Myth two: The Episcopal Church’s recent actions indicate concern for the oppressed.

Myth three: Those of us who dissent from the Episcopal Church’s actions are undermining Christian unity.

Time and again, folks ask me how the Episcopal Church – and indeed the other mainline Protestant churches – got in the fix they are in. I’m never sure where to start with an answer. Do I go back to the Enlightenment? Do we blame 19th century German theologians? Was it the social gospel movement? Does the problem stem from the 1960s?

Because I have sociological training, I tend look to cultural factors. So, I want to talk about the cultural captivity of the Episcopal Church. Of course, it’s not a captivity to all of American culture. Television sit-coms, rap music, conservative talk radio are not the relevant cultural components that influence the Episcopal hierarchy!

The Episcopal Church leadership is captive to a particular segment of our culture. Our church is governed by upper-middle class American elites, who came of age in the 60s and 70s. Episcopal leaders go to elite universities, not community colleges. They listen to NPR rather than watching Fox News. Leaders of the Episcopal Church are captive to this upper-middle class elite culture. One mark of the cultural captivity is putting social class above theological conviction.

I had an “aha” moment in which I recognized this tendency when I visited a meeting of the ecumenical commission of the Diocese of Virginia in the last triennium. I was there because I serve on the national Standing Commission on Ecumenical Relations. I wanted to report on what the national commission was doing and explore ways my diocese could interact with some new ecumenical initiatives.

At the very beginning of the meeting, the one participant reported on an interfaith development in his own parish. It seemed he had invited a Buddhist monk to lead a quiet day service. Please understand, the monk wasn’t to lecture on Buddhism, but to lead prayers in a Christian church. I’ll admit, I nearly fell off my chair.

Later, I gave my presentation. I told them that on the national church level, I was working to encourage Episcopal dialogue with evangelicals. One way that we might help in the Diocese of Virginia was to establish some grassroots model dialogues with Southern Baptists. I even pointed out that there were Southern Baptist offices in Richmond and we could find Southern Baptists in many of our communities. My suggestion was met with a very awkward silence. One woman finally blurted out, “But we don’t have much in common with them.”

If I had had my wits about me, I might have suggested that we ought to have Jesus in common.

You see, some Episcopalians find it easier to indulge multi-cultural and multi-faith prayer led by a Buddhist than talk to “them” – the Southern Baptists. The truth is that sitting down with Southern Baptists probably would be a more striking multi-cultural experience for many Episcopalians. It is further outside their comfort zone.

As I said, the Episcopal Church is led by upper-middle class elites that came of age in the 60s and 70s. That’s my generation, so I know what I’m talking about. So, what happens when a church is led by baby boomers? My staff did some research for me. As best we can discern, nearly 90 percent of the diocesan bishops who voted on Gene Robinson’s consecration were in seminary in the 60s and 70s. That’s not a good sign.

This generation of church leaders claims the moral authority of the civil rights movement, although most were too young to have been leaders in that moral battle. No, the movements that shaped their formative years were the anti-war movement, women’s liberation and the sexual revolution. Regardless of what you thought of the Vietnam War or the Equal Rights Amendment, these are not the pressing issues of today.

The experimental moral teaching regarding sexuality that the Episcopal Church now peddles is not cutting edge. It is depressingly dated. It’s a straight-line development from the 60’s “free love” mentality. A generation that came of age proclaiming, “Make love, not war” still finds it easier to preach pacifism to the President that sexual purity to parishioners.

What is cutting edge is the new social science data on marriage, family, and our children. What we aging boomers need to recognize is that love isn’t free.

Let’s focus on marriage. Too many boomers think that the problem with marriage is that women are stuck in abusive relationships. Let me quickly grant that some women are. But if you think that alleged 1950s repression is the big cultural problem we face, you are totally out of touch with our society – particularly with young people and with the poor. The big problem related to marriage is that many young people have no clue how to establish and maintain long-term commitments.

The fact is that upper-middle class elites are largely protected from the economic ravages of the sexual revolution. Over half of the children growing up in America today will spend a significant period of their childhood living without the presence of their biological father. That’s a social disaster.

Let me make this point clearer. Social scientists tell us that mainline Protestant families are actually among the most traditional – lower divorce rates and out-of-wedlock birth rates, even higher rates of non-employed mothers. Our church leaders applaud and celebrate new and non-traditional family forms, but the people in the pews don’t practice them. Why? Because we are protected by social class and privilege and we are still living on the wholesome examples of our parents and grandparents. We Episcopalians can prattle on about experimenting with new family forms and being tolerant of non-marital sexual liaisons. We don’t regret that there is a terrible price to be paid for fractured family structures, because we are largely protected from paying that price when compared to racial minority communities, the poor, or the young.

In early August, the Episcopal Church cut its ties from the doctrine of marriage, from basic Christian teaching about sexuality, from our core sources of authority. It was a stunning display of the prevalent social values of American campuses 40 years ago.

One month later a prestigious group of behavioral research scientists, pediatric physicians, and mental health professionals released a new paper (see www.americanvalues.org). They outline a genuine social problem in our society – the crisis facing our young people. Here are some excerpts from this new report:

Despite a decade of unprecedented economic growth that resulted in fewer children living in poverty, large and growing numbers of American children and adolescents are suffering from mental health problems. Scholars at the National Research Council in 2002 estimated that at least one of every four adolescents in the U.S. is currently at serious risk of not achieving productive adulthood. Twenty-one percent of U.S. children ages 9 to 17 have a diagnosable mental disorder or addiction, 8 percent of high school students suffer from clinical depression, and 20 percent of students report seriously having considered suicide in the past year. By the 1980s, U.S. children as a group were reporting more anxiety than did children who were psychiatric patients in the 1950s, according to one study.

The Report is calling upon all U.S. citizens to help strengthen what it calls “authoritative communities” as likely to be the best strategy for improving children's lives, in its report, Hardwired to Connect: The Case for Authoritative Communities. Authoritative communities are groups of people who are committed to one another over time and who exhibit and are able to pass on what it means to be a good person. These groups provide the types of connectedness our children increasingly lack.

Authoritative communities can be families with children and all civic, educational, recreational, community service, business, culture, and religious groups that serve or include persons under the age of 18 that exhibit certain characteristics. These characteristics are: 1) it is a social institution that includes children and youth; 2) it treats children as ends in themselves; 3) it is warm and nurturing; 4) it establishes clear boundaries and limits; 5) it is defined and guided at least partly by non-specialists; 6) it is multi-generational; 7) it has a long-term focus; 8) it encourages spiritual and religious development; 9) it reflects and transmits a shared understanding of what it means to be a good person; 10) it is philosophically oriented to the equal dignity of all persons and to the principle of love of neighbor.

Cutting edge researchers tell us that our children desperately need what the church is supposed to offer! The action of our General Convention is a betrayal on many levels – a betrayal of Christian orthodoxy, of the Anglican Communion, of scriptural authority, of the sexually confused. But it’s a betrayal that’s also very close to home – a betrayal of our own children.

I’ve addressed two myths:

The first myth - that the experimental sexual ethics of the Episcopal Church represent the future – is not true. The sexual ethics of the Episcopal Church are dated, passé, stuck in the late 20th Century, and wrong! It is the timeless moral standards of scripture that will take the church forward to meet new challenges.

Myth two: the Episcopal Church’s actions indicate concern for the poor and oppressed. There has been a concerted effort to portray homosexual men and women as oppressed. And, in a way, I do believe that they are victimized and trapped by their sexual desires and actions. The good news of the gospel is indeed liberation from this. But the Episcopal Church is overlooking the actual victims of the sexual revolution. From our positions of comfort and privilege, we are blind to the suffering from massive family breakdown endured by racial minorities, the poor, and children.

But I want to comment briefly on one more myth – that those of us who dissent from the Episcopal Church’s action are undermining Christian unity. The truth is that General Convention itself dealt a terrible blow to Christian unity. Relations with the wider Anglican Communion, with Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, with Roman Catholics, and with Evangelicals and Pentecostals – are all damaged. Our ties with the vast majority of Christians at home and world-wide are severely weakened.

It is preposterous that those of us who are struggling to maintain relationships with the wider church and to disassociate from the actions of the General Convention are called schismatic or separatist.

For over 50 years, the modern ecumenical movement has told us that denominational lines do not mark the boundaries of Christendom. Indeed, objectively speaking, the Episcopal Church is a pretty tiny part of Christendom, and is getting smaller.

We dissenters have learned our ecumenical lessons well. We are the ones who are committed to Christian unity. We are the ones who will embrace the whole body of Christ – in mutual submission and respect.

The charge of disunity is being made against us. The big lie is that one must chose between truth and unity. Truth and unity are the two essential sides of the same coin. Genuine unity protects truth. Genuine truth defines our unity. Christ’s prayer is that we be One. Our prayer – our calling and our intentions – can be no less.

Diane Knippers is the president of the Institute for Religion and Democracy based in Washington, DC

END