Content provided in partnership with

Why go quietly?

Commonweal, Nov 9, 2007

In his article "Separated Brethren" (September 28), Barry Jay Seltser writes that the Episcopal Church "should offer to withdraw from full membership in the Anglican Communion" and "acknowledge that its actions [the ordination of a gay bishop, limited accommodation of gay marriage], though heartfelt and perhaps prophetic, represent a refusal to accommodate other perspectives in the Anglican Communion." Seltser claims that this "would be consistent with the way others have taken principled stands that violate established law or custom. Civil-rights leaders were willing to be jailed and punished for violating existing law. They hoped their witness would affirm respect for their opponents and lead to broader social change."

Most Popular Articles in Reference: The importance of understanding organizational culture; Credit card attitudes and behaviors of college students; What factors attract foreign direct investment?; Libraries Need Relationship Marketing - mutual interest marketing concept, ...; How to set performance goals: employee reviews are more than annual critiques; More »

Actually, the action Seltser recommends would not be at all consistent with the conduct of American civil-rights leaders during the 1960s. Had they done as Seltser urges, there would have been no mass arrests, no police dogs, no shutdowns or boycotts--in short, none of the actions that electrified the nation at the time. Instead, the civil-rights dissidents would have quietly shown up at the jail one day and turned themselves in, acknowledging that their views, though heartfelt and perhaps prophetic, represented a refusal to accommodate other perspectives in the segregated American South.

As we all know, it was by forcing public arrests that the civil-rights movement forced a debate about the status of black people in America. Similarly, it is by forcing the Anglican Communion to expel them over the homosexuality issue that the Episcopalians will force a debate about the status of homosexuals in the Communion and, albeit indirectly, about the social status of homosexuals in Africa, where culturally entrenched homophobia has cost millions of lives in the ongoing AIDS crisis. "Going quietly," as Seltser recommends, could have no such effect.

JACK MILES

Irvine, Calif.

THE AUTHOR REPLIES

Jack Miles's letter reminds us of the hazards of analogies. In mentioning civil-rights leaders, I was invoking the principle that those who hold prophetic positions ought to acknowledge the rights of their opponents to enforce sanctions against them. They should also be willing to submit to such sanctions in the hope of a future change of heart on the part of their opponents.

For both the civil-rights and the antiwar movements, tactical nonviolence--and the very violent response it often provoked--helped convince many Americans to support the protesters. In the current situation, there is no analogy to the clubs and dogs that galvanized public sentiment in favor of the civil-rights movement. Formal exclusion of the American church is unlikely to generate sympathy or change minds among Anglican provinces that oppose the American position. Bishops are not going to be beaten or martyred, and the presiding bishop is not going to languish in prison. The only result will be to make each side more certain about its right to go its own way--by definition, the essence of schism. That's why a forceful and clear withdrawal by the Episcopal Church now would be more appropriate than waiting for a possible expulsion. Such an action would not be "quiet," and it would probably receive a more favorable response from the public than the decision to wait until the Episcopal Church is thrown out of the Anglican Communion.

BARRY SELTSER

Boston, Mass.

Why go quietly?

Commonweal, Nov 9, 2007

Find Research Guides for:

Find Featured Titles for: Home & Garden

Most Popular Articles in Reference

Most Popular Publications in Reference