The Washington Post has a front page article on the vote of seven conservative Episcopalian parishes in Virginia that have voted to leave the US Episcopal Church and affiliate with the Episcopal Church of Nigeria.
Two of the congregations are among the state’s largest and most historic: Truro Church in Fairfax City and The Falls Church in Falls Church, which have roots in the 1700s. Their leaders have been in the vanguard of a national effort to establish a conservative alternative to the Episcopal Church, the U.S. wing of the 77 million-member worldwide Anglican Communion.
[...]
The votes are fresh evidence of an increasingly bitter split within the U.S. Episcopal Church. Seven of its 111 dioceses have rejected the authority of Presiding U.S. Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, installed in November as the first woman to head an Anglican church. Schori supports V. Gene Robinson, an openly gay man elected bishop of New Hampshire in 2003.
So it seems it the split is about women and gays. How refreshing.
Mason Conservative reported on the issue earlier this month. In the comments is one from NLS, in which he says that Truro is the church of Chap Petersen. The WashPo article says that “more than 90 percent of eligible voters resolved to sever ties” with the US church.
Was Chap in the”more than 90%” crowd? If so, why? If not, why not? Will this be an issue in the upcoming campaign?
98 Comments
Vivian’s point is right on. If Chap believes that women shouldn’t be in leadership positions in the church, it leads to a natural question of where else he believes women inferior. And if Chap believes that gays shouldn’t be married by his church, we need to know that also. I vote for the guy closest to my views, so if he doesn’t support gay marriage and the other man (or woman) does, you can see how that plays out.
I suspect Chap was smart, stayed home, and missed the vote.
It’s scripture, tradition, and reason. ALL three are required, as the interpretation of scripture is based on tradition and reason. Those who claim that homosexaul activity is not sinful have none of those three to back them up.
Yes, Jack. All three are required. Reason is required to interpret scripture, and to recognize when tradition has gone down the wrong path and is contrary to the interpretation that reason requires. We have been blessed with the ability to learn from our mistakes and to correct them in the light of new information.
I understand why there is resistance to reason. Reason requires change periodically as we learn, and change is painful.
How does the statement above by the Truro rector, “You don’t need to know why,” reflect the use of reason?
You’ll have to give me context. But in any case, what he said is true. You do not NEED to know why. It may be helpful to know why. It may be pleasant to know why. But it is not NECESSARY to know why.
Great commentary about the Episcopal Church mess in today’s Washington Post. Here’s the link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/19/AR2006121901282.html
“The founders of the church believed, within the context of their time, that all men were created equal. Today’s defectors have thought it over in the context of our own time, and decided that they’re not.”
More BS from Meyerson. No surprise there. In fact, we do believe that all men are created equal. Some, however, simply refuse to accept the God-given truth that homosexual activity is sinful.
VJP, when you question Ben’s statements by saying, “Where has anyone made a single judgment on Chap? No one has,” you are being disingenuous. I see judgment written all over these posts. People are falling all over themselves to condemn Chap’s membership in Truro Church and to demand answers from him about his vote. But their real assumption is that he voted with the majority to leave the American Episcopal Church. But we have no evidence that he even did that. We are all assuming that he did. But on what grounds are we even making that assumption?
I’ll admit that the action of Truro and other churches bothers me a great deal. I’ve followed this closely and have read theocracywatch too.
However, I make it a policy not to express opinions about religions other than my own except when their practitioners get involved in public and political campaigns and attempt to legislate their theological beliefs and force them on others.
I think it’s fair to question Chap about his stands on issues of equal rights in the public sphere. As a state senator, how will he vote on a marriage amendment or civil unions, how will he vote on women’s right to choose or discrimination? All fair questions that citizens of Virginia have a right to ask.
But how he feels about gays in his church or women’s leadership role in his church are not my concern. If I don’t like his church’s positions, I don’t have to join his church. And I think the American Episcopal Church is quite capable of fighting their own battles in court to retain the property of those splitting away. In fact, I wish every success to the Episcopal dioceses involved in keeping their property from those leaving.
But I don’t have a dog in their theological fight. All I care about is how Chap will vote on those issues as they affect state law. I don’t care what his personal scriptural interpretation of the Bible is unless he starts voting to keep women from running for office or serving in the legislature. If his personal religious beliefs don’t translate into public policy, then I can support him.
By the way, it’s perfectly possible to believe that women should have equal opportunity in business and government but that they are not called to be ministers. And it’s also possible to defend the inherent dignity of gay people and to support civil unions to protect their civil rights but to be opposed to extending the sacrament of marriage within one’s church to them because of one’s scriptural interpetation.
Do I agree with that. Hell no. That’s why I’m not a member of churches that do that. But as long as gays and women are guaranteed their civil right – all of their civil rights – an individual church’s theology is not my battle. I think of that as separation of church and state.
I think the bible is pretty clear on the issue issue homosexual behavior, and for people to judge someone because they are merely adhering to the faith that they believe in is wrong.
The Bible is quite clear, but there are none so blind as those who will not see.
Anonymous…..While it’s not clear how Chap voted, the very fact that he worshipped there says a lot. People in the Episcopal Church KNOW which parishes espouse the views that Truro church did….they voluntarily worship at parishes whose leadership and congregations are like minded.
It’s not like Truro just up and decided one day to vote on this. The fact that he felt comfortable in that atmosphere says to me he probably agreed with it. If he doesn’t publicly explain his views, and he remains a parishioner there, we will know for sure.
There are lots of other churches in NoVA where he could worship if he doesn’t want to be in a partnership with the Bishop of Nigeria.
Hello Vivian:
This is Chap Petersen. I’m a little bit late in the game here, as I had a trial which just ended on Tuesday (and I took today off to watch my kids).
Anyway, I grew up next door to Truro and was baptized there in 1968. My mother served on the Vestry until a couple years ago, and my uncle Ed Prichard was the senior warden before his death (fyi, he was a former Mayor of Ffx City, leader of the anti-Byrd Dems in Northern VA in the Sixties and argued the “one man, one vote” case in 1964 before the U.S. Supreme Court). My wife and I have been members since 1996. My second daughter currently attends preschool there.
If someone has an objection to my membership at Truro or wants to discuss my personal position on a relevant issue, I invite them to call me at my law office (703-277-9702). I’ll be there all day tomorrow. I’m happy to chat or even meet for coffee. I’m not kidding.
Vivian, I recognize that when you have held public office you put your name in the spotlight — so you take the heat.
All the best and Merry X-mas!
Chap Petersen
Since the Roman Catholic church does not allow women to be ordained and does not accept homosexuality, can we assume that no democrats on this blog could support a catholic candidate?
Which other religions are non supportable? Just wondering which pols are off limits for democrats.
Looks like Chap thinks like Ben and is not going to make his vote public. Nor should he. Religious freedom is a foundation of America. Even pols are permitted to practice it.
Lots of Roman Catholics disagree with the church’s stance on women and homosexuality. Everyone knows that, including the Pope. But those who actively seek communion with the Bishop of Nigeria cannot be compared to your run of the mill Roman Catholic.
If anyone decides to have lunch with Mr. Peterson, please let us know what he says. We don’t need to know how he voted, but we’d like to know if he thinks homosexuals should be jailed, etc. and if he thinks the Episcopal Church should head in the direction of Truro.
Even if my family had been in that church for 100 years, I personally would run like heck from the place in light of what has happened there.
You mean holding to the clear meaning of the Bible?
2 Trackbacks/Pingbacks