From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Denominations Representing Individuals
Organization: Glassboro State College (but not for long!)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:39:23 GMT


This is mostly about particular issues and denominations, and mentions some
politicians as examples.  But the general points are much wider: What does it
mean to support a church that teaches things you consider immoral?  How does
the relation between church ideas and individual beliefs work?  How do people
see their support of a denomination that disagrees with them?  Hopefully the
questions are of interest, and the answers (if any are offered) will be
educational.


Lauren H Arango takes issue with some of my earlier comments about the
Episcopal Church.  Several Episcopal bishops (John Spong of New Jersey, and 
at least one other) have ordained active homosexuals to the priesthood; I
took this to be an indication that the denomination has moved away from a
more strictly traditional view of sexual behaviour.

In any case, if there are official statements from the Episcopal Church that
would clarify the group-as-a-whole's position on human sexual behaviour, by
all means educate me.


Also, in the particular context, Mr Bush was asked about the recent ordination
of an active lesbian -- he did not reply that he considered it wrong, or a
mistake, or anything else.  Only that he wasn't "quite ready for that".  The
wording implies that he accepts homosexual ordination as the direction the
church is moving, but it's moving a bit too fast for him.  What I found odd
was that he wants the US Armed Forces to have stricter sexual rules than his
church.

It is that which I am trying to understand; the belief that the World should
be held to stricter rules than the Body of Christ is held to.  Hopefully there
is somebody out there who shares this idea and who can shed some light on it.


Ms Arango also writes:
> The official position of the Episcopal Church is much more complex than
> just "we favor keeping abortion legal".

The same is true of my position, and Bill Clinton's, and Ross Perot's, but
that doesn't mean diddly-squat.  Kerry Stephenson recently wrote this:

ks> The president is essentially useless, but I will not vote for anyone who
ks> advocates the unconscionable slaughter of the innocent for the convenience
ks> of the selfish, no matter how ineffective he may prove to be. 

So far as I can make out, Ms Stephenson equates "avoiding legislation to stop
abortion" with "advocating abortion".  If it is true of presidential
candidates, then it is true of Christian denominations.

Where the rubber meets the road -- ie, where ideas turn into action -- the
Episcopal church is not significantly different than any other pro-choice
organisation.  If you support the Episcopal church financially, then you
support a group which (in the minds of some pro-life people) "advocates the
slaughter of the innocent for the convenience of the selfish".


If I may play Devil's Advocate for a moment:

> I figure that I have a much better chance of working to change the Episcopal
> Church's position on abortion from *within*, rather than from without.

Is it okay for me to join the KKK provided I try to change them from within?
How about the Communist Party or the American Nazi Party?  The Mafia?

I rather doubt that, eg, Randall Terry would remain a member of the Episcopal
church given their official statement about abortion.  He doesn't have a net
account that I know of, but certainly some other pro-life Christians can tell
us how they see this.

I understand the position "I disagree with the official statement of the
church on issue XXX, but since it is peripheral I don't mind" -- but Mr Bush
campaigns on the abortion issue.  How can it be peripheral if he is as upset
about it as he claims?

What I am trying to understand is how a strongly pro-life pro-legislation
person sees his financial support of a pro-choice group.  Some people boycott
companies that are pro-choice or that advertise on programs with a pro-choice
agenda.  Others see that as too indirect to be worth bothering about.  To
them, it is some distance from putting gas in your car to approving abortion.

But the financial support of a church is a lot closer, I would think.  Some
people don't see it that way, apparently.  I do hope some of them will tell me
HOW they see it.  Any takers?


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
"Boy, they were big on crematoriums, weren't they?"
              -- George Bush at Auschwitz, Sept 1989 (cited in _Bush Speaks_)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU