Dueling Margaret's

I note this week, a note written by the Sr. Warden, St. Margaret's Anglican, to that congregation, which was passed on by friends. In framing a response, I look to the great Catholic social justice advocate, Dorothy Day, whose spiritual guru was a French monk/peasant named Peter Maurin. Peter, who never ceased communicating his 'easy essays', and back to the land theology, recongnized a need for life-long learning through a process he described as 'on-going clarification of thought.' I present this with that spirit in mind. Whenever I write, I extensively self-examine the logic of the arguments. If I detect flaws, I can't publish nor rest until they're resolved. As I engage this note, and examine the arguments posited by the Sr. Warden, I apply the same rules of logic I impose upon myself, with a hope of drawing us all closer to the truth.

The Sr. Warden writes, "We have not abandoned our property nor have we abandoned our identity as Americans and Anglicans." When I looked for the word 'abandon,' in my set of beloved dictionaries, I was surprised that references to property were not contained in the primary defintions. Rather I found that, 'forsake, desert, and to surrender one's claim or right,' were the most common meanings over the years. When the Sr. Warden employs abandon in that linguistic context, it's accurate since he hasn't physically left or surrendered his claim; the Diocese, means by the same word, however, that those who now bodily inhabit the property have forsaken the original use for which it's intended, not whether it's still physically inhabited.

The Sr. Warden rhetorically asks, "how did we get here." He answers, "We have been struggling with the same issue...for years," and "momentum for growth in ministry was stalled," so, "there seemed to be no way forward."

Post General Convention, 2003, I along with everyone experienced the deep divisions to which the Sr. Warden alludes and worked with him and others to overcome them. We envisioned a parish structure that might accomodate two priests and two financial paths; common funds for plant maintenance, and a divergence of funds either to the Diocese per past practice, or towards local or foreign non-Diocesan uses. We came close; to the best of my recollection, the plan foundered when we couldn't ultimately agree how St. Margaret's would be presented to the world, whether traditional, or not, recognizing that such words either influence newcomers to approach or initially alienate them.

There were three Episcopal churches in Eastern Prince William County at the time. Two were already in the ACN camp, indeed, one was an AAC pioneer. That left St. Margaret's, which I couldn't classify as progressive; even netural doesn't capture it. It was a place that defined itself as not dramatically subject to the impact of passing hot button issues, rather where fellowship was the overarching characteristic regardless of one's private views. The preservation of St. Margaret's in this way represented not a choice for what had been decided at General Convention and also not for the creation of corporate oppostion to it. The issue, frankly, was far from home and irrelevant to continued good felloship within traditional St. Margaret's terms.

I wonder if the Sr. Warden remembers I asked why he and others didn't consider a mass transfer to one of the other ACN affiliates in close proximity. This would ensure the availability of one non-parisan choice rather than to force St. Margaret's into alignment with the other two, thereby eliminating all choice for every Episcopalian residing in Eastern Prince William County. I received no reply.

I therefore can't accept the conclusion of the Sr. Warden that "There seemed to be no way forward." The situation at St. Margaret's didn't need to be resolved either way when it wasn't in our historical DNA to do so on this or any other issue. When he writes, "Momentum for growth in ministry was stalled," I must object. During that time, I helped open a faith-based homeless shelter and led youth on summer mission trips amongst all other on-going parish activities. It's true that a shadowing divisiveness was kept alive throughout by one small group of people who would not let it die, and who subsequently forced the vote to leave TEC, but that didn't interfere with ministry. Despite any one personal view, there was never any overt activity for what had occured at General Convention, nor any organized demonstrations of support, for that also would not have been consistent with parish DNA. The Sr. Warden writes, "Then about three months ago a door began to open." I submit it was a door that needn't have been sought, no less, opened.

Returning to, "nor have we abandoned our identity both as Americans and Anglicans," the only contact I had with the Anglican Communion prior to the General Convention of 2003 was through a glossy National Geographic-style magazine to which I personally subscribed, once, and then lost interest. Membership in the Communion was never an active component of parish life nor was it looked to for theological authority. If it didn't exist, how is it something that wasn't abandoned?

As far as American identity, the Sr. Warden writes that St. Margaret's Anglican is part of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA), a mission of the Province of Nigeria. Peter Akinola, the CANA leader, is Archbishop of Nigeria. Akinola advocates Nigerian legislation that could become law by the end of March. The Same Sex Marriage Prohibition Act 2007 mandates five-year prison terms not only for gay people but for those who support them. The U.S. State Department and two-hundred and fifty U.S. Christian leaders have condemned the legislation as a gross violation of human rights. Amidst the vitriolic threatening atmoshphere of his homeland, the leader of Changing Attitude Nigeria, a Christian gay organization, has fled for his life to neighboring Togo.

Would the Sr. Warden agree that membership in CANA implies support for its leader and his actions? If not, will he condemn the legislation and repudiate its prime advocate, his Archbishop?

The Sr. Warden writes, "Our doors are open every week to everyone - no boundaries of race, sexual preference or faith." Would he consider that any gay person attending would find it problematical that the leader of CANA desires to imprison him or her? Or that CANA was founded on the basis of opposition to the consecreation of Bishop Robinson? Is that what's meant by, "standing firm with our decision to lift up the Good News of Jesus Christ over those who would water down the faith with cultural imperatives?" It's disingenious and irrational to welcome the targets of an instiutional hostility to its source nor does an invitation provide absolution for harm.

I note this week the National Association of Evangelicals released a statement that the U.S. crossed "boundaries of what is legally and morally permissable," in its treatment of war on terror prisoners. If that is so, according to the leading American evangelical association, how much more immoral is it to imprison gay people, who unlike suspected terrorists, have committed no act save to express a desire to live openly? The Evangelicals go on to say, "Christians have an obligation rooted in Scripture to help Americans regain our moral clarity." I couldn't agree more; a significant step in that direction surely includes the repudiation of the Nigerian legislation, its authors and advocates, by the clergy and vestry of St. Margaret's Anglican and the other eleven CANA-affiliated parishes of Virginia. The absence of such repudication denotes implication and responsbility.

I note the remainder of the Sr. Warden's note defends against charges regarding who might have sued who first or took this action that led to that response. I confess the importance of assigning blame in these matters doesn't seem vital in light of the human rights issues that mean freedom or imprisonment for some, exile and violence for others. I also note that while the Sr. Warden repeatedly emphasizes the two thirds majority that voted to leave TEC, he fails to mention the two thirds majority at two General Conventions to endorse change and inclusion. If one values the voting process as the way to decide matters of faith, I question why the parish vote holds a binding value of obedience, but not the national vote?

I also submit that those who voted to remain in TEC haven't "planted a new church called St. Margaret's Episcopal," rather than to merely carry on old parish functions while temporarily worshipping at a new locale, as if those who voted to leave TEC somehow continue to constitute the old parish. How can you leave, yet stay the same? The Sr. Warden proclaims, "nothing has changed." I submit everything has changed. A unified parish that once held dear to the traditional Anglican practice of corporate worship and fellowship, regardless of one's personal views, ceased to exist the day all that one believed and cherished could be reduced to a signature attesting that one's beliefs were in accord with those who presently, temporarily, hold temporal positions of power and authority.

I read to learn, I write to understand, and perhaps prompt reaction, and then the opportunity to learn more. It's how I further clarify thought. If any reader of this is in contact with the Sr. Warden, please share what I've written. Perhaps we could still meet in fellowship, as of old, and pray for God's will to be done, rather than to presume either of us know Him so well that we may speak on His behalf towards His intention and favor, and pretend that we already know all there is to know.