Conversion Therapy Is Cruel
I read with distress about church leaders in Sydney, Australia, who apparently have “voiced deep concern over New South Wales’ new anti-conversion therapy law” [TLC, Nov. 23].
Here in the United States, such conversion therapy is only legal in Republican-run states, where the trend (it seems) is to trust prayer over verified scientific facts. I’m a prayerful person, but I am in touch with reality. I know when to be honest and realistic.
I, for one, as both a gay man and a reasonable person, call out Bishop Michael Stead for his statement that he fears he would be breaking the law for “teaching what the Bible says about human sexuality.” He should be ashamed! And he should be admonished—if not censured—by other voices who understand the facts.
Bishop Stead and others who may agree with him on conversion therapy should review their commitment to Jesus’ teachings, and should begin to show compassion, tolerance, and welcome for all God’s children, without exception.
James Baran
Chicago
A Real Alternative on Politics?
I read the Very Rev. Kevin Martin’s “Revisioning the Church in a Post-Progressive Society” with great personal interest (Covenant, May 2). As a teenager in the Episcopal Church in the late 1990s, I felt disheartened by my church’s lack of engagement with contemporary politics, and I had disengaged from the church by the time of my college graduation.
Having now returned to the Episcopal Church, I experience discomfort with the more fluid relationship between the Episcopal Church and progressive politics. Although we offer an alternative to conservatively aligned Christian communities, I wonder if we provide an alternative to the paternalistic orientation we perceive in them, or simply a difference in political valence.
Tom Bayer
Providence, Rhode Island
Guard the Primacy of Unity
Thank you for reporting on the variety of responses to the Global Anglican Communion announcement. It is helpful to understand the full range of reaction and history involved.
It is disturbing to me that division is frequently considered a legitimate option in response to disagreement—particularly when the expectation of that division includes avoidance, termination of communion and accusation regarding the faith of the other. The knowledge that in spite of differences some maintain the primacy of unity is reassuring. Keep up the good work.
Jeffrey Sivek
Huntingdon Valley, Pennsylvania
Read Article XIX
While I share the Rev. Dr. Matthew S.C. Olver’s grief over the brokenness of our Communion (“‘You Have Broken My Heart’: A Letter to My Siblings in GAFCON” (Oct. 17), I believe his appeal grounds our unity in the wrong place. His lament for the institutional fabric of the Anglican Communion overlooks our own formularies’ definition of the Church.
Article XIX is clear: “The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered.”
The Church is defined by its fidelity to Word and Sacrament, not its subordination to a particular See or historic structure. Our primary union is spiritual, in Christ, and is made visible where these marks are present.
GAFCON’s actions are not an innovation or a rejection of catholicity. They are a painful, necessary return to our foundational principles. This is a recognition that our true communion is with all who preach the pure Word of God, not with a See that has erred in matters of faith. The heartbreak is real, but it was authored in Canterbury, not Jerusalem.
David Bumgardner
Findlay, Ohio
TLC Editors
