The Archbishop of Canterbury today tried to paper over the cracks as he acknowledged the Anglican church is in schism in all but name.
Dr Rowan Williams called for a “two-track” communion where the church is divided on the issue of homosexuality.
He asked the arrangement be seen not in “apocalyptic terms of schism and excommunication” but rather as “two styles of being Anglican”. Faith bloggers have labelled the opposing factions the “Anglicans” and “Anglican’ts”.
In his response to the decisions earlier this month by The Episcopal Church of the US to go ahead with gay consecrations and same-sex blessings, Dr Williams refuses to accept what many believe to be the reality of schism.
“paper” is an apt choice of word. it rips easily.
Perhaps it is time to drop the lawsuits in the USA and let diocese and parishes decide which tract of Anglicanism they desire?
http://www.churchoftheword.net
No. 2: That’s actually a very good idea. I suspect that, in the history of American religion, there are many parallels to what you suggest (in other denominations).
The lawsuits, of which there appears to be no end, are a rough way to go.
I can not imagine that TEC will step away from lawsuits. They have never paid any attention to the larger church, why would they now.
Ruth gets it! She understands the way +++W speaks/ writes and the meanings inherent in understatement. She also gets the point of what TEC has done at GC09. Sadly the leadership of TEC who are so caught up in their own double speak will try and spin this so that it will be taken to mean the opposite of what Williams actually said. Williams is far more nuanced than anyone in leadership in TEC who uses the word nuance with such profligate and gay abandon. Welcome TEC to the lower tier of the Anglican world. +++RW has to my mind written that US money cannot buy righteousness not the Holy Spirit. The Communion has seen thru the smoke and mirrors of GC09 and Mrs. Schori and her crew of abettors. I just wish +++RW would write with the clarity of Ruth!
[blockquote] The Archbishop, who is primus inter pares or first among equals of the 39 primates of the Anglican Communion, stated that, whatever the secular world’s view of justice and equality, the Church’s Bible-based teaching against homosexuality cannot be overturned overnight or without in-depth theological study. He argued this was the case even though discrimination against gays is “sinful†and “disgracefulâ€. [/blockquote]
This is exactly why RW’s statements are useless. He invites the press to equate Christian repudiation of “gay marriage” with discrimination in an effort to appear evenhanded. As if one side is in favor of discrimination and the right theological argument will somehow materialize out of thin air to show them the light. He bemoans that liberals have not done their homework when it’s clear to everyone the grades are already in. People are not undecided on this matter and they do not feel they are being discriminatory.
So, what else is new…Typical Rowan….
Ruth Gledhill points out that practicing homosexuals are equivalent to cohabitating heterosexuals – both are having sexual relations outside of Christian marriage. The exact quote is this:
[blockquote] And if this is the case, a person living in such a union is in the same case as a heterosexual person living in a sexual relationship outside the marriage bond; whatever the human respect and pastoral sensitivity such persons must be given, their chosen lifestyle is not one that the Church’s teaching sanctions, and thus it is hard to see how they can act in the necessarily representative role that the ordained ministry, especially the episcopate, requires.[/blockquote]
There is, as expected, much wailing about this quote over at Thinking Anglicans especially “Mother” Karen CWOB MacQueen (who infamously apologized to Hindus for trying to proselytizing them – [url=http://www… ]”There are enough Christians in the world.”[/url])
TEC is already spinning as fast as it can. From the EL article on Williams’ statement (in reference to the Covenant):
“Finally, Williams upholds the proposed Anglican covenant as a way for the communion to maintain unity amid different viewpoints on human sexuality issues and theological interpretations.” (Note that is a direct quote- cut and paste. Maybe the small “c” was a typo, maybe not)
That is to say, they are spinning Williams as inviting TEC to sign on so that TEC can continue its new wave sexual theology WHILE forcing the other provinces to remain in communion with TEC, or lose their track one status. Which may be exactly what ++Rowan intends to do.
For my own part, KJS has declared me (and 60 million other Anglicans) a heretic, most of the bishops I respect have been deposed, and the CP bishops have been thrown under a bus twice now by the ABoC- first when he torpedoed the Covenant at ACC, and now when he leaves whether they can sign on up to TEC in this latest statement- and he “hopes” KJS will allow them to should TEC not sign. He might have addressed those issues.
Given the quote above, it appears KJS has every intention of signing, so as to be able to better foist her personal theology on the rest of the Communion. So maybe the CP bishops have “nothing” to worry about.
Admittedly the +++ABC has an extremely poor track record. However, I think for an institutitional liberal he made some very strong statements about how certain lifestyles are disqualifying for leadership positions in the Church. I am sure he will lose personal friends over his statements (but he gets the big bucks and the Palace).
I see him as 1) having drawn lines in the sand; 2) articulated sound orthodox principles albeit with caveats; 3) laid out a framework for a series of compromises that could one day mean that traditionalists/orthodox/and institutional liberal Anglicans in the communion are able to funtion. I read it to look bad for hard core revisionists – if +++Williams turns on them they are in for tough sledding.
Canada excepted – although the +++ABC needs TEC money – most of the GS Provinces are Commonwealth Churches – the COE used to be the Tory party at prayer – they still see the Commonwealth as important – he may be under increasing pressure to margnalize (but not banish) those troublesome overbearing Yanks.
I think it’s very interesting that Ruth Gledhill wrote quite positively about +Wright’s fierce criticism of Gen Con, while here she’s being implicitly critical of ++RW’s “attempt” to “paper over” the schism. As Fr. Darin noted above, she shows that she gets it, and that she’s not taken in by the manifestly false spin being put on D025 and C056 by the treacherous PB and her revisionist ilk in TEC.
After all, trying to paper over the gap between TEC (or the ACoC) and the Global South is like trying to paper over the Grand Canyon. Therefore ++RW’s plan for a two-tiered Anglicanism is doomed from the start. It’s like trying to build a bridge across the ocean.
Bottom line: As the Master said, [i]”A house divided against itself cannot stand.”[/i] Oil and water just don’t mix. And they certainly aren’t merely “two styles” of liquid.
The whole premise of the ABoC’s plan is completely wrong, founded on the fond illusion he keeps pedalling that the two rival gospels in Anglicanism today can ever be anything but bitter enemies and mutually exclusive. TEC in fact [b]should[/b] be banished to the outer darkness, where they can suitably be left to weep and gnash their teeth in anger. Along with their fellow theological relativists and moral antinomians in all the English-speaking provinces. It’s time to clean house and throw the liberal persons out.
And I mean that literally.
David Handy+
[Slightly edited by Elf]