A friend who follows the Episcopal Church — which at this point is somewhat like watching the Titanic when it’s already a few thousand feet under water — sends the link to a story on that body’s establishment declaring that the Episcopal bishop of South Carolina has abandoned the Episcopal Church.Only a lawyer would enjoy reading the case's particulars, but basically, it's about politics. The Episcopal Church (TEC) leadership is transforming it into one of the most liberal denominations in the country, on board with same-sex marriage ceremonies, transgender bishops, and pretty much toeing the line on whatever secular liberal intellectuals think. The Diocese (region) of South Carolina, on the other hand, is, well, South Carolina. In short, political differences about gender/sexuality are splitting the church.
This has happened locally, too. Christ the King Anglican Fellowship began when several members left Holy Cross Episcopal over the same gender/sexuality issues.
My favorite part of the link was from the comments:
Perhaps the Diocese of South Carolina should just declare itself THE Church of South Carolina and boldly assert that no foreign (outside the state) potentate has say in their land. It has precedent.
The issue in this article is one that I think will continue to occur among religious sects across the country. Despite a separation between church and state, many of our most controversial political topics today (abortion, same-sex marriage) are inherently tied to religious beliefs. Many modern religious leaders seem to have taken hardline stances on these issues, leaving little or no common ground or overlapping of ideals. Since church stances on controversial issues seem to be decided by the highest levels of the church hierarchy, congregation members are unable to tailor their church to fit their specific beliefs. Unlike democratic government or the free market where consumers can dictate policy, most mainline Christian religions allow only for the leaders to pass down policy regardless of the congregation’s preferences. This forces those who disagree with the changing policies of their church to either conform, or seek out another place of worship that better reflects their political views. This is precisely what occurred in South Carolina, and it seems like the same thing is likely to happen across the country as individuals look for places of worship that still reflect their traditional values.
ReplyDeleteWhile the wall of separation between church and state may be crystal clear to some, I highly doubt that a similarly defined wall is visible between church and politics. Every type of church/religion is based on some set of values; more often than not, the line between these values and those of a political nature blurs. Their religious values affect their political preferences, and their political preferences affect their religious values. Every church that I have ever attended has imposed (or at least made me feel obligated to accept) certain values. I’m currently doing my fieldwork at Christ the King Anglican Fellowship (the church that left Holy Cross Episcopal over gender/sexuality issues). Each service I’ve attended thus far has had strong undertones of certain political viewpoints. I can’t imagine that this congregation would even consider being part of a larger group that didn’t accept these beliefs. Therefore, it comes as no surprise to me that they departed from Holy Cross Episcopal. I don’t think this is necessarily a bad thing. Isn’t this how all religions/denominations (short of those previously existing before the coming of English settlers and those brought from England) were formed in America? I think if people are dedicating their own time and (depending on the church) money to a certain set of values, they should, at the very least, be free to choose those values.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Jim on this one. As much as we may like to think that there is this "separation" between the church and state affairs, more often than not it's our religious beliefs that define what our views on the state are. It's interesting to do my field work at "The Heart" when I've spent my entire life attending what I would call "traditional" church. There (similarly to what Samantha noted) I felt as if there was this implied feeling of "If you attend this Church, then there are norms and values that you will have to accept in order to feel welcome here" whereas at "The Heart" I feel comfortable saying "Yeah...I'm an evangelical, Christian...Democrat." and I don't feel as if I would be judged, at least as harshly, by proclaiming that.
ReplyDeleteI can't figure out how I really feel about the church v. state dilemma. No one really wants the state to have any say in church affairs, but nearly every church I've encountered surely wants their values expressed by the state, whether those values are progressive or conservative. As displayed in this article, it is clear that the location of a church, not only the denomination, has a great impact on it's message. Since South Carolina is South Carolina, it seems not-so-crazy that a gender/sexuality issue would divide the church. Sometimes I worry that churches in the South are more know for what they're AGAINST than what they're actually FOR. While in New York City over the new year, I visited two evangelical churches - one in Brooklyn, one in the very center of Manhattan. I noticed that there seemed to be many people there that would NEVER have been accepted in most evangelical churches in the South. While the messaged preached in the pulpit was the same as what I hear at home, the people of these churches seemed to be much more skilled at reaching people with love and gentleness than beating them over the head with the Bible, telling them they're going to hell, and then trying to tell them that God loves them. (Not a convincing approach...) Just an interesting cultural dynamic there.
ReplyDeleteThe line between Church and State has never been more muddy. Churches want State recognition and States want to regulate everything within its' state, including churches. So is there really a line? As social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage continue to rise so will the Churches outspoken ways of dealing with it. Some, like above, will embrace it and transgender Bishops will be welcomed. Others will continue to condemn it and churches will be split apart and some will cease to operate. I think, at its core, teachings of the Bible is supposed to be about accepting others, the Golden Rule-do unto others as you would have done unto you and so forth. So why are people deemed "different" not being accepted? Churches are supposed to be open to the public and the ones going against this are a disappointment to the core of the faith that I have always believed it to be. What and who is allowed in Church will always be a debate, if it weren't,what else would the nation argue about?
ReplyDeleteThe idea of separation of church and state has become irrelative nowadays, one can hope, or try to see that it does play a part in political affairs, but in reality, religious doctrine takes precedent. Although churches want to have recognition from the state, it's hard to conform to that deal with the state wanting to regulate the entirety of the state that also includes churches. I thought this went well with my field work experience at Willowdale Baptist, who are in the sense very conservative fundamentalists. That if you do not agree with the views that they share, then you do not need to be there. Controversial issues such as homosexuality and abortion and a couple of great examples to an ideal of a church, if the members do not agree with such beliefs, they are to either conform, or seek out another place of worship.
ReplyDelete