The Washington Post has a front page article on the vote of seven conservative Episcopalian parishes in Virginia that have voted to leave the US Episcopal Church and affiliate with the Episcopal Church of Nigeria.
Two of the congregations are among the state’s largest and most historic: Truro Church in Fairfax City and The Falls Church in Falls Church, which have roots in the 1700s. Their leaders have been in the vanguard of a national effort to establish a conservative alternative to the Episcopal Church, the U.S. wing of the 77 million-member worldwide Anglican Communion.
[…]
The votes are fresh evidence of an increasingly bitter split within the U.S. Episcopal Church. Seven of its 111 dioceses have rejected the authority of Presiding U.S. Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, installed in November as the first woman to head an Anglican church. Schori supports V. Gene Robinson, an openly gay man elected bishop of New Hampshire in 2003.
So it seems it the split is about women and gays. How refreshing.
Mason Conservative reported on the issue earlier this month. In the comments is one from NLS, in which he says that Truro is the church of Chap Petersen. The WashPo article says that “more than 90 percent of eligible voters resolved to sever ties” with the US church.
Was Chap in the”more than 90%” crowd? If so, why? If not, why not? Will this be an issue in the upcoming campaign?
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
You mean holding to the clear meaning of the Bible?
Actually, according to the Washington Post article, to which Vivian’s original post was linked, the dissident Episcopal churches who voted to leave do not believe that gays should be jailed. Below is the money quote:
So, even if you disagree completely with their decision or their theology or their interpretation of scripture, please at least get what they stand for correct.
Sorry, I’m just a didactic fuss budget but when I see something plainly in the newspaper article, it irritates me to see folks raising issues and making claims that have already been answered. Repeat: they don’t agree with Bishop Akinola that gays should be jailed. It’s a non-issue.
So should Chap’s membership in a church that he grew up in and that he has generational family ties to.
I do care about his positions on civil unions, women’s reproductive rights, and laws to fight all discrimination. I also care about whether he supports a raise in the minimum wage, a living wage law, and if he has ideas on transportation, education, and a host of other issues that face Virginians and affect our quality of life.
And you know what, when I see Chap, I’ll ask him about those things. And frankly I could care less what church he goes to.
I’m with Vivian on this. Chap has chosen to make his faith a part of his public, political personna. He can’t back away now and say that the public doesn’t have a right to know his views on women’s leadership in the church and the acceptance of gays and lesbians as congregants and church leaders.
To see what I mean about Chap making his faith an issue, read this example of Chap’s post election commentary about his faith, http://blog.oxroadsouth.com/2006/05/19/da-vinci-code.aspx . In this post, he describes himself as a persecuted minority because he is a Christian.
During the 2005 campaign, Chap used his faith frequently as a part of his political pitch. Once a candidate makes his faith an issue, selling it as a positive aspect of his candidacy, it is no longer a “private” matter.
Chap’s letter to Vivian on the blog clearly implies that Chap intends to remain in the church that has made its stand in favor of exclusion clear. No one is objecting to his membership in Truro Church. He can choose to worship anywhere he wants. The question being raised is whether he supports the exlusionary policies of the Church in question and whether conclusions should be drawn from his membership about his public political positions.
Accordingly, unless Chap wants us to assume that, because he is staying in Truro, he supports the exclusion of women and gays from church leadership and in the case of gays and lesbians full membership in the church, he should say otherwise. We do not have a right to tell him what to believe or where to worship, but we do have a right to know how his faith will guide his public policy decisions.
I see this as no different really than taking folks to task who choose to remain in private clubs that discriminate against women and minorities. The decision to join the club and remain despite a discriminatory membership policy is private. Each person clearly has a right to freedom of association. But, a candidate running for public office does not have a right to be free of criticism for his private choices … even those that involve his faith. Kerry and Kaine both had to answer questions about their views on abortion and the death penalty in light of the fact that they are Catholics. The fact that Kilgore took the issue too far is not reason to say that the public didn’t have a right to ask Tim how his faith would affect his ability to carry out the law.
Now, let’s review the record of Chap’s past actions on issues related to GLBT Virginians. NLS, to say that Chap came out against Amendment #1 is a bit of an overstatement. He allowed you to print on your blog that he thought the amendment to be “gratuitous.”
Unlike Steve Shannon, Creigh Deeds, Dwight Jones, Frank Hall and Katherine Waddell who all made public statements and/or wrote about their changes of heart over their own signatures when they switched their positions, Chap’s supposed conversion appeared grudging and half-hearted … apparently teased out of him by you and others concerned about his anti-gay record in the legislature and its impact on the Senate campaign.
As to why the amendment might be said to be “gratuitous,” could it be that Chap’s support for HB 751, and his and Steve Shannon’s votes to pass the bill notwithstanding the Governor’s veto, thereby ensuring its passage, are what rendered the amendment unnecessary overkill?
Chap consistently supported the Virginia marriage amendment as a legislator in 2005 and voted in 2004 for a resolution to ask Congress to pass a federal marriage amendment. He also voted for a bill to recriminalize sodomy in 2004. His last minute statement about the gratuitousness of the amendment through you offered no explanation for his change of heart.
Did Chap support HB 751 and the marriage amendment because of his faith? If not, what was his rationale for supporting this legislation and his rationale for deciding that the amendment he previously supported was gratuitous? Does he think that HB 751 is good public policy? If not, why not?
I listened to Chap (and Senator Puckett) argue in several debates in 2005 that the reason to nominate him as the Democratic candidate for Lt. Governor was that Republicans would have little to criticize him for since his positions were closely aligned to theirs. Has Chap changed his views or learned a political lesson from his defeat?
Time and the rigors of the campaign will tell.
P.S. NLS, your defense of Chap comes across as more than a bit defensive. Your candidate would be better served by an authentic statement of his position and the reasons for it than the defensive and ineffective effort to make those asking about the issue “wrong.” He’s not an incumbent and a Rose Garden strategy here won’t help him … especially when his own announcement speech made the personal life of his opponent an issue and came across as a sexist condemnation of a woman professional continuing her career after marrying someone in the same business.
Just one woman’s view.
Ms. Gastanaga: You’ve clearly stated facts that I wasn’t aware of about Mr. Petersen’s public votes and positions. Although I don’t live in his district, if his positions remain the same (and he doesn’t become the convenient flip-flopper), I’ll keep my wallet close to my chest. Thanks for stating what others might know but was news to me.
Chap’s post election commentary about his faith on his blog is gone. Did he really say he was a persecuted minority because he is a Christian?
Actually, it was just a bad link – remove the period, and you’ll get it. He actually used “I’m a member of a notorious, widely-ridiculed religious cult”. Which, as much as I wish it were true, is a load of bunk. Yes, it’s so hard to be a white male Christian in a country run by and for white male Christians. Ridiculous.
I put a space in there. The link should work now.
I have followed the evolution of the “traditional Anglican” movement in the Episcopal church for many years. (It’s called different things, but it’s what the Truro Church is a part of.) I am a lifelong Episcopalian. There can be no question in my view that Mr. Peterson’s membership in the Truro Church, or at least his continued membership in that church, indicates that he is alligned with those who believe that some sort of literal interpretation of scripture prohits gays from serving in leadership positions in the church. This says a couple of things. One, that he is alligned with those who believe that the bible can be read and interpreted literally (instead of being a roadmap which persons can interpret differently depended upon one’s perspective), which was the basic premise of those promoting the Marriage Amendment…. The idea that someone believes this scares me as it can be used as a basis for doing all kinds of bad things including but not limited to the Marriage Amendment. Secondly, if he thinks gays aren’t worthy to serve in church leadership positions (which he must by staying there) even if they feel God has called them to serve and they have been duly elected by the representatives of their own Diocese it bodes ill, in my view, for how he will see civil rights in general and gay rights in particular. People who haven’t lived through this whole dispute, who perhaps just first read about it when the Truro story broke might not understand this. But I for one would never, ever, ever support anyone who alligned himself with a church in this so called movement. It is part of the Christian Right in my view and not something I can relate to. I know people are saying that a Democrat, any Democrat is better than the alternative, but I don’t consider someone who thinks in the way of that movement as someone I personally could consider a real Democrat, no matter which party he’s alligned himself with to get elected.
Very interesting post, aprilacain. And I agree with you that “any Democrat is better than the alternative” is not a good policy. I too find Mr. Petersen’s association with this church troublesome and scary. Are other blogs talking about this or, in your opinion, is it the “elephant in the room” that no one wants to notice?