to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. . . .

A post at titusonenine jumped out at me a few days ago–a letter to the Presiding Bishop and the President of the House of Deputies from Calvary Church, Pittsburg. It begins as follows:

Today we write on behalf of the Vestry of Calvary Church to unequivocally object to the recommendations of the Primates in the Communiqué of February 19, 2007, and to urge the rejection of those recommendations. . . .

. . . , [F]rom its origin immediately following the American Revolution until this date the heart and soul of this church is that it is an American church based upon democratic self-determination, American morality and not subject to foreign domination . . . .

This contrasts pretty sharply with statements I am reading from all over about the importance of the Anglican Communion. A good summary of the viewpoint I mean can be found in a Stand Firm interview with The Rev. Mark Lawrence, whose election as Bishop of South Carolina was recently nullified. Here is part of one crucial paragraph:

The willfulness of a church that will exalt its autonomy over others that will function unilaterally, breaching the bonds of affection, . . . You see, we are not talking about a decade; we are talking about two generations of rising willfulness against the fellowship of the  communion, and that has got to grieve the heart of God and it has to grieve the heart of every Episcopalian who sees what it means to be an Episcopalian, to be in communion with the See of Canterbury, to be a constituent member of this glorious thing we call the Anglican Communion, and to be what we have in the past rejoiced to call ourselves Episcopalians.

Note the expressions fellowship and bonds of affection, expressions we do not normally associate with coercive force. It seems to me that this paragraph is more than a little disingenuous, and also that Fr. Lawrence protests a lot too much about grieving the heart of God. Nor do I think he represents a centrist point of view, as he constantly claims to do, though he is certainly a Tory. Here’s another point he makes:

What has been going on in the Episcopal Church, let’s say for the past 25 years – we can go back further if you want, but for the last 25 years – in my opinion, a radical group in the Episcopal Church has been pushing an agenda, it is essentially a political agenda, a social justice agenda. And the sad thing is that because they’ve always framed it as social justice, it has hindered the debate that needs to take place over the teachings of Scripture, the nature of a human being, and all sorts of other things. [emphasis added]

While Fr. Lawrence and others who share his views may wish to pursue the present argument over sexuality in our church on its merits and detail their views about “the nature of a human being” broadly, I don’t hear them doing it; though Fr. John Heidt has not scrupled to express his views for all to read.

Here’s a post from a conservative Episcopal blog that puts the case pretty squarely as it seems to me most often to be put and frames the issue as a freedom of religion issue (that is, as a political issue), not as a theological or an anthropological one.

This is the current situation. They affirm that the ordination of women is a matter of justice, and they affirm that same-sex marriage is also a matter of justice. Bishop Charleston has launched out on some initiatives of his own aimed at achieving reconciliation. These are all well meant, and who can argue against the plea, comming from many sides, that ask, “Why can’t we just get along?” In Massachusette (sic), gay marriage is now the law, even though the Episcopal Church hasn’t actually officially started doing it yet, but the justice issue is put quite simply, if the Commonwealth views this is a positive thing, why should people be thrown out of the church? The general view of things here is that the discussion is over on this issue, and we are moving on. That, of course, does not satisfy everybody, and here is where the justice argument backfires. If you belong to a church that accepts the marriage of homosexuals, what if you don’t happen to believe that to be in accord with Holy Scripture? The same was true with the ordination of women. If you belong to a church which ordains women, what if you don’t happen to believe that women are called by God to be priests. Both issues effectively “un-church” the individual who can not assent to the new teaching.

The point is made even clearer when this writer expresses dissatisfaction, in a later paragraph, with the Episcopal Church’s “[in]ability to correct doctrinal error.”

It is well known that some Episcopalians, who apparently find themselves unchurched in a fellowship that fails to correct doctrinal error, have placed themselves under the ecclesastical supervision of Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria. At present Archbishop Akinola is lobbying on behalf of legislation editorially advocated here. A paragraph from this Nigerian editorial writer reads in part as follows:

[A]n international organization (GHF) [Gay Homeland Foundation], which protects the rights of deviants like homosexuals and lesbians, is trying to pressure or intimidate Nigerians not to support the anti-gay marriage bill currently in the National Assembly. What amazes some of us is the audacity of deviants. The end times are here with us. We will hear and witness many strange things. A minority with an aberrant lifestyle will be pushing to impose their behaviour on the majority. A people who ought to hide their heads in shame want to pressure us to accept and even promote their aberrant lifestyle. In much of the Western world, gay people have compelled society to tolerate or accept their lifestyle but we in Africa have resolutely refused to toe that line.

Homosexual acts are “already illegal in Nigera” and carry heavy sentences for persons convicted. The Nigerian “anti-gay marriage bill” makes criminals of persons who associate with gay and lesbian persons or who advocate for them. It has been condemned around the world and by the U. S. State Department (though not by the Archbishop of Canterbury). Here is a description of its provisions:

In its last published version, it would impose a five-year prison sentence on anyone who “goes through the ceremony of marriage with a person of the same sex.” Anyone, including a priest or cleric, who “performs, witnesses, aids or abets the ceremony of same sex marriage,” would face the same sentence. It goes beyond that, however, to punish any positive representation of or advocacy for the rights of lesbian and gay people. Anyone “involved in the registration of gay clubs, societies and organizations, sustenance, procession or meetings, publicity and public show of same sex amorous relationship directly or indirectly in public and in private,” would be subject to the same sentence.  

I can understand why some observers are suggesting that the intent of this legislation may be genocidal, just as I can understand why Fr. Lawrence and others on the American right, even if they believe themselves unchurched, might still not wish to be associated with the extremes of politics on the Anglican Right. (In this connection, see the essay by Ephraim Radner and Andrew Goddard, “Human Rights, Homosexuality and the Anglican Communion: Reflections in Light of Nigeria.” See further, “Nigeria: what Archbishop Akinola did say,” at Thinking Anglicans). A couple of other things are worth noting, too. The Nigerian Church’s official statement of support for the legislation mentions only the provision outlawing gay marriage and ignores the rest. And in this context it is at least worth noting that the Nigerian editorial writer I quote above also styles himself a member of a persecuted group. One of the more interesting things about this whole matter is the manner in which the right has appropriated the rhetoric of identity politics.

The Rev. Susan Russell has put me onto another exchange at titusonenine, in which she is briefly a participant. In the long and tiresome series of posts that follows Pastor Russell’s departure there is a good deal of talk about authenticity of belief, about who believes in truth, about hermeneutical differences and what might be proclaimed as essential for salvation, about whether there is homophobia in the church and/or whether homophobia is a sin, about the church’s teaching regarding marriage. It is argued that humans are created heterosexual and that some humans stand in need of reconciliation with their natural selves, though some posters seem not to agree. At some point in reading the thread I recalled that I had heard the night before the great penultimate movement of Handel’s Messiah, with the text from Romans: “Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect.” And I realized that I was reading an argument about God’s elect, not so much about who might be in or out as about who get to be gatekeepers and about what might be an acceptable platform from which to proclaim it to be the gospel that particular persons and/or particular categories of persons are in or out.

I sometimes think the present framing of the argument over sexuality in my church may be part of “an attempt by the right to take over yet another American institution” (I am quoting Cary Nelson in a debate with David Horowitz, aired this past weekend on CSpan, and before I give that up as conspiratoral paranoia perhaps I may be permitted references here and here). But I prefer to end this piece positively.

I am in favor of an inclusive Episcopal church, a church whose values are American, to borrow from the Calvary Church letter. I am fully in favor of what Fr. Lawrence calls a social justice agenda. I also believe that the dispute in my church is political at its heart, that it is, given the best interpretation rather than the worst, a dispute about whose views shall have the power to determine the immediate future course of the church. Calvary Church, Pittsburgh, have answered politics with politics in a refreshing way that draws upon the tradition of the Declaration of Independence. It’s good to see such an answer and even better to be part of a fellowship whose House of Bishops have now taken a similar position.