(Please note that the post of Mark Harris to which this responds may be found here).
So what if your main point is, as we believe, wrong? What if the move forward (C056 and D025) has been undertaken regardless of the threat to Communion and its unity, out of a sense of justice and rights? What if proponents of the new sexual ethic truly want to be a church on its own and fully reject the logic of a Covenant or Windsor? Interdependence in a Communion, as is intimated by 3.2.5, is precisely what is being rejected in favor of autonomy and a federal association. The nominations in LA and MN make that abundantly clear. So again, we hold that your main point is wrong and that TEC is moving clearly and resolutely in the opposite direction of the approved covenant text.
It is because of this that ACI speaks of provisional rejection. What we do not understand is why supposedly liberal Christians wish to hold hostage to their way of thinking those who prefer interdependence in Communion. On logical terms, why must all be bound to go the way of autonomy and a national denomination? Why do you not see that some truly wish to belong to a catholic church and an Anglican Communion via a covenant, instead of being lumped with those whose understanding and hopes are very different? Moreover, most of us believe that in so doing we are upholding the constitution of this church. No one is contesting that your way of being an Episcopalian is winning out in General Convention voting. What we do not understand is why you don’t declare that this entails an autonomous church, and a way of being Anglican the proposed covenant does not embrace, and then let those who wish to embrace this do so? Surely that is congruent with a liberal position and mindset.
What remains terribly confused for those wishing to embrace a covenant of interdependence is your insistence on saying nothing has changed, that there has been no rejection, that we are studying the covenant, etc., but insisting at the same time that the American Episcopal way is a way of autonomy and independent action. If this be so, why not declare it and concede that those who wish to be Episcopalians in Communion ought to do so?
The second paragraph you’ve quoted here, Kendall, gets to what has always been one of the key points for me. ECUSA’s stance is not one, as it would have it, of simply trying to protect its property and, if that is achieved, dissidents may go worship as they please, with ECUSA’s blessings. Rather, there are many who want to be part of the Anglican Communion, on its terms, and are happy to forgo their own preferences unless and until the Communion, through its structures and processes, changes its stance – but ECUSA is blocking these people from doing so. And, it seems to me, it’s doing so out of spite. This is the consequence of ECUSA regarding itself as the sole “franchise” of the Anglican Communion on these shores. It’s always been clear that one of the no-brainer answers to the Communion’s problems would be to permit a parallel province (that is, it would have been a no-brainer possibly from 2003 to 2006 – there may be too much bad blood to pull it off now).
As I said, this is pure spite on the part of ECUSA, which wants “official” Anglicanism in America to be conducted on its own terms, or else, apparently, it’s willing to burn the whole thing down. That is not the Christian thing, or pastoral thing, or even the decent thing to do. More than the vengeful, personally-targeted lawsuits, this policy has told me volumes about the character of Episcopalian leaders.
Phil (#1),
I’m not sure TEC’s leaders (like Harris+) are acting mostly out of “spite.” There is probably an element of that sort of vengefulness at work, but I think it’s more a matter of trying to compel acquiescence with the “prophetic” agenda TEC has embraced. That is, it’s mostly about intimidation and control. There may be some nobler motives mixed in too, but fundamentally it’s all about control. I really think that for our foes, the end is truly seen to justify whatever means are necessary to achieve it. You know, [i]”all’s fair in love and war,”[/i] and maybe especially in a church war to secure the advance of “justice.”
Either way, it’s ugly and deplorable.
I’m glad the ACI team has called Mark Harris+ on his incoherent position. As a leading member of the Executive Council of TEC, he’s an important figure. I actually found Harris’ post quite refreshingly candid, in comparison with other TEC leaders who weren’t so straightforward (like the widely respected Dean of the Atlanta Cathedral, Sam Candler+, and many bishops who voted FOR D025 and C056 and yet deny the schismatic effect of those resolutions). But someone needs to cry out that the Emperor has no clothes, and the noble ACI scholars have done just that, with impeccable logic and great credibility, as always
David Handy+
I don’t think it’s hard to understand at all, if you recognize where the TEO folks are coming from. Just look at what the other social progressives are doing on the socialized medicine scene. Report “fishy” stuff directly to the White House, yet! They are so sure that the ones of us who do not agree with them are too unitelligent to matter that they can’t believe we don’t just knuckle under to them. And they are cut from the same cloth, inside and outside TEO.
desert padre
This is the same hadn-wringing that we have seen from the ACI this year. No one is preventing a Diocese or parish from signing the proposed Covenant. The only question is what effect that will have. As it looks now, signatories would be at the Provincial level. ACI-CP are free to make any affirmations they want, however, their effect may be nil when all this is over with. So gather whomever you will and issue further documents like the Anaheim Statement, but it should be realized that these efforts may not be enough. Time will tell.
This “debate” between Executive Council member Mark Harris and the ACI is hilarious. Mark posts something, using the standard “arguments” and rhetoric and propaganda spouted by various national church leaders, including PB Jefferts Schori and House of Deputies President Anderson, and the ACI utterly shreds it. Then Mark posts a response, and the ACI shreds it again.
Yes, Fr. Handy #2, I think you’re getting closer to the truth of the matter. Either way it shows there is no “inclusive” spirit at all – at least not if the issue truly involves a matter of conscience.
The reason is that the liberal activists are not content to let dioceses or parishes make their own choices. Their agenda is to have “the church” appear to approve of and accept their position. To allow for choice within TEC, then, would be to allow the clear demonstration that many in TEC do NOT support the liberal agenda. And that is simply not acceptable to the liberal activists.
In light of the EC’s leadership actions, it is hard not to see their actions as spiteful.
In all the talk (and that is what it is, talk) about being inclusive and diverse, what did GC09 do to make a place for reasserters, traditionalists, etc? They did nothing….but walk them to the door and say there is future here with us.