Bishop Chane --
The following is the text of an e-mail I sent moments ago to Harold Meyerson on his op-ed piece in today's Washington Post. I read your letter printed in the Post (2/26/06) and I'm struck by one big inconsistency. How can you characterize some nations' marriage restrictions as "prudent," which deal with kinship, yet seemingly question or dismiss the overarching issue of the proprietary of gay relationships? Both those conditions have Biblical roots, yet you affirm one (inter-marrying relatives) and apparently diminish the other (proscriptions on homosexual relations).
I'm not an Episcopal expert but any means, but I understand that one of the church's guiding principles has been acceptance of wide-ranging views on Scripture. "Unity in essentials.." is something I recall seeing as a quote from someone in the early 1600's. Consensus on all points is not a requirement. So far, so good.
In the penultimate paragraph of your 2/26 letter, you state that many in this country have failed to disassociate themselves from Archbishop Akinola's position on Nigeria's law to imprison those engaging in certain gay activities. I've seen statements to this affect. Perhaps they were not made when your article was published. However, what is the qualitative difference between those splitting from TEC who don't agree with all of Akinola's positions and those in TEC who wish more conservative members don't leave simply because they don't accept all TEC positions? It would seem that such diversity of opinion is wholly consistent with the Anglican tradition. [From what I've heard, many conservatives voting to leave TEC feel that current or near-term TEC leaders will expel so-called conservative clergy, thus imposing a less theologically diverse, yet more 'politically-correct' doctrine within the church.]
Here's my e-mail to Mr. Meyerson. I also believe that your 2/26 letter overemphasizes the gay issue and ignores what I consider to be the quintessential one: under whose authority are we bound? God's or (Wo)Man's? Perhaps you can accuse me of similar oversimplification, but I feel that there is much movement today in the world -- and some churches -- to interpret (or ignore) God's Word is a way that is more governed by secular acceptance than by adherence to God's law.
++++
Mr. Meyerson -
As a columnist, I understand the challenges of covering a topic -- any topic - in a mere 700 - 800 words or so. However, I'm rather disappointed in your characterization of this issue as being homophobia. I realize that using such labels easily and immediately demonizes those who oppose gays in church leadership positions. However, such characterization is not only a gross oversimplification but is also simply wrong.
Although I speak only for myself, the recent breaking from the "The Episcopal Church" (TEC), as it calls itself now (was ECUSA: Episcopal Church, U.S.A.) goes back four decades when Bishop (I.e., a church "leader") Pike's views on the Trinity caused theological consternation within the church and ultimately led to his censure and resignation from the Episcopal Church.
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?
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'll try to call you today. If you are willing, I'd like to talk more about this, because it is far from being simply characterized as a gay issue. 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.
It would be interesting for you to write another column discussing the theological drivers behind this news. Of course, that would require fewer generalizations and attacks on people's motivations. It may not incite or inflame as much, either. As a columnist, you may consider this your mission. I consider mine to be "stimulate thought, debate, and introspection" in a civil, reasoned, and balanced way. If I disagree with you, I certainly hope I won't demonize you. That diminishes both you and me.
++++