This picture seems to reduce the discussion to one of whether homosexual conduct is acceptable either on the individual or the pastoral level. While the issue of homosexuality itself figures prominently in this debate, the orthodox dioceses appear to be deeply concerned about the overall direction of the Episcopal Church. The complaints appear to be extensive and include everything from criticisms of Episcopalian seminary programs to questions as to whether the church is remaining true to the scripture on the issue of salvation occurring only through Jesus Christ ”“ and the list goes on.
Nonetheless, no one I have interviewed denies that the trigger point for the present crisis was the 2003 consecration of V. Gene Robinson, a man alleged to be living with another man in an openly homosexual relationship, as the Bishop of New Hampshire. For many, this was the “last straw”.
Alleged? ALLEGED???!?
Mitt Romney is alleged to be Mormon, too.
An enormously thought-provoking article, clearly situating the DioSJ secession within the context of the current culture wars.
This is probably true now. But one has to wonder whether it was true, say, a century ago, when both the family and the church were much stronger institutionally and the role of all levels of government in daily life was substantally smaller and much more restricted. Homosexual behavior, abortion, and so on were criminalized because of the society’s overwhelming moral consensus; once that consensus disintegrated, at least among the nomenklatura which by and large controls our mass media and political system, the laws could not survive. But George does not really have the causality going in the wrong direction — his theme here seems to be the role of the extant law in protecting the earlier consensus, a point deserving careful thought.
With your indulgence, I would like to make this comment in response a thoughtful observation by Mr. Craig Goodrich (Comment #2).
I also must apologize for the time it has taken me to respond to this post – the comment was so thought provoking that it deserved a faster response. Nonetheless, I find myself very busy. This task, however, has kept after me to accomplish it. Every day or so, I find myself thinking about this issue. I have finally resolved to do something about it.
Mr. Goodrich touched on an issue that deeply troubles me and which I took great care to avoid entering in my article. It is ironic that I am now finding myself addressing something, that, because of its complexity, I wished to avoid when I wrote the article.
Before I write, I pray. I start every thoughtful article with a prayer that God may help me to make my written efforts truthful, accurate, and meaningful. I wish that for both my readers and, particularly, myself.
If I make an error or an omission, I expect to hear about it. I do not believe that I have all the answers. I hope, though, that I may be able to raise issues in meaningful ways so that we may learn from each other.
I learn as I do research and write articles. I must wonder now if Mr. Goodrich has been recruited into that process of teaching me. Perhaps, I was meant to express the thoughts that I initially avoided. Perhaps I was meant to learn from Mr. Goodrich. I accept the challenge with humility. In the future, I’ll try not to avoid what should be said.
It is clear that the old consensus that supported much of our morality has fallen away. Further, it is an irony that during the creation of our system of government, religion and government were perceived of as being poor companions and possibly even antithetical. The challenge then was to preserve both religious and political freedom. The way chosen was to keep religion and government separate.
The historical perspective of why this theme entered into the minds of the Founding Fathers is important. The Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, and many of the problems surrounding religious freedom in England at the time of the colonization of America were relatively recent historical events for the Founding Fathers to consider.
Indeed, the colonies themselves were little more than the English Crown’s dumping ground for religious minorities, political malcontents, criminals, and the poor. This unfortunate political reality led to the creation of a diverse society whose main consensus was that the real enemy of mankind was England and the old order.
The new Americans repudiated the Old World. The Founding Fathers had, by all accounts, a “live and let live†attitude that led them to disavow any one faith or belief system as the “correct†one and to assign to all a secular equality. None of them wanted to see a New World recreation of the English system and its intolerance and repression.
That willingness to assign different points of view equality before the law was not a problem though, because society was not as tightly knit as the present one. It is true that specific groups, even radical ones, could control certain areas – and did. On the other hand, people could move away from political or social environments they didn’t like.
In the West, the government’s reach was tenuous at best and law was what small communities made it. In many cases, neighbors made between them what law existed. Sometimes such law comported with the laws of the United States and sometimes it didn’t. Again, though, one could always vote with his feet.
Moreover, no one group saw itself as a competitor for control of the government. In fact, government was viewed as a necessary evil or, at best, a moderator – a force that kept the rules fair and equally applied for all.
In terms of religion, the various Christian faiths were fairly close doctrinally speaking. Not one presumed that Jesus was just another guy on the street – keep in mind that the Unitarian meltdown didn’t occur until the last half of the nineteenth century.
In sum, the system of separation of church and state worked because people were mobile, government’s reach was minimal, people respected other’s points of view, no one tried to use the process of government to dominate anyone else, and, most importantly, the differences between groups, in terms of religion, were not as great as they are today.
In terms of today’s moral crisis, what I fear most is that we are seeing the failure of that foundational theme of American democracy. When society can no longer agree on what is right and wrong and religion is excluded from government, where does the moral standard have to reside if it is to exist at all?
Keep in mind that I am not talking about “causality†here, Mr. Goodrich. You are absolutely correct and very astute in your observation that the laws could no longer be supported once the consensus fell away.
The old laws expressed who we were and protected the consensus. The question now is what will the codified moral standard be, if it is to exist at all, and how will it be created?
When I said that…
“Sadly, the most important point that was missed was that in a system where church and state are kept separate, the moral standard must necessarily reside in the written law if it is to exist at all.â€
…I was acknowledging the changed dynamics of our society on the one hand and also asking the question:
“How are we going to keep from being overwhelmed?†on the other.
I see us on a slippery slope, the base of which we cannot see. Without law being based on the law given by God, none of the codes that men make have any more force than the force that is used to ensure compliance with them. Worse, they are certainly going to be both arbitrary and unjust.
Be certain of one fact: men will make laws to regulate the conduct of other men. The only question now is “what will the basis of that making of law be?â€
Is the moral standard of our society going to be one that is voted on? Is it going to be one that is mandated by a court? Will the faithful completely disintegrate to the point of allowing others to dictate right and wrong to them?
Take a look around. Are we not heading that way already? Consider court decisions such as Rowe v. Wade. Consider laws that mandate that an employer has to hire homosexuals and other perverts to work in his business. Consider laws that make it illegal for a person not to rent an apartment to perverts even if there are young children living in the same building. Consider laws that allow homosexuals to adopt children.
Where we are heading is into a form of philosophical materialism that is likely to transcend communism in terms of its threat to our way of life. Indeed, I could point out a great many parallels to the former communist systems in our present course if I were ignore the economic characteristics of those societies.
Consider this: it was illegal in the Soviet Union to have sex with children. Why? The only basis for the law, in a system that denied God and His Law, was social convention and bureaucratic decision making.
What we are witnessing in America today is a surge of materialistic thought – the denial of man’s spiritual nature – and its consequences. Think about what homosexuality really says to us.
Is not the homosexual saying that he or she can refuse the role that God has given him or her? An extreme view of this thought can be seen in those who feel compelled to “change†gender.
Is not the political expression of homosexuality an expression of materialism? Is not this just another way of saying that “I am what I have been made to be by my environment and I can deny my God-given spiritual nature�
The problem is grave and it transcends the Episcopal Church. I pray for a solution. In fact, I think I see the solution rather clearly. In my mind, the only question is whether we can produce a religious leadership that is capable of making it happen.
The final irony of the doctrine of the separation of church and state is that it may now contribute to the loss of the very freedoms it was designed to protect. Our society has reached a tipping point, it will be tough to stop the dominoes from falling once the process starts.
The danger is very, very real.
I am in the process of writing several articles, dependent on my unfortunate paucity of time, about these issues.
I hate to close but I must. There is only so much time. The length of this response is really a tribute to you, Mr. Goodrich, and your terrible perception. You fell upon exactly what I did not want to go into. I thank you.