So why does this matter to those of us who aren’t involved with Anglicanism/Christianity? Because the driving force behind this split–the ordination of gay bishops–highlights the continuing moral struggle among the faithful as they attempt to reconcile modern secular morality with the antiquated dictates and prohibitions of their holy book.

As a product of various [largely] Jewish communities at different points in history, the Bible represents moral perspectives that were accepted in the times in which they were composed, but are reprehensible by modern egalitarian standards. Jews and Christians have had to let go of these ancient moral systems by degrees, slowly conceding that stoning homosexuals isn’t right, then that they should be allowed to live but not “act out,” then that they can live and do what they please in society but not receive recognition, then that they can hold ecclesial office–oh, wait, we’re not quite there yet. I hope that within my lifetime we’ll be at the point where no one is limited (legally or socially) because of their sexual preference, but we’re not there yet.

Obviously, nothing is wrong with homosexuality. But the fact that part of the Episcopal church in the US wants to cling to the bigoted and prejudiced parts of their holy book illustrates just how poor of a source the old religious books are for developing a moral system. As Matt Dillahunty has said several times on his TV show, western religion has been dragged kicking and screaming into a decent, secular moral framework; there’s nothing about Christianity or the Bible that makes it any more benevolent of a basis for law or morality than the teachings of the Qur’an, which are implemented through what most westerners recognize as the immoral framework of Sharia law. The current internal battle in the Episcopal church is evidence of this moral tension.

So what about the other side? What about the moderate, liberal Christians in the Episcopal church who are taking a stand for equality and being accused of dishonoring the Bible by those who are splitting away? Well, I support them in the sense that they are more reasonable, moral people. But I don’t think they’re being true to their name or their book. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful force. I remember that as a Christian, when I met my first Mulsim friend, my first gay friend, or my first agnostic friend, it became increasingly hard to spend time with those people and hold firmly to my belief that they were going to hell unless they started thinking my way. Something’s got to give and, in the case of the liberal Episcopal branch, it’s the Bible that gives. Good for them.

In some ways, I think resolving cognitive dissonance is the opposite of pareidolia–and liberal Christians are pretty good at both. Instead of forming connections that aren’t there, cognitive dissonance abolishes contradictions that are.

I’ll close with one of the best quotes from the Post-Gazette article: “‘Is it possible that the Holy Spirit could be fragmenting the Episcopal Church into all these shards?’ [Murph] asked.” Hell yeah. It’s what he does best. At this point, it’s up to people to demonstrate that they are more loving, accepting, and moral than God.