it isn’t softened by love. And love is soft if it isn’t strengthened by truth.” The message: balance. We should study the Word, pray, and talk with each other to identify the appropriate balance between obeying God’s commands while also loving our friends as well as our enemies.
I also resonated with Mr. Stott’s rephrasing of an epigram attributed originally to St. Augustine in the 5th century: “In Essentials, Unity; In Non- Essentials, Liberty; and In All Things, Charity.”
That’s an excellent credo not only for studying the scriptures but also living our lives.
++++
Fred W. Apelquist, III, M.Ed.
Approximately 1,755 words.
© December, 2006