The major fudge of the piece concerned the desire of the Bishops to remain in Communion relationships. While I think they are right to hope that TEC might be able to maintain some important partnerships outside the Communion structure, +Rowan and Rowan's ecclesiology pretty much will not like these resolutions. He will not sacrifice the unity of the Church of England, nor the more centralized ecclesiastical structure he is letting others build about his ears. Formally, it may take some time, but a General Convention fairly near to us will have to consider whether it's truthful to say TEC is a constituent member of the Anglican Communion, because, as the Bishops tell us, General Convention has discretion over what that means.
One really hopes the Presiding Bishop did not make any extravagant promises about her influence, because if she did, she made them in vain. It appears that a coalition formed in the House between the angry moderates and the angrier liberals. Expect a minority report fairly soon. I am sure that many of the so-called "Camp Allen Bishops" do not want to be associated with this document. Collegiality be darned! The irony of this meeting is that it was held at Camp Allen. I guess there's nothing in the air or water that swings one to the right there.
But the Primates do not receive the harshest rebuke. Instead, this appears reserved for the proponents of schismatic relativity. These are the folks on the right who claim that they didn't land on Plymouth Rock, Plymouth Rock landed on them. Well, no. But if you substitute TEC for Plymouth Rock and "split from" for "land on," you get the general idea. Examine the heart of the entire Statement,
"Most important of all [the Primatial Vicar scheme] is spiritually unsound. The pastoral scheme encourages one of the worst tendencies of our Western culture, which is to break relationships when we find them difficult instead of doing the hard work necessary to repair them and be instruments of reconciliation. The real cultural phenomenon that threatens the spiritual life of our people, including marriage and family life, is the ease with which we choose to break our relationships and the vows that established them rather than seek the transformative power of the Gospel in them. We cannot accept what would be injurious to this Church and could well lead to its permanent division."
In other words, the ACN/CANA etc. hath said unto us that we have married ourselves to the godlessness of Western culture, which shall destroy the patriarchal family ordained by Almighty God, but we say unto them that they are no less guilty and even guiltier than we are, for they bring the same dysfunction to the Church, which they claim we shall bring unto the family. In combination with the dig at border crossing, this is a direct and crushing rebuke. Moreover, the House even further marginalizes them by claiming their numbers are small.
I did not need to go to David Virtue or Kendall Harmon or StandFirm to get an idea of the response of the conservative reasserters (that's not redundant either). I just can read my favorite deacon, Texanglican, "I have difficulty imagining a scenario now that includes the possibility of the orthodox remaining within the Episcopal church a year from now."
And I am fairly sure the Bishops know this. I am fairly sure Bishops of much different opinions were there as well. The Bishops were warned, but they felt that:
"It is incumbent upon us as disciples to do our best to follow Jesus in the increasing experience of the leading of the Holy Spirit. We fully understand that others in the Communion believe the same, but we do not believe that Jesus leads us to break our relationships. We proclaim the Gospel of what God has done and is doing in Christ, of the dignity of every human being, and of justice, compassion, and peace. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ there is no Jew or Greek, no male or female, no slave or free. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God's children, including women, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ's Church. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God's children, including gay and lesbian persons, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ's Church. We proclaim the Gospel that stands against any violence, including violence done to women and children as well as those who are persecuted because of their differences, often in the name of God. The Dar es Salaam Communiqué is distressingly silent on this subject. And, contrary to the way the Anglican Communion Network and the American Anglican Council have represented us, we proclaim a Gospel that welcomes diversity of thought and encourages free and open theological debate as a way of seeking God's truth. If that means that others reject us and communion with us, as some have already done, we must with great regret and sorrow accept their decision."
Sounds great, doesn't it? Well, read a little more carefully. On one hand, there seems to be a subtle dig at +PJA about the obscene legislation he endorses. On the other hand, they talk about violence against women and children? Where? Zimbabwe? From what I can tell, the Primates are not as a whole likely to be in favor of violence against women and children. The Bishops really should have targeted their critiques at particular Primates. How dare they sit in judgment against us for our splinters, while they walk around with entire forests? But without specifics, it's fairly weak.
What the Bishops have done here is to call us and the Communion to a stability in controversy, to theology in tension. This is possible. But it requires a very difficult compromise from us all. On one hand, we need to give the conservative reasserters a place to stand. We stack the debate when we do not allow them places to cultivate virtue as they see fit in the same way they stack the debate by not allowing those who disagree with them a place to stand. I really do not think it is possible for the Diocese of San Joaquin and the Diocese of California to live together if they insist on remaking one another in their own image. At the same time, I sympathize with the discontents in both Dioceses.
The hard solution I would pose is to encourage both sides to return to compliance with law but allow some tolerance for scandal. I see Father Haller's house blessings or Christopher's wilderness rites as the proper orientation of liberal dioceses to the blessing issue. The liberals are not on the ball theologically, though the liberal reasserters might be getting there. There will be no more gay bishops for the time being, because a bishop belongs to the whole church. As the Candidate says, bishops should not be a focus for division, but that principle should apply to bishops generally. In conservative dioceses, there will be no openly/actively/whatevery clergy. Many will not like this. But reception of the Eucharist by those in exclusive, permanent, and faithful relationships will be a matter of conscience for the communicant etc. This will be an improvement in some places. Certain dioceses will not like this, but they are those dioceses likely to leave anyway. Individual parishes also will be given space, provided they are willing to let their bishop visit and contribute to the Diocese in time and talent. Where the bishop is, there is the catholic church.
What must stop is our constant threats to leave one another, our contempt for the order of Common Prayer, and the disrespect so many of us show for the kergyma contained in the Creeds. The kerygmal heresy and anomie (!) I constantly hear is becoming tiresome. Bls calls me the future of the church. Well, I'm only one man. If we change the basic truths we teach every decade or vacuously exposit the heart of our liturgy, few in my generation or the next will be there to keep me company. If all religions are equally favored by God, God reserves no punishment for those who disdain Him and hurt and destroy his creatures, and Jesus Christ does not save us from our sins, as a certain Verulam in these parts asserts, he will appear laughable as he condemns "illegal wars" or even genocide. Already I read people who say of religion that it was useful to organize societies in the past but those times have passed. If we continue to make fatuous truth claims (as Christians of many theological stripes do), people will prefer to play World of Warcraft . (Yes, I know Fr. AKMA plays World of Warcraft , it's just an example of the many endeavors that could absorb one besides Christian practice.) The level of our faith diagnoses very well the faith we have in one another. What we should do is pray, think, work, and talk, not with a view to gather the pedarii of General Convention or whatever other body to our side but with a view to explain ourselves to those we gather to Christ. Newcomers should come to us and hear, "Yes, we're having a bit of a fight with one another. And these matters are important. But what is more important is that Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, was revealed among us in flesh, taught us how to live, and saved us from our sins on the Cross. And on that Cross, none of his bones were broken. This was to remind us that we should not want to break them, that there are very few disagreements that should break the family of God apart.
The Button
I received my button in the mail today. It looks great. I will be wearing my button a little early in order to encourage interest.
No comments:
Post a Comment