When did the Anglican war begin?

December 17, 2006 By

lebanonreligiousmapWhile the votes have been announced in those two historic Episcopal parishes, we really won’t know much about the actual media coverage of this event until tomorrow’s full-length reports are out in the elite newspapers.

Click here for the early draft of the Washington Post coverage by Bill Turque and Michelle Boorstein. It retains the basic mainstream-media perspective, which is that a small percentage of American Episcopalians are trying to rebel against their national church. This is one way to express the conflict. The other is that the national Episcopal Church is rebelling against the overwhelming majority of the world’s Anglicans, when it comes to issues of biblical authority, church tradition and sexual morality.

The hard part of covering this story is to manage to let readers know that both of these perspectives are true.

The early Post story begins:

Two large and historic Episcopal congregations in Northern Virginia have voted overwhelmingly to break away from the U.S. church and to seek to keep their property, setting up a conflict with their diocese that will be watched closely by other dissident Episcopalians around the country.

Officials at The Falls Church in Falls Church and Truro Church in Fairfax City announced the results of the week-long vote following their worship services this morning. Their leadership has been at the forefront of a national conservative movement that has been alienated from the Episcopal Church, the U.S. wing of the worldwide Anglican Communion, since the installation of a gay bishop in New Hampshire in 2003.

At both congregations, more than 90 percent of the members voted to split from the U.S. church and to retain their church property.

However, you may be asking yourself right now: “Why does this post include a map of Lebanon?”

Good question. To answer, I would like to flash back to the Associated Press pre-game report that the Post ran the previous day. In that story, religion writer Rachel Zoll offered this background material:

The ballots are part of a crisis over the Bible and sexuality that is battering The Episcopal Church and threatening its role as the U.S. wing of the global Anglican Communion.

The feud erupted in 2003 when Episcopalians consecrated the first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire. Supporters argued that the biblical ban on gay sex does not apply to monogamous same-gender couples. However, most overseas Anglicans disagree and have been pressuring the American church to follow traditional Christian teaching.

Now look at that second paragraph. It does a nice job of balancing the American and the global elements of this conflict, even though it does use that controversial, and rarely defined, word “monogamous.”

However, what I want to underline is the first sentence in that paragraph, the one that says: “The feud erupted in 2003 when Episcopalians consecrated the first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.”

This is way, way, way off base. Episcopalians have been openly fighting over the status of sex outside of marriage for a quarter of a century, and the conflict spread to the global level in the mid-to-late 1990s. So this statement is simply inaccurate, as I am sure Episcopalians on the left would agree.

Anyone covering this story needs to click here and look at the 1998 Lambeth Conference resolution that pushed the global conflict into overdrive, the moment when the rising power of Third World Anglicans drew a theological line in the sand for the Anglican establishment in England and North America.

Saying that “the feud” — global Anglican conflicts over sexual morality — began with the Robinson affair in 2003 is as accurate as saying that conflicts between Israel and Lebanon began in 2006, when Hezbollah fired rockets and mortars at Israeli military positions and border villages, while another rebel unit crossed the border and kidnapped two Israeli soldiers.

In other words, this simplistic version of the Anglican conflict is totally inaccurate and the Associated Press should issue a correction. It isn’t even an accurate statement about conflicts in Northern Virginia, where tensions have been high over the leftward swing in Episcopal life for a decade or longer.

A personal note: Thank you to all of the readers who sent me links to the revised media-coverage memos issued by leaders of Truro Episcopal Church and the Falls Church. Obviously, I wrote yesterday’s post without knowing that the previous rules (PDF) had been changed.

Quite frankly, the new rules look pretty good to me as a print guy, and it even appears that some wiggle room was provided for broadcast journalists. It will be interesting to see if tomorrow’s coverage in the major newspapers includes any appropriate material gathered during the worship services themselves. It will also be crucial to see how the media guidelines were applied in the heat of the Anglican media storm — which will not end anytime soon, in Northern Virginia or many other locations.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Anglicanism, Godbeat, World
About tmatt

Terry Mattingly directs the Washington Journalism Center at the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities. He writes a weekly column for the Scripps Howard News Service.

  • Larry Rasczak

    “In other words, this simplistic version of the Anglican conflict is totally inaccurate and the Associated Press should issue a correction. It isn’t even an accurate statement about conflicts in Northern Virginia, where tensions have been high over the leftward swing in Episcopal life for a decade or longer.”

    Excellent point.

    But as in many cases, it can be hard to say when ANY war began.
    I mean most Americans think WW2 began on 12/7/41, a Russian would say it started on 6/22/41, the Dutch would say 5/10/40, Norway and Denmark would say 4/9/40, the Finns would say 11/30/39, but my British Mom remembers it as 09/03/39, but the Poles would put it 48 hours earlier on 09/01/39, and the Czechs might argue for 10/1/38, an Austrian could point to 3/12/38 and the Chinese would say 7/7/37; some historians can even argue for 1914. All conflicts have underlying causes that go WAY back… one has to draw the line somewhere.

    I am begining to suspect that in journalisim there is an inverse relationship between simplicy and accuracy.

  • Pingback: titusonenine » Blog Archive » Get Religion Gets it: This Anglican Controversy did NOT begin in 2003

  • Pingback: AstroCath

  • Deacon John M. Bresnahan

    In reading the Washington Post story I was struck by the propaganda angle Episcopal Bishop Lee is harping on–that these congregations are now Nigerian or Ugandan and that the REAL American Episcopalians should be the ones who retain the property. Is this a subtle use of racism to butress one’s point???
    Also, it seems funny for an Episcopalian hierarchy to be demanding the church properties because of its heritage and those buried there. When is the Church of England going to return Canterbury Cathedral and all the other English properties that were built by Catholics in Communion with Rome.
    It is interesting to read “The Stripping of the Altars” by Eamon Duffy (Yale University Press) and other books by modern Church historians specializing in the English “Reformation”. We Americans have been sold a bill of goods that the English turn from Rome was very popular. New, independent English research shows there was massive quiet opposition to the coerced Reformation from above. Thus English Catholics today should demand the return of their stolen Church properties using the arguments the Episcopal Bishop Lee of Virginia is using.

  • Jerry

    >that controversial, and rarely defined, word “monogamous.”

    Why do you refer to monogamous as a controversial, rarely defined word? The dictionary definition for the word seems perfectly acceptable to me.
    http://www.answers.com/monogamous&r=67 – the word is defined in every dictionary which hardly is ‘rarely defined’.

    To be sure “marriage” is controversial, but I’ve never heard of monogamy of being controversial before your posting.

  • http://www.tmatt.net tmatt

    For a look at the “monogamy” debates within the gay/left theological community — a subject I have followed with interest since the mid-1980s back in Denver — see this old Scripps column:

    http://tmatt.gospelcom.net/column/2000/07/19/

  • http://amoker.blogspot.com Joseph

    What is so hard in obeying God’s word in the bible? In both homosexual and monogamous issue, it is rather clear , dear author.

  • webwalker

    Larry,

    I think you hit it out of the park with that observation: There is an inverse law about simplicity and accuracy. The challenge is to decide which parts must be left in to provide a balanced picture and which parts should be left out to provide clarity for the audience to get to the parts left in without being bogged down in a text book when they just wanted to browse through section B with their morning coffee.

    This is the headache many editors face, and the task is made harder under deadlines when the writer clearly doesn’t give a rip about finding that balance and pruning their own work. This is part of why I’m a great feature writer and a lousy “today’s top story” writer: I’m constantly trying to back out a little more to provide ‘more context’. There is limit to the amount of context that the average reader wants, or can even cope with. Between the balance question, basic fact checking, deadlines and competent editing, its like tap-dancing on a greased golf ball.

  • Jared Williams

    “Episcopal Bishop Lee is harping on—that these congregations are now Nigerian or Ugandan and that the REAL American Episcopalians should be the ones who retain the property. Is this a subtle use of racism to butress one’s point”

    I think his point was not racist but ideological. Obviously, the Nigerian and Ugandan Episcopal beliefs differ dramatically from those of the ECUSA (and the USA for that matter). After all, Akinola supports laws to ban gay marriage, gay organizations, gay media, and gay sexual activity whereas most US conservatives would stop at banning gay marriage.

  • Jared Williams

    On another note, these churches are affiliating with a Nigerian/Ugandan mission (CANA), which has no official status within the Anglican Communion, so I would say ECUSA has better claims to the property.

  • Matthew Bradley

    “Episcopal Bishop Lee is harping on—that these congregations are now Nigerian or Ugandan and that the REAL American Episcopalians should be the ones who retain the property. Is this a subtle use of racism to butress one’s point”

    Bp. Lee is following the Canon Law of the Episcopal Church, USA in making this statement. Canon I.7.4 reads:

    “All real and personal property held by or for the benefit of any Parish, Mission or Congregation is held in trust for this Church and the Diocese thereof in which such Parish, Mission or Congregation is located. The existence of this trust, however, shall in no way limit the power and authority of the Parish, Mission or Congregation otherwise existing over such property so long as the particular Parish, Mission or Congregation remains a part of, and subject to, this Church and its Constitution and Canons.”

    It is important to note that the Episcopal Church, USA and the Anglican Church of Nigeria are two different Churches in the Anglican Communion. By leaving one Church in the Communion and joining another, the Falls Church and Truro fall under the above provision. Bp. Lee is following the procedures outlined for the governance of the affairs of the Church, not using racism to support an unfounded claim.

  • http://until.joe-perez.com joe perez

    tmatt: It’s not like you to be so sloppy with your charges of bias! First, you quote

    “However, what I want to underline is the first sentence in that paragraph, the one that says: ‘The feud erupted in 2003…’”

    You pile on with “way, way, way off base… this statement is simply inaccurate…”

    You then link to the 1998 Lambeth Conference resolution as proof of your rightness

    and huffily demand a “correction” from the AP for a “totally inaccurate” story…

    …too had you didn’t stop there, for while you hadn’t proven anything or shown the need for a correction (the AP backgrounded its story in a way with less detail than you would have liked, that’s all), you go on to make this whopper:

    “Saying that “the feud” — global Anglican conflicts over sexual morality — began with the Robinson affair in 2003…”

    The AP said no such thing. It wrote that the feud ERUPTED w/ Robinson. You falsely claimed they said that AP claimed the feud BEGAN w/ Robinson. An Eruption is NOT a Beginning.

    I realize emotions run high on this and you’re overall coverage of the story is fine, so I won’t huffily demand a correction. But watch yourself. ;)

  • Jerry

    Some groups might try to redefine monogamy as you pointed out, but still I don’t find the word ill defined. I think it would be more accurate to have said something like:

    …even though it does use “monogamous” which some have tried to redefine from its traditional meaning.

    (or something to that effect.

  • Dominic Glisinski

    I’ll be interested to see what take, if any, the liberal rag “Anglican Journal” has on all this. Doomsday is next year for the AC of C at Synod, wise persons might well read, learn, mark, and inwardly digest these things aforetime…

  • Larry Rasczak

    The BBC said “The congregations at Truro and Falls Church date from the 1700s and were once a part of the mother Church of England. ”

    So couldn’t one use Deacon John’s argument and claim that in leaving the ECUSA they are returning to the C of E, and therefore the property is simply being returned to their rightful owners (the C of E) from whom it was siezed after the sad events of the late 1770′s-early 1780s.?

    Can one claim in court that the Nigerians are a legitimate sucessor organization to the C of E?… or at least more C of E than the ECUSA?

    I suppose that if/when the ECUSA finally gets tossed out of the Anglican Communion, one could make that argument. It would come down to an argument of what exactly is meant by the words ” this Church”. You could claim that “this Church” means the Anglican Communion as a whole, subject to the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Canterburry. If that is the case then the ECUSA (after they get tossed out of the Communion as whole) would lack any legitimate title to the property.

    In the alternative one could argue that “this Church” means that body of believers that adhere to the traditional rites and creeds of the Anglican Communion, (a bit more difficult to prove) and that despite what it says on their letterhead, the bureaucracy and leadership of the ECUSA fails this test rather spectacularly (very, very easy to prove, and a subject very likely to be highly embarrising to the ECUSA leadership when it comes out at the trial/media circus).

    You know, I’ve never been to Truro or Falls Church, but I’m willing to bet there are one or two fairly clever lawyers in the congregation. I would be very reluctant to bet my lunch money on the ECUSA winning this one. The ECUSA would be wise to simply let these people walk away and keep the buildings.

    Of course if the ECUSA was wise they wouldn’t be in this mess in the first place…

  • Larry Rasczak

    At the risk of drifiting off topic I would
    recomend John Public to the old Kipling Poem
    The Gods of the Copybook Headings

    http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/gods_of_copybook_headings.html

    It is as true today as it was in when it was written in 1919.

  • http://www.philocrites.com Philocrites

    I appreciated the fact that the Washington Post drew attention to the even older roots of the controversy:

    Outside after the service, members were somber but resolute about a decision they say culminated a long period of disenchantment with the Episcopal Church, dating back to the ordination of women in the 1970s. Their alienation grew with Robinson’s election. . . .

    Conservative congregations have left the church in the past, including in the 1970s, when ordinations of women began, and a number have done so since Robinson’s election.

    Has anyone seen news coverage that looks into what happened to the churches that split over women’s ordination?

  • Dennis Colby

    This doesn’t really strike me as a “totally inaccurate” story in need of a correction – in addition to what Joe Perez said about the difference between “began” and “erupted,” I think it’s pretty clear that Robinson’s election is the catalyst for much of what’s happened since. Would the churches in Virginia be voting to separate from ECUSA if Robinson hadn’t been elected bishop?

  • Kristin Gazlay, Managing Editor of National News, The Associated Press

    Terry:
    I read your Anglican Wars post, and just want to note that the labeling of a sentence of our story as “way, way way off base” seems to be based on a misinterpretation.

    According to Mirriam-Webster, “erupt” does not mean “to begin,” but rather “to force out or release suddenly and often violently something (as lava or steam) that is pent up to burst forth.” AP religion reporters and editors well know that this latest debate over Scriptural authority dates back decades. But it’s no stretch to say that 2003 was a major turning point for the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion.

    Rachel Zoll, who covered the 2003 Episcopal General Convention, notes that “volcanic” is indeed a good way to describe the tumultuous meeting, which was why she was drawn to the word “erupted.”

  • Joel

    >Bp. Lee is following the Canon Law of the Episcopal Church

    When it comes to a disagreement between current and former members of the TEC, canon law is either enforced or superceded by the laws of the United States or its subsidiaries. Just because 815 says it’s true, doesn’t make it so.

    In California, the courts have held that this particular law is unenforceable and the will of the parish and its duly elected vestry trumps the wish of the corresponding bishop. A defection by an entire diocese has not be tested, but for exiting parishes, right now all the legal precedents are on the side of the parishes.

    If there is no test case yet in Virginia, obviously we now have two. Unless, of course, Bp. Lee is willing to prudently negotiate a settlement, as the Diocese of Olympia did.

  • http://cinecon.blogspot.com Victor Morton

    In California, the courts have held that this particular law is unenforceable and the will of the parish and its duly elected vestry trumps the wish of the corresponding bishop. A defection by an entire diocese has not be tested, but for exiting parishes, right now all the legal precedents are on the side of the parishes.

    I am really not crazy about THAT. Not at all. Said California court has thereby declared that all churches are congregational, no matter what the church itself may say. This is a prima facie violation of the free-exercise of religion, and it’s hard to see what is the state interest in church structure that justifies violating that right, as the state does in cases like peyote use or human sacrifice.

    And the logic of an entire diocese breaking away is even weaker. Say what you like about individual churches, but the very logic of a diocese is as the regional headquarters of a national outfit — a franchise created by the overall body. Not as an autonomous unit created from below.

  • Michael

    A defection by an entire diocese has not be tested, but for exiting parishes, right now all the legal precedents are on the side of the parishes.

    The legal precedents IN CALIFORNIA. Outside of California, the courts have traditionally sided with the mother church’s interpretation of it’s own laws and has not immersed intself into religious battles over doctrine. It’s hard to imagine courts in the Fourth Circuit (which includes Virginia) saying it is the court’s role to inteperpet church law.

    What the California court did is the ultimate in judicial activiism, something conservatives are usually opposed to.