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?
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
The problem is Ben, the issues may be of faith–but it is a touchstone for politics, too. Gay marraige is a political issue as much as it is one of faith. We just had a statewide canvass on the question. So even without the context of Truro, its completly fair to ask Peterson where he stands on gay marraige personally and politically. He’s a politician. His views will effect public policy, and thus he must explain to the voting public where he stands.
And for the answer to the question about why these questions aren’t asked about Catholics? This situation would never happen in the Catholic Church becasue breakaway denominations who veer away from the scripture and the Vatican are ex-communicated. Becasue the CC has an ultimate authority, The Pope, these problems never come up in the church. If you don’t believe in the true faith and attempt to change the official church doctrine, your gone. Some people like it, some don’t. But you will never see something like this happen in the Catholic Church.
Whether or not the man’s family has been part of that church for generations is not relevant, as the whole dispute over treatment of gays in the Episcopal Church has only really boiled up in the last 20 years or so. What is relevant is where Chap himself stands on his church’s decision. These “religious” issues such as where he stands on his church’s actions ARE relevant because the political process is being widely used to promote discrimination against gays due to allegedly “scriptural mandates”.
I’ve got no problem with asking him about the political questions of the day. He came out against Amendment #1.
Faith is NOT a “private” issue if a politican uses that faith to govern their “public” behavior (such as legislation and voting).
It then becomes essential for citizens to have a clear understanding of said faith and what it entails, so that we may have a clear understanding of the person we may be electing.
Olivia is right, if a politician says “god guides me . . .’ like George W. Bush says, then they will be judged by the views of the denomination they claim membership too. So if a Catholic runs for president, its fair to ask if he is pro-life or pro-choice. If an Episcipalian runs for state senate, asking him on his views of what his church has done is also fair.
If someone is asking for my vote, I’m interested in whether or not he’s a bigot. Whether his bigotry is a matter of faith is irrelevant. I don’t care about his relationship (or lack thereof) with his god anymore than I expect him to care about mine.
And as a general matter, if a politician is running on his faith (see, e.g., George Bush), then it’s most certainly a matter of public interest.
NLS’s point is pretty damn strong. Politicians shouldn’t be forced to discuss their faith except where it determines their public decision-making, in which case you can just ask directly about their position. For instance, it’s fair to ask Chap about his votes on the marriage amendment and about his publicly stated opposition to the passage of the amendment, but it is not okay to ask him about a vote in his church regarding church affiliation issues.
This is very parallel to the crap they did to JFK and what Republicans tried to do to Kaine last year. These questions have no business in politics. I think Vivian’s intentions were probably good, but I don’t think she fully appreciated the implications of her inquisition.
Also, Vivian seems to not understand what an unwitting pawn she may be becoming for JMDDs sad attempt to cling to power. United Democratic party = Democratic pickup; fractured Democratic party = unclear — it’s just that simple. We need this seat back and at least 2 more, if not 3, so we can finally re-take full control of the state. This innuendo, inappropriate religious inquisition stuff ain’t cutting it.
Olivia has it right: “Faith is NOT a “private” issue if a politican uses that faith to govern their “public” behavior (such as legislation and voting).”
I’m glad to learn that Chap came out (publically, I assume) against the Marriage Amendment. If he expects to run for the Senate, then he better be prepared to discuss his views of his church’s position.
By the way NLS, the two churches (Truro and The Falls Church) have been in Northern Virginia since the 1700s (my ancestors worshipped at both). They are each worth an enormous amount of money and I imagine the real fight will soon begin about — you guessed it — money!!
MC — Actually, we have seen such in the Catholic Church after Vatican II. There are still a few churches in the area that perform the Latin Mass, which is contrary to Vatican II. The Virginia church that I know of was, last I knew, under a Maryland bishop.
There is also a distinction that needs to be made. There is no issue of CELIBATE homosexuals serving in the church. The problem is that a divorced (which encompasses the sin of adultery, according to Jesus) man in an active homosexual relationship (also a sin, according to Paul and the Pentateuch) was consecrated as a Bishop. This is clearly contrary to the Bible.
Believing these things does not mean that one thinks homosexuals, adulterers, and devorcees should not have basic civil rights.
brimur – I’m no pawn. And this is no inquisition. By your own admission, politicians’ faith affects their public decision-making. That being the case, the question of whether he agrees with the new affiliation is appropriate.
As for Chap changing his position on Amendment #1 – I must have missed that announcement. His name doesn’t appear anywhere on the VoteNo website.
The fact that I consider Chap a friend (I campaigned with him in the primary in 2005, I voted for him in that primary, I called to offer my condolences after his loss, and I talked to him via email about the amendment) has no bearing on this issue. What is relevant is how his beliefs will affect his vote. Yes, we Democrats have a big tent and we accept all comers. But we deserve to know where a candidate stands on the issues. And, in this case, whether he stands with the 90% or the 10% tells us a lot about where he stands.
MC,
I see you are addressing this issue on your blog. I also applaud you for addressing this issue, although for different political reasons.
Ben,
I’m reading your comments on MC’s blog about this subject.
Not so fast my friend. I live in Sunrise. Which means I live in Ken Plum’s delegate district and Devolites-Davis’ senate district. Nothing would please me more than seeing Devolites-Davis defeated this November.
However, I agree with Vivian that we should not turn a blind eye to the perception of Chap’s hard-right conservative ideology. We are 10 months away from the election, so this is a good time to have this discussion. I plan on asking Ken his views on Chap, and I will be asking Chap direct questions about this. Until then, my checkbook and volunteer calendar is closed.
BTW, nice try at taking the “if he is anonymous then he might be lying about living in Chap’s voting district.” I choose to write anonymously because you bloggers can be so cruel to those who dissent. Dissention is not Disloyalty.
Well I live in JDD and Chap’s old distict (now Bulova) so I have a very keep interest in this race. I think this has nothing to do with Jeannemarie. Someone was saying “if you Republicans want to go down this road. . . ” but its not our problem. Chap’s problem could be with Democrats. He is from Fairfax City, which is fiercely independent (we have non-partisan elections) from the county, and has allies like the mayor, Rob Lederer, who generally are Republicans.
Vivian, that makes it worse. If you were friends with Chap, why not just call him up and ask him about this? Why the public lynching? You think you would get more answers by posting something on the blog instead of just asking him? This is a matter of faith and the fact you are choosing to make this debate so public when you could have contacted Chap privately is repulsive.