The Episcopal Church facing a possible schism?
Matt Stufft Though I am not officially a member of the Episcopal Church, I have while living down here in Baltimore been attending it. This past Saturday was a joyous occasion for the Maryland Diocese with the official consecration and ordination of the new Bishop, Rev. Canon Eugene Sutton. It was joyous as we ordained the first African American bishop for the Maryland Diocese, also it was a time to celebrate the now bright future for the church in this state. As many of you know the Episcopal Church is a very traditional denomination, worship wise. While they do incorporate new ideas for worship, the style is very true to its liturgical roots. The denomination however has become very well known in the recent times for being progressive in its beliefs, mainly pertaining to the stance the church has taken towards the involvement of homosexuals in the faith.
It was indeed a joyous occasion in the National Cathedral, as some clergy that were present are “out” as you will, reaffirming a creed several churches have signed officially accepting those who are Christian and also homosexual. It is indeed proving to the world that the church is faithfully upholding the creeds that Christ has taught it, to love one another, to forgive one another, and to never under any circumstances turn people away. It is unfortunate that many other mainline churches, including that which I’m a part of, the United Methodist Church, have yet to become so inclusive. I guess sometimes the sake of keeping things peaceful, practice what Christ preached can be thrown out. What also is unfortunate is the fight that some conservatives in the Episcopal Church are waging against the denomination. Threatening a schism by aligning themselves with a more theologically conservative church coming out of Africa and South America. They do not seem to realize the fight for civil rights for all people is the church’s fight as well. So often these conservative churches fail to realize the more pressing issues the church must face, such as the war on poverty, spreading the word of love to all those who are willing to hear it, and the ability to provide an end to injustice throughout this world. Now many colleagues of mine are thinking that this schism is going to hurt the church, and that it will never succeed. My friends, I believe that is not the case. I honestly think that the schism will not hurt but will help the denomination grow. No longer would it face the fighting over an issue such as this when more pressing concerns need attention to. Plus it will give those who disagree over this issue the ability to worship and commune with those who they do agree with. Sometimes the schisms are worth it, it is through these schisms church’s can grow. No longer would the fighting go on, and once again the church can be at work, helping those who need it, being the bearers of peace and love. I know this is to be a political blog, but sometimes as much as we try not to be, politics and religion do intertwine. Unfortunately like the church, we as a nation still very much remain divided over this civil rights issue. The granting of basic rights to same sex individuals and couples has become such a sticking point that people plan disgraceful protests throughout this nation’s cities. While fortunately no calls are being made for a split of the nation, one thing is for sure we as a country, like the church, are failing to meet our goals. We are failing to respond to global and social concerns while we bitterly fight for some people’s ability to stay at a hospital with someone they love. People are left starving, but we let our politicians debate the definition of a marriage. Something just doesn’t seem right. Do I believe the US should divide? NO! But I do believe it is our duty to get over this issue and get our country focused on causes that are truly concerning to our country. I thank you for your patience while babble on about a topic I do feel very strongly on, but once again this is just my view as I see it.
| 2.4 (2 people) |
Loading ...
Perhaps the most unfortunate aspect of this article is that you incorrectly characterize the issue as one of civil rights. I assert that this characterization is incorrect for the following reason.
First, you seem to fail to understand that the granting of hospital visitation rights, inheritance, legal cohabitation, i.e., what you call “basic rights,” is in no manner directly linked to the issue dividing the churches of the Anglican Communion. All of those rights, can, and should, be decoupled from anyone’s marital status,” being simple matters of contract between the interested parties. Were this systematically to be done both at the national and state levels, it would immediately become apparent that the perception that this is an issue of equal civil rights would be shown for what it is–a consequence of the improper conflation of multiple uncorrelated governmental objectives. This is particularly obvious with respect to the differing treatment of individual’s of differing state and status that is inherent in any form of income taxation, even including a flat rate income tax).
You, like most voters, are simply unwilling to decouple your desires for a society embodying some specific set of solutions from your interest in imposing your particular solution to all of your fellow citizens, by force of law, if necessary. From the tone of your post it would appear that you consider yourself a believing churchgoer. I do not know the precise words of the baptismal vows used in the United Methodist Church, but I do know that the final baptismal vow in the Episcopal Church Book of Common Prayer is “to work for justice and peace and respect the dignity of every human being.” As a member of that church for more than 37 years, I can assure you that that is an extremely difficult vow for most people to live out. It requires allowing one’s fellow citizens to do things of which one thoroughly disapproves, as well as those things of which one wholeheartedly approves. One of the consequences of seeking to live out that vow is that one must necessarily refrain from interfering with what one’s fellow citizen’s do, regardless of one’s disapproval, unless that fellow citizen is engaged in the use of fraud, or initiates the use of force or coercion. Avoiding the kinds of improper conflation that I referenced above is a sine qua non for fulfilling that vow.