AN OPEN LETTER TO BISHOP JOHN CHANE
Diocese of Washington

Subject: Region 6 Conversation at Christ Church, Wayside
July 23, 2003

Dear John,

       Janet and I have been thinking over the conversation you held with folks from Region 6 at Christ Church, Wayside, this past Wednesday evening. That you've been willing to spend so much of your time and energy talking with the people of the Diocese has been evidence of your caring and concern, and has been much appreciated by everyone that we've spoken with. It certainly has meant a great deal to us, and we hope that, in what will probably be very stormy days ahead, we will be able to continue to struggle together in mutual respect, however much we might disagree.

       This letter is written hopefully to clarify and help in the communication process at least on our part, and maybe it can be of some use to you.  Janet and I have discussed the interactions at the meeting on Wednesday, and of course she and I never completely agree on everything, but on what we did agree we will share with you.

       So many things that you said at the meeting, we agreed with whole-heartedly, but they probably all belonged in the area of politics, in fact, and we wonder about the appropriateness of a church gathering becoming the arena for political debate? The things with which we could not agree were annoying because almost without exception, in response to each question, a premise was presented without any discussion as to whether the premise was true or false. This carelessness of logic, on everyone's part, defeats true communication and ultimately leads only to confusion.

       The clearest example of laboring under a false premise was the statement that anyone who remarried after divorce was committing adultery.  As we understand the Church's teaching on this, remarriage is only to be allowed after much soul searching, repentance, and forgiveness -- and even therapy.  When divorce and remarriage are treated lightly, there is a danger of vows being broken over and over again. Jesus charged the woman at the well, who'd had five husbands, to "go and sin no more." He didn't say to her that she had not sinned, quite the opposite; and even so, he did give her another chance. The implication of the false premise was that because the Church no longer takes seriously Jesus' teaching on marriage, (false premise) we should in like manner ignore the biblical teaching on almost any other sexual matter, including same-sex activities.

       We were also concerned about the assumption that the electoral process is controlled by, or even worse, controls Holy Spirit.  Vox populi, vox dei. Not necessarily. One doesn't have to think for very long to know that this is a false premise because apostolic faith has always been leery of such claims and demands that such assertions be held up to the authority of Scripture – "ah, but there's the rub,"- because the very next, and we believe it to be, false, premise was that scripture can be interpreted in so many different ways that it can have very little authority itself -- and needs the wisdom of the initiated or ordained for true understanding. This seems to lead us back into the distortions of the mediaeval church and gnosticism, just at a time when the laity are not only literate, but are often better educated than the clergy.

       We were astounded to hear that thirty of our clergy are already living in same-sex unions; and the discussion on this subject last Wednesday was based on the unexamined premise that our sexual orientations are God-given – and therefore to be blessed by the Church. Of course, to have debated that honestly would have taken years and more expertise than could have been present, but the scientific community and psychological developementalists are still struggling with questions of nature and nurture and there still isn't enough evidence for the jury to deliberate as yet. That won't stop people, even so-called scholars, from jumping to their own conclusions. But even if one accepts the premise that one's affections are not a matter of choice, which we believe to be true for many people, what we actually do with our affections is definitely a matter of choice.

       Anyway, these were a few of our reflections on the Wayside conversation.  Somehow we need to learn how to be up front about the assumptions we have accepted, before we attempt to carry our line of thought, and our actions, any further forward.

       Sincerely, Stephen & Janet Arpee

[Home] [About Us] [Events] [News] [Letters] [Newsletter1102] [Arpee091902] [Arpee090102] [easter2002] [newyears2002] [newsletter0103] [newsletter0703] [ChaneOpenLetter] [Links] [Resources] [Worship] [Location]