KARL MARX had a good line about Episcopalians. In a preface to Volume 1 of “Das Kapital,” he wrote that the “English Established Church”–of which the Episcopal Church is an American offshoot–would “more readily pardon an attack on 38 of its 39 articles than on 1/39 of its income.” Marx was referring to the Church of England’s “Articles of Religion,” a basic summary of its doctrine. His cynicism seems vindicated in the Episcopal Church’s recent abandonment of biblical teaching on homosexuality. In early August, the triennial General Convention of the Episcopal Church, attended by bishops and diocesan representatives, confirmed the election of a homosexual priest as bishop of New Hampshire. The priest, the Rev. Canon Gene Robinson, was once married and fathered two daughters. He and his wife divorced, and Robinson now lives openly with another man. The same General Convention also legitimated local churches’ blessing of same-sex unions.
Both actions have provoked opposition–not only from traditionalists inside the Episcopal Church, but also from conservatives in the worldwide Anglican Communion. Some resistance is hardly surprising, as the American church’s actions contravene the overwhelming witness of the church, past and present, that sexual intimacy is to be reserved for husband and wife. This revision of doctrine comes at a time when the demographic center of Christendom has shifted from Europe and North America to the growing, predominantly conservative churches of Asia, Africa, and South America. The months ahead will test those churches’ ability to resist American cultural imperialism. Indeed, the controversy has inflamed the fears of Muslims as well, who resent the globalization of a popular culture they consider demeaning to human dignity.
LOOKING FIRST to the American scene, sexual liberals have hailed the Episcopalians’ move as the harbinger of greater tolerance and inclusiveness, but that could be wishful thinking. When President Bush suggested in late July that it might be necessary to codify the definition of marriage as uniting one man and one woman, he wasn’t merely pandering to his conservative base. Recent polls show declining support for legalizing same-sex unions–and even greater opposition to churches’ blessing such liaisons. Most Americans seem to have developed a laissez-faire attitude to what consenting adults do privately. But in-your-face campaigns in the entertainment media, the courts, the academy, and the church to endorse homoerotic behavior are producing not so much backlash as the simple drawing of a line. We’ll look the other way, Americans seem to be saying, but don’t expect us to actively approve.
Liberal Episcopal Church leaders think of themselves as enlightened pioneers. But the evidence suggests they overreach. Roughly two-thirds of American Christians are Roman Catholic, Evangelical, or Pentecostal. The adamant opposition to homosexual unions of the Catholic Church is reiterated in a 12-page document released by the Vatican on the second day of the Episcopal General Convention. American Evangelicals and Pentecostals are equally traditional in their teaching about sexual morality.
But even in the context of the mainline Protestant churches, the Episcopal Church’s position is extreme. The fierce debates taking place in the mainline churches over homosexual behavior tend to be over church discipline, not the core teachings of the faith. True, baby boomers are now in charge across denominations. A generation that came of age chanting “Make love, not war” finds it easier to preach pacifism to the president than sexual purity to parishioners. Nevertheless, both the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the United Methodist Church explicitly prohibit the blessing of same-sex unions and ordination of practicing homosexuals.
One reason the Episcopal Church is more vulnerable to ethical revisionism than the other Protestant churches is social class. Episcopalians tend to represent the urban well-off. They listen to NPR, not Fox. They go to elite universities, not community colleges. They value liturgical niceties over theological substance. When white flight drained American cities, downtown Episcopal congregations had three choices: move to the suburbs (and abandon beautiful, historic buildings); transform themselves to include ethnic minorities, immigrants, and the poor; or reach out to the remaining well-off urbanites–singles, childless couples, and homosexuals. That last often proved the most comfortable option. Even in small towns in the conservative South, Episcopalians seem more determined to distinguish themselves from Southern Baptists they perceive as low class than from non-Christians.
The deepest fault line running through American churches, however, isn’t social class but religious belief. The progressive camp has its roots in modernity, a scientific materialism that denies the supernatural, and more recently in postmodernity, which leaves the door open to a vague do-it-yourself spiritualism.
Christian orthodoxy is radically different. It affirms a transcendent God who is merciful and just, truth that is revealed and knowable, and clear moral standards. It is less interested in self-fulfillment than in discernment of and obedience to God’s will. Honoring the sacrifice of Jesus as savior, it acknowledges that Christians may be called upon to suffer. In particular, it enjoins them to be chaste even in the face of temptation.
The theological progressives believe that such outmoded ideas must be jettisoned to appeal to their contemporaries, though the orthodox–whose churches are actually growing–know that their more demanding creed meets real human needs. The revisionists get the media attention (“Bishop Upholds Church Tradition” isn’t news), but the believers are the quiet majority of American Christians.
AND ORTHODOX BELIEVERS are the overwhelming majority in the worldwide church, including the Anglican Communion. The current crisis within Anglicanism has been provoked, ironically, by a tiny minority. The membership of the Diocese of New Hampshire is less than one percent of the Episcopal Church. When the General Convention, acting for the 2.3 million-member Episcopal Church, confirmed the New Hampshire election, it authorized Robinson’s consecration not only as an Episcopal bishop, but as a bishop of the 75 million-member Anglican Communion. Anglicans abroad are asking why they should allow a national church representing some 3 percent of the Communion to impose on them a bishop who contradicts their deepest convictions.
The response from the wider Communion has been quick and firm. Within days, the titular head of Anglicanism, the archbishop of Canterbury, called a special mid-October meeting of the heads of all the Anglican provinces (roughly equivalent to national churches) to “discuss recent developments” in the Episcopal Church. He had earlier warned the American church away from divisive action. Clearly, the archbishop of Canterbury does not want the Anglican Communion to disintegrate during his tenure.
Other Anglican leaders are weighing in. “If the consecration of Canon Robinson proceeds, the Convention will be taking [the Episcopal Church] outside the boundaries of the Anglican Communion,” warned Bishop Gregorio Venables from South America. The leader of the 17 million-member church in Nigeria, Archbishop Peter J. Akinola, wrote of “the anguish this must bring to the heart of the Lord of the Church and the setback to our witness as a Church before the watching world.” Akinola went on to commend those who opposed the Robinson confirmation and promised, “We shall continue to be in full communion with them and we will do all that is necessary to actualize this bond in practical terms.” Similar statements from church leaders in Kenya and Southeast Asia make clear that if there is a schism within Anglicanism, the schismatics are those who supported Robinson’s election and endorsed same-sex unions.
The religious left once admonished conservatives to listen to the poor, the non-white, and the powerless in the developing world. But the left itself listens only when those voices echo its own. Many of the same liberal Episcopalians who criticized Bush for “unilateral” action in Iraq now express their deep resentment over Africans and Asians who protest the American church’s unilateral defiance of the Anglican moral consensus. Many bishops from the Third World detect here a neo-colonialism that they are increasingly willing to protest.
The most poignant objections have come from Anglicans who interact with Islam. Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, an expert in interfaith relations from Pakistan, cited Muslim leaders who warned that his church’s acceptance of homosexuality would end Christian-Muslim dialogue. In its effect on Christian mission work in the Muslim world, he said he “can’t imagine anything that would be worse” than the General Convention’s actions.
The Anglican bishop of Egypt, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa, Mouneer Anis, leads a vulnerable religious minority. They “cannot comprehend a decision to elect as bishop a man who has forsaken his wife and the vows he made to her in order to live in a sexual relationship with another man,” he wrote. “We feel profoundly let down, as this decision will unquestionably damage our interfaith relations with our Muslim friends among whom we live. It will also have a negative impact on our relations with the Orthodox and Catholic churches in our area, which continue to hold fast to the apostolic faith and teachings from the first century. We will definitely be seen by them now as heretical. We had not expected this to be done to us by brothers and sisters who are in communion with us. We had expected that they would think of us before taking such a grave step.”
Already Muslim observers have drawn their own conclusions about the disregard of Western liberals for fellow Christians elsewhere. Writing in the Arab News on August 10, commentator Amir Mohammed Al-Faisal said that the Episcopal General Convention “is another example . . . of how Westerners give themselves the right to change even Christian scriptures to suit their whims, and in the process trample all over the religious sensibilities of other Christians who are unfortunate enough not to have been born in the West.” Liberal Western ideologues “are exploiting the poverty and vulnerability of their non-Western ‘brothers’ by ignoring their more traditional views.” He concluded: “So we learn an important lesson on the respect Westerners have for religion and how they deal with any religion that does not conform to their ‘liberal’ ideology. After all, does that non-Westerner Jesus (peace be upon him) know more about Christianity than an American or British bishop? If this is how they deal with their own religion, think what they will try (are already trying) to do with other religions such as Islam.”
Liberal Episcopalians expect there to be temporary conflict. But they argue that the brouhaha will soon end and they can move gradually toward developing official liturgies for same-sex unions and even marriages. The conservatives will either leave or settle down, just as they did following earlier controversies over revisions to the prayer book and the ordination of women. In this prediction, the revisionists naively ignore two significant changes in the last quarter century. The first is the growth of the evangelical and charismatic sector of the Episcopal Church, which largely supported the earlier changes but will join the traditionalists in defending the doctrine of marriage. The second is the strength of Anglicanism in the global South, now ready to flex its muscles against the religious left.
Conservative Episcopalians hope that the Anglican Communion will take the unprecedented step of establishing an alternative Anglican Church in North America, which their dioceses and parishes might join. They also hope that this can be accomplished amicably–particularly that conservative parishes in liberal dioceses will be allowed to keep their property.
Sadly, there are few precedents for orderly separation in church history. The hard truth is that church fights, legal and otherwise, are usually bitter. Much depends on whether Episcopal leaders are willing to give up property and income. So far–as in Marx’s day–those who tolerate all sorts of theological and ethical innovations appear to be rigid fundamentalists when it comes to defending traditional church organizational structures and budgets.
It may be wise, then, for orthodox Episcopalians who wish to remain in the worldwide Anglican mainstream to prepare themselves to make sacrifices for their convictions. In this, too, they may look abroad for inspiration–to places like Sudan, Nigeria, and Pakistan, where fellow Anglicans suffer persecution and poverty for their beliefs.
Diane Knippers is president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy.
