The primates of the worldwide Anglican Communion on Jan. 14 suspended the Episcopal Church USA “from full participation in the life and work of the Anglican Communion” for a period of three years, to give the Episcopal Church time to recant its pro-gay ways.
The motion, presented to a gathering of archbishops in Canterbury Cathedral, was backed by the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON), which consists of conservative Anglican bishops and leaders working “to guard and proclaim the unchanging, transforming Gospel through biblically faithful preaching.”
To translate, the issue was the Episcopal Church’s ordination of gay clergy and its policy of allowing churches to perform and sanction same-sex marriages.
The anti-gay Anglicans include a small number of U.S. and U.K. “high church” or Anglo-Catholic traditionalists who seek to be more reactionary on matters theological than Rome. But the main thrust for disciplining the U.S. church comes from the vast majority of Anglicans who reside outside the West. Specifically, African bishops, representing 60 percent of Anglicans worldwide, resist Western tolerance of homosexuality, to put it mildly.
As David Boaz writes in Newsweek, there was fear that archbishops from six African countries—Uganda, Kenya, Nigeria, South Sudan, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo—might have walked out if the archbishop of Canterbury, the symbolic head of the worldwide Anglican Communion, didn’t sanction the U.S. Episcopal Church for consecrating gay bishops and allowing Episcopal churches to perform same-sex weddings. Boaz praises the Anglican archbishop of South Africa, who has urged his church to abandon its “practices of discrimination,” which distinguishes South Africa on a continent where virulent homophobia is treated as gospel. (Despite racial oppression, South Africa is a country where Western enlightenment values always had a foothold, Boaz notes, which was significant in defeating Apartheid.)
In contrast, let’s look at some of the churches that demanded the U.S. Episcopal Church be sanctioned. The Anglican church in Uganda has no problem with draconian laws persecuting gay people:
In response to the Anglican Church of Canada’s intervention, Bishop Joseph Abura of the Karamoja Diocese wrote an editorial saying, “Ugandan Parliament, the watch dog of our laws, please go ahead and put the anti-Gay laws in place. It is then that we become truly accountable to our young and to this country, not to Canada or England. We are in charge!” Although the Anglican Church in Uganda opposes the death penalty, its archbishop, Henry Luke Orombi, did not take a position on the bill.
Some prelates of the Rwanda church joined in their country’s tribal genocide:
Tutsis were murdered en masse in Rwanda in part because they flocked to places of worship for refuge…. In fact, both the Catholic and Anglican churches in Rwanda were deeply complicit in the genocide. … Astonishingly, church figures across Rwanda played a leading role in legitimizing and even inflicting genocidal killing.
These are the churches that anti-gay American Anglicans have chosen to affiliate themselves with.
The United Methodist Church—the nation’s largest mainline denomination—faces a similar issue as it remains officially opposed to same-sex marriage and defrocks it’s ministers who perform same-sex weddings. Here, too:
Many observers—both inside and outside of the [Methodist] church—note that the global nature of the church, in particular its growth in Africa, where homosexuality is often still taboo, is a major hurdle for those hoping to change church policy.
Let the churches of the light rise up to the Light; and those that present their hatred as righteousness dwell in the heart of darkness together.
More. I say, vote yes for independency, as Americans did in 1776.
Also, the Pilgrims, who were Separatists and not Puritans (despite the common misperception) had it right. They wanted to separate from the Anglican Church and believed attempting to “purify” it would only corrupt them.
Furthermore. Before the Jan. 14 vote, Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop Michael B. Curry told the primates gathering in Canterbury:
Many of us have committed ourselves and our church to being ‘a house of prayer for all people,’ as the Bible says, when all are truly welcome. Our commitment to be an inclusive church is not based on a social theory or capitulation to the ways of the culture, but on our belief that the outstretched arms of Jesus on the cross are a sign of the very love of God reaching out to us all.
I also like this thought. Catherine M Wallace, a cultural historian and literary theologian, writes:
Like Christians of the past, we are to engage the tradition with the best critical tools and broadest moral sensitivity available to us, trusting that God is with us and within us, calling us always to courage and to compassion, calling us to be bread for a starving world. …
For some people, religion must be rigid, absolutist and judgmental in order to count as “religion.” That need for self-righteous absolutes is perhaps the deepest anxiety of all.
19 Comments for “For Schism”
posted by tom jefferson 3 on
This divide does not surprise me, but it does sadden me.
It often takes decades for a large institution to confront institutional racism and bigotry.
Man
posted by tom jefferson 3 on
Parts of the anglican church dont want to have this conversation, and they are often from nations were having this conversation on a national level dose not happen, or is just beginning to occur.
It is not necessarily a “west vs africa” conflict.
A nation with high levels of support for cultural diversity, women rights and LGBT rights is probably going to produce a church that looks at race, color, ancestry, sex, gender, sexual orientation, differently than a nation where xenophobia, sexism and homophobia are popular.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I say, vote yes for independency, as Americans did in 1776.
I assume that you are of the Anglican communion, since the matter is internal. The rest of us have no horse in the rodeo.
As far as I am concerned, religious denominations can do whatever they want to do, except try to impose their theology on the law, as conservative Christians in this county have been trying to do with respect to LGBT issues. I draw the line at that point.
posted by Doug on
Yeah. . . let’s go back to 1776 when people were burned at the stake for being witches and african americans were property and/or ⅗ human.
Glad to know where you are coming from, Stephen.
posted by Walker on
Is this the most idiotic comment ever? (Never read the comments!) He makes a point about gay rights and Anglicans. As an amusement, he links to a Broadway song about “independence.” And the only thing that “1776” means to you is witch trials (which actually took place a century earlier) and slavery (which had existed since the beginning of time)? What a sad and stunted view of history.
posted by Houndentenor on
This schism has been ongoing since the American churches started ordaining women in the 70s and has progressed from there. No one is surprised and something similar is going to happen from there. Sadly, like with American politics, the liberals have bent over backwards trying to appease the reactionary right and it’s gotten them nothing but spit in the face. Enough. Too bad Stephen can see this in religion and not in politics.
posted by Danny on
the liberals have bent over backwards trying to appease the reactionary right and it’s gotten them nothing but spit in the face. Enough. Too bad Stephen can see this in religion and not in politics.
To be fair, Stephen is very consistent in his beliefs around individual liberty and religious freedom. He opposes laws that allow government to discriminate, as well as laws that force individuals to engage in actions that violate their religious principles (even if that results in individuals engaging in discrimination). Here, he is urging the Episcopal Church to break with the Anglican Communion and to go its own way (and citing the American Revolution, albeit as a humorous aside). He is not saying governments should force the anti-gay Anglicans to stop discriminating and to support gay marriage.
He would agree, I think, that, as you (Houdentenor) put it, trying to appease the reactionary right isn’t likely to be successful here (although I think that’s what many liberals in the church would like to continue trying to do).
posted by Tom Scharbach on
To be fair, Stephen is very consistent in his beliefs around individual liberty and religious freedom. He opposes laws that allow government to discriminate, as well as laws that force individuals to engage in actions that violate their religious principles (even if that results in individuals engaging in discrimination).
Stephen is certainly quiet enough about the latter, except when it comes to government-sanctioned business discrimination against gays and lesbians. I can’t recall a single instance in which Stephen uttered a defense of religious liberty with respect to business discrimination against anyone else, even in the context of marriages to which religionists might well have religious objection (inter-racial marriages, inter-religious marriages, inter-denominational marriages, remarriages after divorce and so on).
Maybe his support of government-sanctioned discrimination in those instances should be assumed, given his consistent, if unstated, beliefs around individual liberty and religious freedom, but it seems to me that his point would be strengthened if he would endorse religious liberty laws that were class-neutral and issue-neutral, rather than focusing his attention solely on government-sanctioned business discrimination against gays and lesbians.
posted by Danny on
I can’t speak for Stephen, but as a (small “l”) libertarian I would say that there is an important distinction between the systematic racial discrimination that left African-Americans with no opportunities for employment and accommodation (prior to the civil rights movement) and the small number of religiously conservative business providers who all say they are are willing to serve LGBT customers but don’t want to provide services to same-sex weddings. For my part, I don’t think they should have to provide services to mixed-race weddings — I think it’s wrong of them not to, but I think it’s worse to compel them to do so. People don’t have a right to injure others or deny them of their legal rights, but they do have a right to not participate in offering their services. I think Stephen’s views are along these lines.
Left-liberals have a very hard time understanding that libertarians can strongly disagree with someone’s actions but not support the government intervening to deny them freedom of action (again, as long as they are not denying others of their rights to freedom of association and activity that doesn’t inflict injury on others).
posted by Houndentenor on
I can’t but laugh that the right is on the one hand making this sound like lbgt issues are now solely about who will have to bake cakes when at the same time they are introducing anti-gay bills in multiple states and at least half the presidential candidates are promising to get Obergefell overturned. Are gay Republicans really that myoptic that they can’t see what has happened to the GOP? Republicans are not libertarians, never were, never will be. Some like to talk about cutting spending, smaller government and other things and yet in power they never do that. They like how it sounds but they don’t make it happen because they don’t want it to and never did.
posted by JohnInCA on
Ah yes, the whole “non-discrimination laws are evil! Everyone should be free to discriminate!” bit.
The natural following question is “So what are you doing about *my* right to discriminate against religions that call for my death?”
And the answer is silence.
Until that changes, it’s not that I have a ” very hard time” understanding the position. It’s that I have a “very hard time” taking the position seriously.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
… the small number of religiously conservative business providers who all say they are are willing to serve LGBT customers but don’t want to provide services to same-sex weddings …
I gather that you draw a distinction between (a) businesses willing to serve LGBT customers but not provide services to same-sex marriage celebrations, and (b) businesses unwilling to provide services to LGBT customers, including providing services to same-sex marriage celebrations. Isn’t that cutting religious freedom a little fine, defending religious freedom in the one case but not the other?
And shouldn’t we make the same distinction with respect to other kinds of marriage, such as the case of a Catholic business owner willing to provide services to divorced and remarried couples, but not willing to provide services to celebrations of remarriage after divorce?
My point is that when public accommodation laws start cutting lines at that level of granularity, it puts the government in the position where it is drawing distinctions between the value of one religious belief as opposed to another religious belief.
I’ve argued in favor of a broad-scale religious exemption, covering both religious conscience and non-religious conscience (religion neutral), covering all laws (issue neutral) and affecting all classes of citizens (class neutral). I believe in that, and I’ll stick by it, because religious freedom is important. And I believe that we had it under Sherbert, later limited by Scalia’s opinion in Employment Division.
None of the religious freedom objections to public accommodations laws (in same-sex marriage cases and other areas) have survived court scrutiny. The reason is that Sherbert and following require that the laws impose a substantial burden on the business owner challenging the law. It is pretty hard to argue (with a straight face, anyway) that baking a cake for an even that offends your religious sensibilities imposes a substantial burden on religious practice or belief.
I’m sorry to say this, Danny, but I’ll start believing that libertarians are serious about religious freedom when (but only when) they start talking about situations other than same-sex marriage.
posted by Houndentenor on
I keep saying this. If the argument is that we shouldn’t have public accommodations laws, then people are perfectly capable of making that case to the public. What we are seeing, however, is an attempt to create a special carve-out so that one particular group is allowed to discriminate against another particular group. So far as I know that is unprecedented.
posted by Mike in Houston on
A commercial transaction is a commercial transaction is a commercial transaction…
If you don’t want to provide a commercial service to everyone equally, then there are ways for you to confine yourself legally to that small tribe of people that your belief system allows you… just don’t whine because you no longer have access to the wider market and earning power that you are potentially giving up OR any social opprobrium thrown your way.
It’s rather astonishing that Stephen and others keep harping on religious carve-outs that allow for discrimination against LGBT people — as if it were the case that “if only we would accept this exceptions” , then all would be good. There has never been any bargaining in good faith or compromise promised on this journey by the anti-LGBT crowd — merely moving goal posts and false arguments.
I have to wonder if Stephen has read, listened to or watched any of the voluminous testimony presented in city council meetings across this country where municipalities attempt to enact local non-discrimination ordinances — or in legislatures from coast to coast as freedom to discriminate bills are debated? Or is it just easier to ignore all that from the safe confines of a super-blue ghetto? Ignorance MUST be bliss.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I would say that there is an important distinction between the systematic racial discrimination that left African-Americans with no opportunities for employment and accommodation (prior to the civil rights movement) and the small number of religiously conservative business providers who all say they are are willing to serve LGBT customers but don’t want to provide services to same-sex weddings.
I thought about this overnight, just to make sure that wasn’t gut-reacting rather than brain-reacting.
I think you are comparing chalk and cheese, apples and oranges, unlikes rather than likes.
It seems to me that the counterpart to “the systematic racial discrimination” directed at African-Americans, government imposed as it was, is not the behavior of “religiously conservative business providers”, acting privately as they do, but instead government imposed or sanctioned discrimination against gays and lesbians.
Reasonable people may differ about whether the nature and extent of the discrimination between the two groups was similar or dissimilar (e.g. was segregation in the military, enforced until 1953, similar or dissimilar to the outright ban on service by gays and lesbians, enforced until 1996) and the level of harm done by discrimination (e.g. did the laws banning interracial marriage, ruled unconstitutional in 1967, or the laws banning same-sex marriage, ruled unconstitutional in 2015, create similar or dissimilar harm).
Whatever we may conclude about similarity or dissimilarity in that respect, though, I think (and I guess that I agree with you) that the comparison between government-imposed and/or sanctioned broad-scale discrimination, on the one hand, and small-scale private discrimination (e.g. the relatively small number of business owners who would refuse to provide services to same-sex marriages, inter-racial marriages, inter-religious marriages, inter-denominational marriages and/or remarriages after divorce) is not equivalent.
Which leads me to my next observation: If we are to discuss “the small number of religiously conservative business providers who … don’t want to provide services to same-sex weddings” we should also discuss the small number of religiously-motivated business providers who don’t want to provide services to inter-racial marriages, inter-religious marriages, inter-denominational marriages and/or remarriages after divorce. If we don’t, we are singling out same-sex marriages for special discrimination without articulating a rational basis.
What is the rational basis for distinquishinging between a religious objection exemption to same-sex marriages and a religious exemption to other religiously objectionable forms of marriage? Certainly, as you point out, the number of businesses willing to provide services to such marriages would be “small”, so we can’t distinguish on the basis of numerical/societal impact. It cannot be the nature of the harm done by sanctioning the religious objection (in each of the cases, business services aren’t provided to a marriage celebration). I invite you to try to make distinctions that would provide a religiously-neutral, objective, rational basis for protecting religious objection only in the case of same-sex marriage, but not in any of the other cases. I’ve tried and cannot.
Accordingly, I have come to believe that the focus on religious exemption to same-sex marriage, to the exclusion of other, substantially similar forms of marriage that might be religiously objectionable, is politically motivated, a political pander to conservative Christians.
That doesn’t bother me. Political whoredom is as common as dirt. Both parties participate in the practice willingly and often.
What concerns me is a constitutional issue: If there is no religiously-neutral, objective, rational basis on which to distinguish the cases, then we are setting up the government as the arbiter of religious values/beliefs, protecting one religious belief (objection to same-sex marriage) while refusing to protect another, equivalent, religious belief (say, objection to remarriage after divorce). In my opinion, allowing the government to arbitrate between religious beliefs is to sail in dangerous waters.
Be that as it may, I want to thank you for participating in the discussion. We haven’t had right-libertarian voices willing to engage on IGF in a while, and it is refreshing.
posted by Jorge on
For Schism
…
I say, vote yes for independency, as Americans did in 1776.
Said my tour guide in discussing the oldest Episcopal church in SC: Do you know what the difference is between Anglicans and Episcopalians? To put it simply, the head of the Anglican church is the King or Queen of England. They just declared their independence from England, hmm!
It looks like the Anglican Church is suffering the effects of a weakened monarchy.
I have a question. So as Mr. Miller points out, the United States has religious separatists, and for good reason.
Well, why can’t we have religious separatists in Africa for bad reasons? Okay, fine, so the Anglicans happen to not be progressive on gay matters, well and good. But it also appears that churches in Africa have committed evil deeds. Why not excommunicate them?
To speak of “western values” in the context of Christianity is a little silly. For almost all of its history, Christianity has been a western-headed religion that nominally advocates universal values. So either you shut up about western values because you’re in a western church (duh!), or you shut up about western values because you’re in a church about universal values.
posted by Mike in Houston on
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBKIyCbppfs
posted by Sifrid on
The Episcopal Church in America has survived the departure of the conservatives (good riddance), and it will survive being sanctioned by Canterbury. Very few Episcopalians I know are particularly concerned by the opinions of the Church of Rwanda or Nigeria.
posted by Lori Heine on
It certainly isn’t going to be anything I’ll worry about.
I’m proud that the Episcopal Church stood up for full inclusion.