What schism really looks like

So here it is. We are five years removed from General Convention 2003 and we’re still having our gay-rights squabbles. What I still can’t comprehend is the arguments coming from the schismatics.

Now, I’m not talking about the basic arguments: arguments based out of one interpretation of scripture, but more out of tradition. You know, the tradition that calls all homosexuals sinners of incredible magnitude. No, I’m not talking about those arguments. I’m talking about the arguments that revolve around what to do about this.

According to the schismatics, The Episcopal Church (ECUSA) has “left” the traditional church by acting in a hospitable way and practiced radical inclusiveness. They also argue that the Bible seems to say “God hates homosexuals and wants you to hate them to” somewhere. I think maybe in one of the Epistles. Then Jesus also threw in there “You may accept their money in the offering plate, but reject their humanity and dignity from the pulpit; and PS—don’t dare let them marry or ordain them bishops” in the gospels. They seem to think that it’s in there, but I can’t seem to find those direct quotes anywhere!

So here it is. The vast majority of us are infidels for thinking that the Bible isn’t as directive on this as they claim. Jesus’s teaching [in which same-sex sexuality is entirely absent] directs us to see the Great Commandment as directing our entire view process. Love God; love your neighbor.

But if you want to get into the nitty gritty, then we’ll have to use an analogy. And since the Right-wing loves to use hyperbole [such as the Rt. Rev. David Anderson’s claim that Bishop Lee (of Virginia) committed “ecclesial massacre” in deposing 21 clergy at once (Encompass, April 2008)], I think this is not nearly as out-of-line as he seems to be:

Let us say that we elect members of local government, state government, and federal government to office that not only do their jobs well, but seem eager to find the most honest and authentic legislations, budgets, and proposals that they can. The vast majority of their political opponents leave the United States completely, taking up residency in governments all over the world that are more appealing to their political beliefs. And yet, a small core group remain and form a militia, arguing that they are free to do so under the 2^nd Amendment. This militia is in operation since the mid-1970s. Then in 2003, the state of New Hampshire elects a gay man as governor. The militia cries foul, but the rest of the states consent and the election stands.

Now, if you were in this militia, what would you do? Begin messing things up, of course! You convince sympathetic governments to declare existing states foreign protectorates (such as in parts of California and Texas). You argue to the United Nations that your money-laundering, illegal arms-trading, grand theft, and acts of violence are justified because your local government is “corrupt” and has “lost its way” [NOTE: these are examples of state and federal crimes; I am in no way suggesting that the schismatics have committed these precise crimes; merely that they, unlike ECUSA have actually committed crimes/breaches of canon].

And now, when that president moves to remove governors who have abandoned their positions in state governments to become governors of the protectorates of Fort Worth and San Joaquin under the government of the Southern Cone, they cry foul again, as if they are now canonical scholars.

So here it is. I don’t really care what a person believes about sexual orientation, but there is nothing virtuous, orthodox, Anglican, or Christian about the behavior of the schismatics. It is disgusting to believe that the laws don’t apply to you; that your narrow interpretation of scripture and tradition means that not only are you above the law, but that the laws must be rewritten to suit only yourselves while rejecting your opponents.

I have heard non-schismatic conservatives (a different kind of sympathizer) suggest that “both sides are wrong” or that ECUSA had it coming based on its behavior (shouldn’t have worn that dress—you know that men can’t control themselves). This is the most preposterous suggestion of all. At least schismatics are willing to acknowledge that they are breaking the law as reverse
Robin Hoods (stealing from the poor to re-establish the wealthy). These sympathizers want you to feel bad about yourself and convince you to become fundamentalist. Instead of leaving the church for more sympathetic waters, they want to sully the waters so that nobody wants to swim.

The truth as I see it is this: if this were the government, the schismatics would be in jail and Nigeria, Uganda, and the Southern Cone would be on trial in the international criminal court. But this is religion, where theological freedom is tolerated only if you are fundamentalist.