Why Revolt?

In an article in the New York Times entitled “Episcopalians Are Reaching Point of Revolt”(the link is

here), Laurie Goodstein examines the articulations of some of the church’s ex-pats’ reasons for breaking from the church.

This began several years ago, but is newsworthy now because two big, wealthy churches in Virginia are voting this weekend to leave the church.

“The Episcopalian ship is in trouble,” said the Rev. John Yates, rector of The Falls Church, one of the two large Virginia congregations, where George Washington served on the vestry. “So we’re climbing over the rails down to various little lifeboats. There’s a lifeboat from Bolivia, one from Rwanda, another from Nigeria. Their desire is to help us build a new ship in North America, and design it and get it sailing.”

What seems strange to many of us is that this ship is not only a serious ocean-going vessel, but an ice-breaker, tugboat, and ocean liner in one. We haven’t hit an iceberg and are taking on water, but we smashed through the iceberg and came out clean on the other side. The problem is that the conservatives are attempting to blow a hole in the hull and call it “irreconcilable differences”. The Anglican Communion is based on bonds of affection: you can come and go as you please, you just can’t steal someone else’s sheep. Ahh! There’s the controversy!

Last week, conservative priests in the Church of England warned [the Archbishop of Cantebury] that they would depart if he did not allow them to sidestep liberal bishops and report instead to sympathetic conservatives.

This is similar to what is going on here, as well:

In Virginia, the two large churches are voting on whether they want to report to the powerful archbishop of Nigeria, Peter Akinola, an outspoken opponent of homosexuality who supports legislation in his country that would make it illegal for gay men and lesbians to form organizations, read gay literature or eat together in a restaurant.

Not to mention making it illegal to be a hetero supporter of gay rights.

Anglican rules and traditions prohibit bishops from crossing geographical boundaries to take control of churches or priests not in their territory. So Archbishop Akinola and his American allies have tried to bypass that by establishing a branch of the Nigerian church in the United States, the Convocation of Anglicans in North America.

But how can this even be perceived as “getting around this” since we are still in the United States? Would Akinola stand for a U.S. presence in Nigeria, ordaining our own priests in his territory? Of course not. See, this isn’t an actual loophole, but apparently, if you shout loud enough, it can pass for one.

Archbishop Akinola and some other leaders of provinces in developing countries have said they will boycott their primates’ meeting in Tanzania in February unless the archbishop of Canterbury sends a second representative for the American conservatives.

Which is actually the first appropriate step on their part—previously, there case was to threaten walking (which they will do anyway) unless the U.S. sent no one to Lambeth. Our abiding by their desires in 2004 was a grave mistake.

Do you recognize this tactic? Churches of many stripes began refusing to share the Holy Eucharist with churches they perceive as not being in line with their version of tradition. This sacrament of the Church is our great sign of unity, and by its very nature cannot be a weapon of division. Similarly, it is not a tool of exclusivity either. Roman Catholics have been battling over this since the despicable Conservative attacks on Sen. Kerry during the 2004 election.

“It’s a huge amount of mess,” said the Rev. Dr. Kendall Harmon, canon theologian of the Diocese of South Carolina, who is aligned with the conservatives. “As these two sides fight, a lot of people in the middle of the Episcopal Church are exhausted and trying to hide, and you can’t. When you’re in a family and the two sides are fighting, it affects everybody.”

But the truth is that it really isn’t a question of sides: there aren’t “two sides fighting”. There is one group breaking canon law for its own purposes and the rest abiding by the Church’s teachings and traditions. For several years now, conservatives have cast themselves as the last vestiges of a pure and faithful people: it is as if they are the ‘civilized’ Romans overrun by disgusting barbarians, and their only hope is to make a desperate plea across the Atlantic. In reality, this is an unconscionable act of desperation by several conniving men that respect only small bits of scripture over the mass that do not deal with sexual politics or ethics.

Despite what you may think, I have a deep respect for conservative ideals, but this is a gambit of power and an act of egotistical human origin. Conservative traditions that encourage us to be wary of change, and if it necessary, move slowly are not only appropriate, but truly gallant. It is too bad that these acts by a power-mad African bishop and his glory-hound allies in the U.S. are in all actuality sheer cowardice. Has it occurred to no one that this is a big case of sour grapes that is being used as a case for civil war?