Letters From Virginia

Hypocritical Expedience

I cannot reconcile priorities No. 2 and No. 4 in today's editorial in Center Aisle (“Time for Some Specificity,” CA No. 6). It seems to me that affirming the full inclusion of gays and lesbians in God's church, including ordination and election to the episcopate, either is the right and proper thing to do, or it is not. It defies reason that it would be the right thing to do if only there were no opposition to it worldwide or from select parishes stateside; or that it would be the right thing to do three or six years hence. By all means, I pray that General Convention will achieve "clarity," but not at the sacrifice of reason. 

Bishops and deputies attending GC 2006 may claim that a moratorium on assenting to the election of any more gay and lesbian bishops is not a slap in the face to gays and lesbians in the pews and in the pulpit, but they are wrong; dead wrong. They might claim that the concomitant call for the reaffirmation and embrace of gay and lesbian members of the church is intended as a sincere declaration of good faith and love, but so long as the proposed moratorium is in place, such an affirmation and declaration of love would stand as a hollow and hypocritical expedience.

John Boothby
Richmond, Va.

Thanks for Nothing

The editorial on A161 asks and answers some rhetorical questions: "Is A161 fair to gays and lesbians? No. Is it fair to anyone who supports gays and lesbians? No. But is this debate really about fairness? Or is it about following Jesus and making sacrifices?"

Thank you for inviting gay and lesbian Episcopalians and their friends and families to engage in sacrifice. This must be the churchly variation on "Let's you and him fight." Only what it says is, "Let's you sacrifice and retain second-class membership in the Body of Christ." No thank you. Been there. Done that. Don't want the t-shirt.

But if A161 passes as proposed, it likely will not be we who threaten to leave the church.

The Rev. Cynthia Gilliatt
Harrisonburg, Va.

All Benefited from Slavery

After nearly 75 years I have yet to know clearly my feelings on the subject of today's generation apologizing for slavery. I did not own slaves and am pretty certain that my own forebears did not, if only because of where they lived (I am an adoptive Virginian), and yet I have little doubt that in some way I too may well have benefited economically from the existence of the institution.

None of that, however, is my point of the moment. The article (“Slavery and the Episcopal Church, CA #2) mentions that Episcopal clergy in Virginia included slave owners, and that the Church in Virginia benefited both directly and indirectly. I think it worthy of mention that, at least before Independence, there were slaves in all or nearly all the colonies and that even Quakers, who were doctrinally opposed to slavery, owned slaves. Only last week The Washington Post Book World included the review of a biography of the Brown brothers of Rhode Island, Quakers, slave owners, slave traders, and founders of Brown University, one of whom changed, freed his slaves, and opposed slavery the rest of his life and the other who did not, causing a rift in the family.

In short, whatever our opinions, there is no escaping our history nor the fact that our current prosperity cannot help but owe something to the fact of slavery.

John W. Davison, Jr.
Leesburg, Va.

Sabeel Would End Jewish State

While Naim Ateek affirms Israel as “a secure state,” he masks a dangerous anti-Israel agenda with the verbiage of justice.

In open hearings on June 17, Ateek emptied his support of Israel by saying he could not support it “as a Jewish state.” The “secure” Israel he envisions is, in fact, “Palestine and Israel … becom[ing] … one state…” which Sabeel has officially advocated in its publications. With that formulation, Ateek would effectively bring the Jewish state to an end.

The Rev. Peter Pettit
Sr. Ruth Lautt, O.P.
Christians for Fair Witness on the Middle East

Holy Spirit is Alive in Episcopal Church

My neighbors are Mormons. I think they are very nice people. Because I have never thought of myself as His feet, I have always admired the Mormon Church's ability to mobilize such a large group of people to spread the Word. That is, until recently. 

A few weeks ago, two young Mormon men came to my door, ironically as I was preparing to leave for one of my last EFM seminars.  These two young men proceeded to explain to me how after Jesus was crucified and all the Apostles were martyred, no one had a personal relationship with God until Joseph Smith. In fact, they went on, it is only Mormons who currently have a personal relationship with God. Appalled, I asked them if they believed in the Holy Spirit.

As I read the news and letters printed in Center Aisle, I am happy to say I can see the Holy Spirit is alive and active in the Episcopal Church, even in these contentious times.  That is comforting. In our early 40s and beleaguered by recent years of caring for aging and ailing parents on both sides, church has become a place for my husband and I go to rest and be refreshed. We're tired of bad news. We want to hear more Good News.

But after reading how inspired the Rector of my own parish church was by the U2charist, the conversation with the two young Mormons comes back to me. So many of my not-really-Boomer but too-old-to-be-GenXer group of friends need to be touched by the Holy Spirit. The message of hope and a future filled with open conversation I have been reading about is inspiring me to rethink my thoughts about being His feet/mouth/hands.  Even just creating a group for people of my age to do nothing but be together in caring love and comfort.

Stacy Harrison
Leesburg, Va.

Thank You

Once again, it is clear why the Center Aisle is such a gift to those of us trying to follow the events of General Convention. Thanks to the entire staff for the information, insight and thoughts you share with us daily. Reading the Center Aisle restores my faith that the Episcopal Church does not have to be about extremes, but rather a place in which we all listen to one another in the love of Christ. Continue the great job!

The Rev. José A. McLoughlin
Winchester, Va.

Title IV Validates Suspicion

I couldn't agree more with Russ Randle's comments in "Title IV: No thanks," especially regarding the issue of replacing the standard of evidence from "clear and convincing" to a preponderance. Validating suspicion as standard of evidence is not a worthy behavior of the church, in my opinion.

The Rev. Alexander MacPhail
Gordonsville, Va.

Robinson’s Flaw

Bishop Robinson reveals the major flaw in the revision agenda. It is not that Bishop Akinola and the rest of us would not want Gene Robinson in our Church, but rather, we just do not agree with the fact that he is a Bishop.

The Rev. Canon Richard A. Swan
|Diocese of Springfield, Mass.

Godspeed

I have greatly enjoyed reading the daily reports and editorials from General Convention.  I particularly want to commend the Rev. John Ohmer for his thoughtful and insightful work and presentations.  His report of his interviews with the Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson and the Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan was masterfully presented. I have also enjoyed using the links to the ENS website and the Provincial websites to see what folks in other parts of the country are saying.  Your hard work in Columbus is not going unnoticed here in Virginia and we are praying hard for all of you as you seek to find God's will among so many strong-willed people. Keep up the good work and take good care of yourselves. Godspeed.

Helen Spence
Springfield, Va.

Clergy Family Support

This is just a quick note to express thanks to you for your web site. I am the spouse of a newly ordained priest. Beside the major issues gripping the Church, my concerns seem very trivial.  They relate to the lives of spouses and “PKs” [priest’s kids] in the church, those who support those in the discernment process and those ordained. Of special interest to me is B001, and without your site, I would find it difficult to track its progress. I know that there are many others whose focus is church liturgy, or outreach etc.   These are not the issues that spark the attention of CNN or the print media.   So, for all of us whose concerns seem so mundane, again, I say thanks for keeping us posted.  

Emily Henderson
Maysville, Ky.

This Is About Power

I’ve often heard it said that Jesus preached a message of radical love and acceptance.  Frankly, I’m not sure I agree.  While it’s true Jesus offered acceptance to many, that acceptance was far from universal. In fact, Jesus admonished many people during his time on earth. It’s interesting to me that his harshest and most angry criticisms were aimed at the Scribes and Pharisees, the ones with religious power and prestige.

We learn in the Gospel of Matthew that after his baptism, Jesus was tempted by Satan in the desert. The final temptation was that if Jesus would worship Satan, Satan would give him power over the kingdoms of the world. In response, Jesus didn’t decide he would be a better, kinder or wiser ruler than all the others.

He didn’t decide he would use the power for good rather than evil.  No, in response Jesus said:   “Away with you, Satan!”  In doing so, he rejected the lure of earthly, kingly power and authority.

That’s not to say that Jesus rejected power. We learn in Mark that Jesus preached as one “with authority.”  He claimed as his own the power to cast out demons and the power to forgive sins.   Talk about radical! Jesus radically altered the way the world ought to look at power. Jesus walked among the sinners.

But who were those sinners? They were the outcasts, the untouchables. They were the powerless; they lived outside the boundaries of polite society. Those are the sinners Jesus loved.

It’s no surprise that the institutional loyalists hated him. He was chased out of at least one synagogue. The Scribes and Pharisees plotted to kill him. But the throngs loved him, and he loved the throngs.

He looked on them with love and compassion. He gave them power where once they had none.  He rejected the institutional power structure that made the rich richer and the poor poorer.  And it got him killed.

It makes me sad to see so many in the church fighting. And what are they fighting over? They’re fighting over power – who has it and who wants it. They’re fighting over who gets to be in charge. Is this why Jesus died? I don’t think so.

Jesus didn’t die to change who were the haves and who were the have nots. Jesus died so that there would be no more haves and have nots. Bono said at the National Prayer Breakfast, “stop asking God to bless what you’re doing. Get involved in what God is doing—because it’s already blessed.” What would the church look like if it did that?

I’m not real sure, but I know it would look very different than it does. How many of our churches are filled with the throngs that followed Jesus? I think if we’re being honest we will have to say not many.  

I have a feeling God doesn’t give a flying fig what rich white person gets to wear a purple shirt. While we are sitting in our comfortable pews with our fancy vestments arguing over who is most worthy of being in charge, God is where God always is. God’s walking with sinners. And those sinners are who they always have been. They are the poor, the powerless, the marginalized, the oppressed. And as has been the case for well over two thousand years, the church still has very little to do with them.

Patricia Mueller
Manassas, Va.

Why Moratorium?

"What would we gain from a moratorium...?"  ("Time and Timing", CA #4)  The more important question is what would we lose.  We would be telling our faithful gay and lesbian church members, who have waited so long for the church to set aside historic bigotries and to fully welcome them to the table, once again, we do not truly care enough for them as persons to put their real spiritual needs ahead of church politics. A Windsor-type moratorium would tell them that we think maybe yes, there is something "wrong" with gays and lesbians because we need "more time" to think about whether simply being in a loving committed gay relationship may be enough to disqualify someone from being a bishop after all.

And we would be giving these good people this slap in the face why?  Simply to appease those other voices in the Communion who are the very ones persecuting and demeaning them?  It is not enough to merely talk of "reaffirming the full and equal claim of gay and lesbian people for membership in the Body of Christ" if we simultaneously choose actions which reject them and add to their pain.  We are told to love, not just in word and speech, but in action and in truth (1 Jn. 3:18).  Why do we need more time?  Surely, in our hearts, we know the actions of GC 2003 were righteous.  Let us have the courage of our convictions, and not give in to pressure simply to gain "time."

John Schwarz
Reston, Va.

Oppose Israel/Palestine Resolutions

I sincerely hope that all of Virginia's deputies to the General Convention will oppose pending resolutions relating to Israel and Palestine unless they are significantly modified to bring more balance.

It is not enough, in the words of A011, to call for "the end of all violence and its crippling impact on Israeli and Palestinian societies," and " the eradication of the sin of anti-Semitism," while demanding the dismantlement of the wall Israel is building to separate itself from the West Bank and the dismantlement of all Israeli settlements.

To be really balanced, the resolutions would also demand, at the least: an end to Palestinian terrorism, which is the root cause of violence in the region; Palestinian recognition of Israel, rather than simply endorsing the "rightful existence of the State of Israel"; and an end to Palestinian educational materials that promote such libelous forgeries as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and their replacement with textbooks that speak to the Holocaust of the Jews and the legitimacy of Israel.

It is worth noting that Israel in 1999 offered to remove most settlements and provide for a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem, as well as many other concessions. The offer was rejected by Yasser Arafat, who responded with renewal of violence.

The Episcopal Church brings no credit upon itself by promoting one-sided, simplistic solutions to what is a complicated situation in which both sides must be expected to make concessions in the interests of a lasting peace.

Cleve Corlett
Grace Church Alexandria

CAMERA Responds

One question that Center Aisle left unasked in its interview with Bishop Riah is if it is appropriate for the Episcopal Church to ask Israel to take down the security barrier without explicitly asking the Palestinians to stop the terror attacks that prompted its construction.

This is exactly what the initial draft of A012 does and yet it escaped the notice of Bishop Riah.

Hopefully the General Convention will wake up before it is too late and correct this error.

Dexter Van Zile
Christian Media Analyst, CAMERA

Windsor: No Moratorium

A moratorium will not give us extra time. It will be three years until the next General Convention, no matter what.

There is a false dichotomy being bruited about: either we continue to do justice to God's gay and lesbian children or we do mission and ministry.

Right now, and since the Episcopal Church first affirmed the worth of gay and lesbian people over 30 year ago in General Convention, we have been doing mission and ministry, both as the general church and
here at home.

Our diocese has been planting churches, giving Mustard Seed grants, sending newly confirmed young people on short-term missions, sending Lauren Stanley to Sudan, working with the Diocese of Renk. I could go on. That's only the short list. I fail to see how working honestly and progressively with issues around human sexuality precludes mission and ministry.

Oh, I forget, there are those who ceased supporting the work of the church financially over these issues. But that's not the gay and lesbian members of the church, is it?

Cynthia Gilliatt
Harrisonburg

Windsor: Relish Discussion

This is in loving response to William Sulik of Springfield, who feels those on one side of the current controversy want to "drive out” those who disagree with them.

Although I supported the consecration of Bishop Robinson, prior to that action I was content and at peace in my parish with those who wouldn't support such an action. I never thought of creating or joining an alternate authority if Bishop Robinson or someone else like him hadn't ever been consecrated. I was joyful in fellowship of those with whom I disagreed on this issue and with those in agreement.

Sadly, after Bishop Robinson's consecration, people on both sides of the aisle left due to the strident actions of those in opposition. I relish theological debates and continue to conduct them via e-mail with a former parishioner who left because he said he didn't want people like me to have to leave their beloved parish.

It has been my sense that the type of diocese that Bishop Lee desires most is one captured within the name, Center Aisle. This can also be seen through his true Virginia graciousness in not visiting parishes where he feels he isn't welcome and in not at all standing in the way of alternate oversight if the parish has followed the proper procedures.

I wonder if Mr. Sulik strongly supports adherence to the sections of the Windsor Report that ask bishops to respect demarcation lines as much as he seems to support the sections with which he otherwise advocates strong agreement?

If Mr. Sulik was my fellow parishioner, I would relish time with him to discuss and debate, and to spend time discerning our Lord's Word together in a place where neither one of us feels compelled to leave.

Bill Mehr
Fredericksburg, Va.

Windsor Proposals Wanting

The Diocese of Virginia, with great pride likes to bill itself as "centrist" -- it even has the audacity to bill its publication the "Center Aisle."  Oh yes, it is in the center of a denomination which has treated one group of members, commonly referred to as being on the "right" side of the aisle, with great hostility.  The denomination has moved steadily in one direction and those who can't come with us -- on the ordination of women, on the revised hymnal, on the revised Prayer Book, on inclusive language -- as expendable.  
Consequently, this wing of the denomination no longer exists. We've destroyed an entire transept and now, prideful, call the aisle which runs between the main nave and the liturgical north end the "center aisle."

Please do not misunderstand, while I support those changes I mentioned, that does not mean that I, standing on my own, can lay claim to the "center aisle" either.  We must look to see where the Church as a whole is and measure it against the plumb line which is set forth in the Word of God.  The Articles of Religion at Art. XX explains: "... it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another...."

In the past, as noted in the excellent article by Julia E. Randle, the Diocese of Virginia was complicit in the slave economy. I'm sure the Diocese thought the center aisle supported this endeavor. Today, we think our rightness allows us to drive out those who disagree with us on issues like the Prayer Book and ordination. As a denomination, at the last General Convention, we threw down the gauntlet and decided that anyone who disagrees with the ordination of a non-celibate homosexual is also outside the bounds
of Christian fellowship.

Should we really continue in this course?  The Anglican Communion world wide has begged ECUSA to turn back from the course it has chosen.  We are called to mend the tear that we have caused to the deepest fabric of the Communion.

Will we choose to repent and return to the Communion?  Or will we merely express regret that the rest of the Communion feels hurt by what we have done (as expressed by unsigned editorial "How Many 'R's in Windsor?")?

Bishop Tom Wright of Durham, one of the authors of the Windsor Report has reviewed the draft proposals being offered by ECUSA and found them wanting, concluding:

“It is very important not to let the plethora of material, in the official document and in all the various commentaries on it, detract attention from the central and quite simple question: Will ECUSA comply with the specific and detailed recommendations of Windsor, or will it not? As the Resolutions stand, only one answer is possible: if these are passed without amendment, ECUSA will have specifically, deliberately and knowingly decided not to comply with Windsor.”

His paper may be found here: http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2006/20060614wright.cfm?doc=117&CFID=10350277&CFTOKEN=f8da1ec1eae4b956-D581626D-DB7D-08A5-D12FA08F3155D832

William P. Sulik
Springfield, Virginia

Keep it up
Just read the first issue. I can't say enough good words about it:  Crisp, clear, unifiying, faithful to the gospel of the reconciling love of our Lord Jesus. You are in my prayers to keep up this very good work.

Charles Sydnor
Westmoreland County, Virginia

Continued Response to Tipping Point
Thank you for a practical approach to seeking and serving Christ in all people.  Very few of us from Virginia will be in Columbus this week, but many of us travel throughout the year.  As you so rightly point out, to most of us $5 a day while traveling is not much, only slightly more than the cost of a visit to the corner espresso bar.  Perhaps with your encouragement we can all leave that $5 for the housekeeping staff on the nightstands of our hotels.  What a difference that small gesture could make if all Virginians chose to do so!

Mirriam Oman
Richmond, Virginia

A very hearty "Bravo!" to the Rev. John Ohmer for his editorial "The Tipping Point." The calculus of poverty, especially among the working poor, rarely receives the kind of practical attention he suggests. I will pray that everyone reading his words will heed them. What a tremendous difference could be made, and not just at the General Convention, but whenever and wherever people travel.

Kimberley Heatherington
Fairfax, Virginia

Good Tip
Thank you John Ohmer for your article on tipping. What a great, practical insight on one way delegates to GC (and all Episcopalians) can put our faith into action.
Those of us back in Virginia keep our bishops and delegates in our prayers.  Now I have one additional way to celebrate our mutual connection in Christ during these nine days: I will tip generously.

The Rev. Keith Emerson
Richmond, Virginia

Avoid ‘Angstlicanism’
I very much appreciate John Ohmer's opening article and the tone it sets. I hope that tone is one that prevails throughout General Convention! It is all too easy to get swept up in what a friend has been calling “Angstlicanism,” but we need to be ever mindful that God is bigger than the Episcopal Church or even the Anglican Communion, and that if we pay attention we will hear the whisper of the Spirit speaking to the Church.  My prayer is that, having heard it, we will be given the grace to follow it ... wherever it leads.

The Rev. Grace Cangialosi
Ruckersville, Virginia

A Windsor ‘R’ecommendation
Although it might not be making the rounds of the Internet, there is another "R" that summarizes a key recommendation of the Windsor Report: Refrain. That is, the Windsor Report calls for the Episcopal Church to "effect a moratorium on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges" (par. 134). The report seeks a similar moratorium on authorizing "public Rites of Blessing of same sex unions" (par. 144). And so, any embrace of Windsor would be "remiss" without placing this important "R" near its center.

The Rev. Dr. Donald Binder
Lorton, Virginia