A Liberal Suggests That The Liberals Give Up To Avoid Acting Like George Bush

Why the Episcopal Church Should Avoid Acting Like George Bush
By The Rev Scott Benhase
Wednesday, July 27, 2005

What connection does George Bush's approach to terrorism have with the current struggle in the Anglican Communion over human sexuality? There is not any direct connection, of course, but both President Bush and the leadership of the Episcopal Church are making similar mistakes in how they understand the struggle. Both see it primarily as a struggle over ideology grounded in a theology about the nature and destiny of humankind. Both need to rethink their understanding of the struggle. It is not about ideology (or theology), but rather about culture. As long as both continue to approach the struggle ideologically, then there can be no peaceful or just solution. Let me explain further what I mean.

Robert W. Merry, in his thought-provoking new book, Sands of Empire: Missionary Zeal, American Foreign Policy, and the Hazards of Global Ambition, offers a cogent, historical analysis of American foreign policy. His particular analysis of the 20th century American empire is especially interesting. Merry argues that America fought the Cold War with an accurate knowledge of what the West faced. It was a war to find out which ideology, liberal democracy or totalitarian communism, would win the day. Liberal democracy triumphed because it presented a more just way to organize human community. Totalitarian communism crumbled under the weight of its own inability to deliver on its utopian promises.




	It is not about ideology (or theology), but rather about culture. As long as both continue to approach the struggle ideologically, then there can be no peaceful or just solution.

Merry contends that the struggle we now face, the so-called war on terror, is very different and not based on ideology. What worked in containing totalitarian communism will not work as the West seeks to deal effectively with the threat of terrorism. This is so, Merry asserts, because it is not about ideology, rather it is about culture. Yet George Bush insists on not only naming it as an ideological struggle, but also is determined to carry out the American response to it as if it were about ideology. So, we get statements from the president like, "They hate freedom," or "They are opposed to liberty," or "We are fighting an ideology of evil." But those are words of ideology, not culture. The "they" in the president's assertions could easily be replaced with the Soviet Union or Maoist China.

If Merry is right, then military force will not end the struggle, nor will it allow Western democracies to "win." Struggles over culture are never decided by military force because they are grounded in the deep identity of a people. In fact, such a struggle is winless by any direct action or political strategy. Culture must be allowed to be. In time, it will change, but from the inside out, not from the imposition of any outside force or ideology. By listening to their demands, we can learn something. They want us to leave them alone. They do not want us to impose on them what they see as our Western decadence. They do not want to be forced to accept our cultural presuppositions about what constitutes "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." President Bush, however, is approaching the struggle with missionary zeal; seeing it as the West's obligation to bring democracy and free-market capitalism to a culture devoid of their benefits.




Struggles over culture are never decided by military force because they are grounded in the deep identity of a people. In fact, such a struggle is winless by any direct action or political strategy. Culture must be allowed to be.

To be sure, the radical Islamists do not speak for everyone in their culture. Culture is rarely that monolithic. Some want to move toward a form of Western liberal democracy. Some want a constitutional monarchy with the state religion being Islam, just like in Great Britain where the official state religion is the Church of England. Still others, and these are the most traditional, want to preserve the more feudal aspects of Islamic culture. We, of course, can have our opinions as to what would be best for them so they could live "the good life," but in the end, we cannot impose our opinions on them as if we were dealing with mere ideology. Change in Islamic culture will come from the inside out as they struggle to define what it is they want and how they want their culture to evolve. Thus, the West needs to leave them alone. But we probably will not, not because of any noble ideals we hold, but because they have the oil we need.

So, it seems America will continue to pursue a misguided strategy to struggle against culturally-fueled terrorism. I am convinced that the terrorism would virtually come to an end if American troops and our political influence withdrew from Iraq and from the other parts of the Islamic world. This would no doubt lead to a period of prolonged, and sometimes deadly, struggle within Islamic culture that would be hard to witness. But the current path the West is on will only make things worse. And the West's military withdrawal would result in a better life and a quicker peace for the people in traditional Islamic culture. If the West continues its present strategy of fighting an ideological war, then there will be no end to the violence in both the West and the Islamic world.





	Progressive Anglicans in the West will not win this struggle over human sexuality. It cannot be won from the outside in. Indeed, I would contend that it not even be seen as a struggle that can be won.

I see a parallel to this in the Anglican Communion's struggle over human sexuality issues. Many progressive Anglicans (I count myself among that constituency) seem to believe we are in an ideological/theological struggle with our sister churches in the developing world. They seem to be approaching the struggle in two ways: either they dismiss these sister churches as being led by backward, uneducated homophobes (so engagement with them is a waste of time) or they want to convince the leaders of these sister churches that they hold the wrong theological positions on human sexuality. We think that if we can just get them to listen to us, then they will be convinced that our theological convictions for why we believe what we believe about human sexuality are the ones that they should hold.

When we approach our sister churches this way, we are engaging them with the same missionary zeal of George Bush trying to bring liberal democracy to Islamic culture. We are simply acting like Bush; believing that if we are just persistent enough, they will come around to our way of thinking and believing. We are acting like the American Empire. If, for example, we place ourselves in the shoes of an African bishop, we might see things differently. We might see the Episcopal Church's behavior as yet another case of American imperialism telling the uneducated and unenlightened African Anglicans what they ought to believe and how they ought to think and act, simply continuing the self-righteous thinking that the West has always held towards that part of the world.




I can no more take leave of my sisters and brothers in Christ than I can take leave of my own body. Still, I think it would benefit all the constituent members of the Anglican Communion if there were a temporal resolution to the current struggle.

Progressive Anglicans in the West will not win this struggle over human sexuality. It cannot be won from the outside in. Indeed, I would contend that it not even be seen as a struggle that can be won. If our sister churches are going to change how they understand human sexuality, such a change will have to come from the inside out. The history of missionary imperialism is too long and too fresh in the memories of our sister churches for there to be any other way. It is heartening to see that Presiding Bishop Griswold seems to be moving toward this understanding of the struggle. He has shown remarkable and faithful leadership so far. What I heard reported from the Episcopal Church's presentations at the Anglican Consultative Council meeting in Nottingham shows we may be getting on the right track. The Episcopal Church presenters did not try to convince anyone of anything. They did not imply that we were right and everyone who held a different conviction was wrong. They simply articulated a clear explanation for why we in the Episcopal Church did what we did. And they explained it well from our understanding of scripture, theology, and polity.

If what I am describing is reasonably accurate, then what may be the consequences for the Episcopal Church? It may well mean that our sister churches will want us to leave the Anglican Communion. How that might happen is a thorny problem based on the Communion's complex relational polity. It is also theologically problematic for those of us who hold a catholic understanding of the church. For me, any leave-taking would be only in terms of polity. I can no more take leave of my sisters and brothers in Christ than I can take leave of my own body. Still, I think it would benefit all the constituent members of the Anglican Communion if there were a temporal resolution to the current struggle. We should simply ask them to decide by their particular polity whether or not they want the Episcopal Church in or out of the Anglican Communion. And then we should honor their wishes. If they desire us to leave, then we should in a spirit of humility voluntarily withdraw our formal relationship with Canterbury.

This would not be a permanent withdrawal. It may last as long as fifty or more years. Or, it may last until Jesus returns. I do not know. My hunch is that this struggle over human sexuality in our Communion will not be solved through force of argument, by claims to correct scriptural interpretation, or in the machinations of polity. We may not be reunited with our sister churches in this life. That possibility saddens me greatly. And I do desire reconciliation some day, in God's time. Nevertheless, what I propose may be the only godly way to achieve such reconciliation.

The Rev. Scott A. Benhase is rector of St. Philip's Episcopal Church in Durham, N.C. He may be reached by email at scott_benhase@juno.com.

Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.

FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this moderately high-volume ping list (typically 3-9 pings/day).
This list is pinged by sionnsar and newheart.

Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com

Humor: The Anglican Blue (by Huber)

Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15

I've got to say, liberals are trying to tie everything to the war in Iraq.

As for being "reunited" with their brothers-in-Christ, well, it's not up to me to decide who is a Christian and who is not. That's God's job. But I can compare their actions, as well as my own, to what God demands in the Holy Scriptures, and say where they come up short. Those that hold fast to the Word will never "reunite" with those that proudly do not, not in Fifty years, or ever.

My own prediction is that the liberal churches will continue to die, and in fifty years, there may, or may not be many Christians or churches, but that those that remain will be far more in tune with God's Word.

before he became the Bishop of NJ the Rev Spong was the head of a NC church. It appears that he established a very strong group of followers. I thank God for Ft Worth Texas and Bishop Iker... the last of the true believers.

Now, if only this article would get published in the Sanford Herald, maybe the locals would get a clear idea of what they're temporizing about.

In Christ,
Deacon Paul+

possible NC ping?

NC Author Ping!

We, of course, can have our opinions as to what would be best for them so they could live "the good life," but in the end, we cannot impose our opinions on them as if we were dealing with mere ideology.

Bullshit.

The differences is that the churches cannot kill everyone who disagrees with them any more.

So9