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 
I don’t live in the JMDD/Chap! district, so I don’t have a dog in this fight.
However, it would seem prudent and politic for Chap! to head this one off at the pass. I say this as a quick look at the diaries at Raising Kaine show the party faithful are popping up posts condemning the “homophobia of some Episcopal churches in Virginia” and suggesting that traditionally progressive Falls Church, VA, should be changing their name in light of this development
Regardless of where you stand, it would seem a great idea to quell the party faithful and at least address the question, if only to emulate the Louisiana Sheriff and say “I stand with my friends!”
Vivian,
I think it now seems very clear what Ben’s intentions are with Chap. Ben is going to do everything he can on the blogs to defend Chap. Clearly, Ben has some kind of crush on Chap.
The only thing that is repulsive here is that my future state senator candidate apparently has Ben to defend him on the blogs. How ironic that Ben ratted out the Chap-Truro connection earlier this month on a GOP blog, as you keenly pointed out.
Political friendships aside, if Chap wants to represent his constituents and his Democratic Party, he needs to answer whether or not he is against gays, against women in church leadership, against jailing gays, etc., etc. Vivian is right on this discussion because her rights, and the fear of losing rights, makes her voice an important part of our party and our ability and desire to work for the election of a candidate who might be too controversial and conservative for our Democratic Party values.
If Chap can’t answer questions on personal values and how he will properly represent the rights and aspirations of all Virginians, then I say Chap needs to remain a private citizen.
Not Chap, I have to question if you are a Democratic activist, because Chap got trashed for his membership in this church during the last primary. Where he goes to church is no secret.
Membership in that particular church sure as hell is of interest to Democrats because it highlights something that’s going on in the world of religion that I don’t think most people are aware of: the right is systematically attacking the liberal churches from within.
The ever so mainline Episcopal church has been under assault from big money wingnuts for some time. This article by Max Blumenthal in Salon from 2004 reveals this pet project of rightwing freakshow Howard Ahmanson:
“In the summer of 2000, a group of frustrated Episcopalians from the board of the American Anglican Council gathered at a sun-soaked Bahamanian resort to blow off some steam and hatch a plot. They were fed up with the Episcopal Church and what they perceived as a liberal hierarchy that had led it astray from centuries of so-called orthodox Christian teaching. The only option, they believed, was to lead a schism.
But this would take money. After the meeting, Anglican Council vice president Bruce Chapman sent a private memo to the group’s board detailing a plan to involve Howard F. Ahmanson Jr., a Southern California millionaire, and his wife, Roberta Green Ahmanson, in the plan. “Fundraising is a critical topic,” Chapman wrote. “But that topic itself is going to be affected directly by whether we have a clear, compelling forward strategy. I know that the Ahmansons are only going to be available to us if we have such a strategy and I think it would be wise to involve them directly in settling on it as the options clarify.” It was a logical pitch: As a key financier of the Christian right with a penchant for anti-gay campaigns, Ahmanson clearly shared the Anglican Council’s interest in subverting the left-leaning church. Moreover, Ahmanson and his wife were close friends and prayer partners of David Anderson, the Anglican Council’s chief executive, while Chapman and his political team were already enjoying hefty annual grants from Ahmanson to Chapman’s think tank, the Discovery Institute”. (The Discovery Institute is that bastion of intellect that would have you believe that Jesus rode around on a dinosaur.)
Is this ringing any bells yet?
The institute is directed by Diane Knippers, an evangelical Episcopalian and writer who also happens to be a founding member of the Anglican Council and its acting executive director. She is the chief architect of the institute’s Reforming America’s Churches Project, which aims to “restructure the permanent governing structure” of “theologically flawed” mainline churches like the Episcopal Church in order to “discredit and diminish the Religious Left’s influence.” This has translated into a three-pronged assault on mainline Presbyterian, Methodist and Episcopal churches. With a staff of media-savvy research specialists, the institute is able to ply both the religious and mainstream media, exploiting divisive social issues within the churches.
[…]
The campaign against the Episcopal Church climaxed on Aug. 5 last year, just a day before the Rt. Rev. Eugene Robinson was scheduled to be elected as the church’s first openly gay bishop. In a column titled “The Gay Bishop’s Links,” Weekly Standard editor and Institute board member Fred Barnes alleged that the Web site of a gay youth group Robinson founded contained links to “a pornographic website.” Further, Barnes alleged, Robinson “put his hands on” a Vermont man “inappropriately” during a church meeting “several years ago.” The institute shopped the column to various cable news networks but only Fox News broadcast it.
Though Barnes’ smear was discredited by a panel of bishops investigating the charges, it helped widen the rift within the Episcopal Church and isolate it from its global affiliates. Since Robinson’s Nov. 2 consecration, 13 dioceses affiliated with the Anglican Council have threatened to break with the Episcopal Church and form a renegade network. Though the network has yet to congeal, the momentum for a full-blown split continues to build. And the Nigerian and Southeast Asian churches, which, like the Episcopal Church, belong to the global Anglican Communion, have broken off contact with the Episcopal Church.
Once again you see the connection between big right wing money, media and power — and not just in government, but all aspects of society. There is nothing the right does that is a true grassroots effort. When you peel away the layers you always find the same people spending a huge amount of money to buy off the leadership and brainwash the folks. Every time. Why, if I didn’t know better, I’d think a bunch of rich white people were looking to perpetuate an aristocracy.
Different day same shit.
Ben,
Oh, I knew he was associated with Truro. As do many active democrats north of I-66. I just did not know how closely his family had been associated with that church for all these years. I didn’t care to know any more about Chap at that time because I was voting for Leslie. Now that same church breaks off from the U.S. Church over the perception of gay rights and women equality. Lots of people are talking about this issue, and many are concerned. You should be too.
However, before your comment on Mason Conservative, I bet MC and other bloggers across Virginia may have not known (or forgot). I wonder if Vivian did not know (or forgot) about Chap-Truro until your comment on MC?
Vivian?
That’s fine- If my comment sparked this conversation, I apologize, but better to be discussed now than in six months.
Lynching???? Now talk about repulsive. I haven’t seen anyone in this entire thread attack Chap or his religion. Prone to a bit of hyperbole, aren’t you, Ben? As a matter of fact, I find it repulsive that you would compare honest questions to something as terrible as a lynching. Or perhaps you just don’t really have a clue what a lynching is?
Not Chap – no, I did not know it was Chap’s church until I saw Ben’s post on MC.
So why didn’t you call and ask him? Need the page views that badly?
No Ben. Not everyone is obsessed with page views like you are.
Why should I call him? This issue is one that belongs in the public vein, not in the private one. People have a right to know how where their candidates stand.
You seem to be the only one riled up about this. And you are the only one who has decided to stoop to name-calling and innuendo. The rest of us are carrying on a reasonable conversation.
Whatever Vivian. I don’t have any problem getting page views without dragging people through the mud. Why call him? Then you could have actually reported on what he did instead of asking a bunch of questions you don’t really want answered. I’m sorry Vivian, but if you wanted the questions answered, you should just ask them. Putting them on the internet first was just trying to create a public spectacle, instead of actually answering the questions. Blogging “questions” is the equivilant of taking the microphone at a party and asking questions in front of an audience instead of asking one on one, then reporting it.
I want those questions answered, NLS. And until Vivian posted it, I didn’t realize that I did.
Surely, you are not as thick as you are pretending to be.
Only you seem to think that anyone is dragging Chap thru the mud. Where has anyone made a single judgment on Chap? No one has. You are the one making a mountain out of a molehill, stooping to name-calling and innuendo. Only you, Ben. Only you.
Let me be perfectly clear: you created this situation when you decided to share the information on MC’s blog that this was Chap’s church. Outside of NoVA, very few people would have ever known. So if you felt like Chap’s church was irrelevant, why did you find it necessary to point out that Chap attended this church?
You are the one who made it a spectacle. Not me.
And the bottom line remains the same: people have a right to know where their candidates stand.
How come you won’t answer my question on why it was better to post this than ask Chap? On one hand you demand answers to questions about him, but you won’t answer the question on the ethics on your own post. Again Vivian, what was gained by asking the question here instead of directly asking him?
Dear Fellow Traveler:
Please read this:
http://www.theocracywatch.org/chris_hedges_nov24_04.htm
As an Episcopalian, I share your concern about those who want to gain control of the mainstream churches from within. It’s also taking place in other mainstream religions, such as the group which calls itself the “Confessing Church Movement” within the Presbyterian Church, USA. They really want to take over the denomination and move it toward the right.
Chap’s longtime family (parents, grandparents) connections to the church aren’t as grave as concern as his own connnections. Since the whole conservative vs. tolerant debate in the Episcopal church has been going on for years and years, you can bet your bottom dollar he was well aware of that church’s attitudes and leanings. Here in Richmond every Episcopalian knows which churches are disgruntled with the mainstream church….those who are disgruntled flock to those congregations.
Those who worship in these churches know what is going on.
Given the vociferous insistence by some that religion is a private matter, a matter that does not belong in the public square, I find this whole discussion quite ironic. Even though the issue that started this matter took place outside the public square and in churches, these same people are not happy. Different religions make for different beliefs. It is that difference, it appears, that they resent.
Even so, there is no practical need to attack a candidate just because of the church he or she attends. If you want to know a candidate’s position on a particular issue, ask. You do not have to ask which church this candidate attends. You do not have to ask about his or her religion. What should be important is whether this candidate has an honorable record of public service that demonstrates a deep commitment to those principles you deem correct.