The Virginian-Pilot broke with tradition today with its endorsement in a primary race that is tantamount to election. The winner of this Saturday’s Republican canvass will be the representative of the 8th Senate District in Virginia Beach, unless a late Democratic opponent emerges, which is unlikely. I applaud the Pilot for finally endorsing in races such as these.
But reading through the endorsement of Jeff McWaters still leaves me with a question, the answer to which I find lacking. My question relates to the breakaway congregation that McWaters and others started, no mention of which was made in the editorial.
Unlike Truro Church in Fairfax, where over 90% of the congregation voted for the split, it appears that only a small number of people left the 2,100-member Galilee Episcopal Church in Virginia Beach to start Trinity Church. And also unlike its Northern Virginia counterparts, Trinity did not affiliate with another Episcopalian diocese. But the reason for the split appears to the the same: women and gays, the latter gleaned from the article linked above and the former gleaned from a reading of this “explanation” on the church’s website.
Actually, I think that explanation has been cleaned up.
I have in hand a copy, dated 7/16/2007, in which the elders draw on a biblical passage to justify allowing only men to be elders in the church: 1 Timothy 2:11-14.
11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
The document says that the writer, Paul, “draws upon the creation account, not the contemporary church culture to substantiate his position.” More from this document (emphasis mine):
The first reason for male authority in the church is order of creation: Adam (man), was created first, and given original authority on earth.
[…]
The second reason is the difference in the sin of Adam and Eve, flowing from their differences in authority. Both Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden, and Eve clearly sinned first. Yet, the Bible never blames Eve for the fall of the human race, but always blames Adam (through one man sin entered the world, Romans 5:12). Why does man get the blame for the fall, when Eve at the forbidden fruit first? Because there was a difference of authority. Because Adam had an authority Eve did not have, he also had a responsibility Eve did not have. Adam failed in his responsibility in a far more significant way than Eve did. As well, Eve was deceived, and Adam was not deceived. Eve was tricked; but Adam sinned with his eyes wide open. This means that though Adam’s sin was worse, Eve’s ability to be more readily deceived made her more dangerous in a place of authority – and in this sense, God looks at men as sons of Adam, and at women as daughters of Eve.
A whole lot different from the explanation now on the website, which reads in part, again, emphasis mine:
We also believe that men and women are of equal worth and dignity before God and in church ministry (and that women are empowered by the same Holy Spirit and equally gifted).
We committed this matter to prayer, a great deal of discussion, and a diligent study of Scripture. In searching Scriptures, we found that both men and women were integrally involved in various leadership positions in the church, including the teaching ministries. But it also seemed plain that the qualifications for Elders/Pastors presumed that those roles would be filled by the men of the church while the roles for Deacons and other leaders were not limited in that way. We have established a church leadership council that tracks this biblical model as best we know how—comprised of male elders and both male and female deacons who will serve in key capacities on the council.
Surely the editorial board of the Pilot knows about this document. Surely they are aware that Trinity came about as the result of the Episcopalian church’s ordination of a woman and a gay man. And yes, many of the participants in Saturday’s caucus will be conservative Republicans. But whoever wins Saturday will be representing all of the 8th, including the women and gays there, and not just the evangelical Republicans.
So my question to McWaters is simple: will you allow your religious beliefs to affect your decision-making?
That the Pilot didn’t comment on this is troublesome. (And for those who think that the Pilot doesn’t weigh in on these things, take another look at its endorsement of Deeds and Shannon.) They did the voters in the 8th a disservice.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Vivian
I’m not following this race closely at all and don’t care who wins. However, it seems to me that if you’re really just looking for an answer to your “simple” question you would have just emailed McWaters and asked him.
Greg
Well, if you had been following both the race and this blog, you’d know that I had scheduled an interview with McWaters and his campaign canceled it. My emails to the campaign since have been ignored.
Wow. Women can’t be elders? And Galilee is not conservative enough? These people have really gone off the edge.
The VP endorsement is not really going to make an impression on voters, especially not ones headed the poll for this canvass. I was shocked when Deeds was endorsed after running a campaign based on attacks without and substance. They endorsed Joe Bouchard even after he ran desperate and despicable ads against Chris Stolle. Both candidates lost in a landslide in Va Beach. I’m not surprised at all by their endorsement. Its just too much to endorse someone whose been there for people and has a modest background. One more reason why I will not ever buy the Pilot.
This is bizarre, very little logic here. i am not a member of Galilee or Trinity churches.
What is explained here Vivian, and being complained about, is basic Christian doctrine observed by virtually all Christian denominations throughout two thousand years! Galilee like the US Episcopal church decided to no longer follow traditional Christian teaching, change their beliefs and ordain women to positions clearly understood to be male and further to ordain unrepentant sexual deviants to the priesthood. They have the right to do that but they are the extremists as most all Christians hold to traditional Biblical exegis on these issues: Roman Catholics, Baptists et al. That is the reason that the handful of liberal churches (ECUSA, PCUSA, UMC) are declining in membership and gradually disappearing and I suppose this issue of theology (no longer following the Bible)is why these people broke off to form a new church.
There is no provision for Episcopal churches to affiliate with another diocese. The ones in NoVA and elsewhere have affiliated with the Anglicans in Nigeria or the new Anglican Church in America, which is essentially another denomination. the Episcopal church USA doesn’t allow congregations to choose to align with foreign entities. In fact when a church doesn’t want to follow the ECUSA in its redefinition of Christian doctrine and votes to leave the denomination the church sues to keep the building and property.
Christians, whether Roman Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian Church of American are perfectly capable of representing women even if they believe that men and women are equal, but have different roles in the church, just as they can represent people who choose to practice homosexuality without agreeing that it is OK and not a bar to ordination.
If not, there are very few Americans left to be our representatives other than a handful of extreme left wingers.
At any rate, no of this has any real bearing on the political race other than to say that McWaters is a traditional Christian like 95% of the other Christians in the world.
That this so-called “basic Christian doctrine” has been practiced for 2,000 is of absolutely no relevance to whether it is appropriate today. Both African Americans and women were once considered to be of less value than white men who owned property. We now recognize that both of these beliefs were backwards and and among the most embarrassing elements of American history.
[There might not be a Southern Baptist Convention today if the women of the church, the same ones who’ve been denied leadership roles throughout the denomination’s history, hadn’t bailed the denomination out financially and provided necessary institutional stability every time the men screwed things up and knocked the church off its feet.]
It is true that mainstream denominations have generally been in decline and that for a period newer evangelical churches were very attractive to people looking for old-fashioned values in an increasingly complex modern world.
The decline in mainstream denominations, however, had more to do with geographic dispersion of congregants, scandals within churches and the increase in secular values that is part of the history of modern developed nations than anything else. A civilization built on education, science and technology cannot sustain itself in a culture that clings to earlier centuries’ values and beliefs.
By the way, new evidence now also shows that the newer generation of megachurches are no longer sustaining their growth, that their founding members are retreating from the monsters they created, and that the reach and political might of the “religious right” was never as great as some purported it to be.
In any event, Vivian’s original thought holds. Mr. McWater’s religious viewpoints are relevant because they discriminate against a sizable minority of his potential constituents. How can any gay man or woman have any confidence in any elected representative who considers their sexual orientation to be either a “choice,” a discretionary “lifestyle” or, in either case, a sin?
Thanks, Chris, for getting my point.
In response to your “simple” question. Everyone lets religious beliefs effect their decision making. If not, we would never have abolished slavery. MLK Jr let his beliefs effect his decisions, so did JFK, even those who were socialist/atheists like Stalin and Hitler allowed their atheism to effect their decisions.
Your question isn’t legitimate, but the underlying question is and we all should ask it of all politicians: what do you really believe in? Whether they are Christian, Muslim, Jewish or atheist, or New Age spiritualists that effects their decisions and is a legitimate question. If you don’t like what someone believes, Ie. Rev Wright, don’t vote for his congregants, on the other hand, if you do, then vote for them. As we can see in Washington, what they believe effects their decisions.
Except you cannot speak for McWaters, unless you are McWaters, in which case get out from behind the pseudonym.
And MLK Jr never ran for office, so what he did with his beliefs was his business.
You may think the question not legitimate but that doesn’t make it so.
Vivian:
I am not McWaters. I am a veteran not a businessman.
I must not have explained myself well, I agree with what MLK did with his religious faith. My point is everyone lives out their faith, whatever they believe, including atheists and agnostics.
Your question of McWaters keeping his beliefs out of policy is what I said was not legitimate. No one can or does that.
I also said that your underlying question was not only legitimate but the key issue with all who are involved in public life, that is what are your beliefs. You were quite right to question his church affiliation and role of women. That is important and worth bringing to light.
However, his position is not extreme but is and always has been the Christian position until recently when a handful of diminishing denominations rejected traditional theology, but they are the extremists.
I agree that his religious viewpoints are relevant. Everyone’s are. That is my point and that his are mainstream Christianity even today. The others who are trying to change Christianity are the extremists.
Remember, If it wasn’t for the Christian “right” we wouldn’t have abolished slavery. William Wilberforce in Britain who led the downfall of the slave trade and the abolitionists in this country were all traditional Christians who would be characterized as the religious right by you. Yet they didn’t keep their religion to themselves but let it drive the entire culture to a higher level and that is how we got rid of the slave trade and how we are protecting people’s right to life today. Same fight.
But I also would say to your comment about a modern culture clinging to old values and beliefs.
Well, they certainly should especially if the old values are true and the new ones are false.