100,000 members of the Episcopal Church are breaking away from their current denominational structure and constituting the new Anglican Church in North America. The split between the two groups was catalyzed by the issue of homosexuality in the church, but cuts to the heart of a debate about which group are the "real Episcopalians". And in that debate, each side could learn a real spiritual lesson from leadership of United Auto Workers of America. Yes, the U.A.W.
Despite the real pain it is causing them, the leadership of the U.A.W. proposed major contract concessions to at least two of the big three auto makers in Detroit. Doing so is entirely out of character for the union and caused real debate about whether or not this departure from past practice constitutes a betrayal of their fundamental identity. Sound Familiar?
The U.A.W. did something quite amazing, something from which we can all learn and certainly something from which both sides of the splitting church can learn. They decided that the preservation of past practice is not the animating purpose of their organization. How often do we all fall into that trap, whether the organization is a union, a church, or a family?
Instead, the union leaders decided that they were in business to provide as many jobs for as many people as possible, even if that meant departing from past practice. Far from being a betrayal of their identities as union leaders, it was a fulfillment of it! That kind of reconnection to a larger purpose is not only great leadership, it is great spiritual leadership and we can all learn from it.
It's up to Episcopalians to figure out how to resolve the issue of a split in their church. But I hope that each side will reconsider the relationship between their position on a given policy and their commitment to a larger set of principles, the implementation of which can be different in different settings without constituting a betrayal. That's what the U.A.W. figured out and we will be a stronger nation for it, especially if the big three C.E.O.'s behave similarly. And all religious institutions would be stronger if they too could figure out how to do the same.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Author, radio and TV talk show host, and President of CLAL-The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, Brad Hirschfield is the author of 
I grew up fundamentalist Christian. The splinter groups are likely biblical literalists.
Lots of fundamentalists like Evangelicals pick and choose out of the Old Testament. How many of these folks have you met that keep a kosher diet or don't shop on Sunday?
The problem lies in the New Testament, specifically Romans Chapter 1 (Romans is a book that Church Fathers and even Luther took quite seriously and for good reason). The author, Paul, is quite explicit in his loathing of homosexuals in this first chapter; but this condemnation of ancient gays is by no means the meat and potatos of Romans.
Paul says later in the New Testament that the Law kills while the Spirit gives life. And Paul talks about how following all the customs availed him of nothing.
Literalists don't look at context. Paul went as far as to confess how anal he was. And how would Paul feel today?
I think as Jesus pointed out, the Law of Love is what rules the day. He said we ought to love our neighbors as ourselves and love God with all our being. Jesus said if you do these two things you are following the whole Law.
I hate to confess how I really feel, but I'm gonna anyway:
If consensual gay sex between others is keeping you up at night, you'd probably better get therapy.
Have a look at the official attendance figures at the url above if you don't think 100000 fewer are attending
I have no theological opinion on this. However due to their pro-natalist beliefs, fundamentalists tend to increase in numbers whereas groups with anti-natalist positions (pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality) fall in numbers.
Dave,
Fundamentalists might appear to increase in numbers because they somewhat more frequently than non-fundamentalists have large families. It has nothing to do with their position on abortion or homosexuality. In addition, the children of fundamentalists often decide their parents' life is not for them, meaning that fundamentalist growth by family size is in large part illusion caused by a generational delay.
Those who have smaller families, conversely, rarely if ever do so because of their views or practice related to abortion or homosexuality. Rather, they make decisions about the kind of life they want for themselves and for their children, weigh the financial, emotional and other resources they have avaliable to them, and use modern family planning to accomplish their goals.
Some parents of small families may be selfish, not wanting to give of themselves and their time to nurture another life. But the obverse, having a large family, is no more indicator of generosity than it is of megalomania and overconsumption. Other parents of small families may merely be realists, something one can rarely say of fundamentalists.
But more to the point, Dave, your word choice of "pro-natalist", "anti-natalist", "pro-abortion", and "pro-homosexuality", in the unlikely case that you were not aware, offensively twists the positions of most you apparently seek to classify. I have never yet met a person who is pro-abortion, only those who believe the government should not substitute its judgment for the judgment of the woman who is pregnant. I've never met an anti-natalist. Nearly everyone is glad (most of the time) to have been born and do not begrudge the experience to anyone. Even misanthropes do not typically want humans to cease procreating, though they might want the fruit of others' procreation to stay out of their space.
And, finally, most of those you might call pro-homosexual are, in my experience, usually just against persecution of this sexual minority and against denying homosexuals full participation in society because of the non-universal moral or religious opinion of some against them.
L'Shalom,
Chaim
I think the episcapol church problems is none of our bees wax.
hugs
Laura
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.