An ecclesiology worth its Anglican salt must be capable of describing and dealing with this level of complexity (if not more) in terms of participation and comprehension before offering solutions to our present strains on communion. Otherwise, in my opinion, the solutions are likely to truncate not only within the Communion as a whole, but within parishes, dioceses, Churches/Provinces, and across varieties. 1662 cannot be posited as foundational without the au contraire of Scotland, for example. To suggest so is already the beginning of truncation.
This sort of comlexity requires that rather than responding to the insistence and anxieties of those who choose self-truncation or who would move us to ideological poles on one matter–homosexuality, we should be considering what will best keep our varieties reasonably intact and communing together by emphasizing and speaking to our overlapping interactions and sharing, especially our ethos of toleration and that which we hold in common in our Prayerbook discipline and our minimal but important theological summation in the C-L Quadrilateral. Any structures likely to arise out of this place are less likely to look Roman Catholic and any theology likely to arise out of this place is very less likely to look Genevan. Indeed, is more likely to reflect our hierarchy as distinction of gifts tendencies as Anglicans in terms of the episcopate.
I recognize our complexities present problems. Some would say my participation is beyond comprehension (illegitimate diversity) or would wish to limit my participation to the degree I live up to discipline. Hence, some dioceses, like that next door would refuse me communion in order to impose discipline. Other parishes might allow my reception while preaching I need to become celibate. Should I choose to continue going, I would bring my partner along and take my place in differing conscience. Some parishes do not call partnered gay or female priests, some (many) dioceses do not ordain them. The question is can I live with this level of comprehension? And vice versa.
For myself, the line is crossed not at the ordination level, but at the communion level when another inserts himself or herself into the equation to read into my soul as I stretch out my hands to receive.
Basically he offers a visual attempt to obscure and complexify his primary two theses — that non-celibate homosexuality is “adiaphora” [of course] and the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral [rather than the ecumenical relations for which the CLQ was designed], “tolerance,” and “Prayerbook discipline” [not even Prayerbook belief, for heavens sake, because since the prayerbooks are now all different there is no shared belief] really define Anglicanism.
The fanciful and wonderful result?
[blockquote]”This sort of comlexity requires that rather than responding to the insistence and anxieties of those who choose self-truncation or who would move us to ideological poles on one matter–homosexuality, we should be considering what will best keep our varieties reasonably intact and communing together by emphasizing and speaking to our overlapping interactions and sharing, especially our ethos of toleration and that which we hold in common in our Prayerbook discipline and our minimal but important theological summation in the C-L Quadrilateral.” [/blockquote]
Surprise! ; > )
But . . . Christopher really has discovered a Real Sin: [blockquote]”For myself, the line is crossed not at the ordination level, but at the communion level when another inserts himself or herself into the equation to read into my soul as I stretch out my hands to receive.
I can live with a priest pounding on about homosexuality (I might wear earplugs at the time of the sermon–I’ve done it before for just that reason), but refusal of communion is to decide my soul and to suggest that my variety is unacceptable not simply to him or her personally or to his or her varieties in their intersecting on this particular point, but to the Body as a whole in communion, and our comprehension already says otherwise–that’s the fact on the ground. Don’t marry me. Fine. Won’t bless me. Fine. Won’t ordain me. Fine. But refusal of communion. Not fine. Expect a stink.” [/blockquote]
Of course, denying communion to another has absolutely ZIP to do with inserting “himself or herself into the equation to read into my soul as I stretch out my hands to receive” but rather has everything to do with people or Anglican parishes or Anglican dioceses or Anglican provinces carrying out precisely what they believe which is that non-celibate homosexuality is not adiaphora but is rather an important proscription of scripture and tradition, and that engaging in such and elevating to leadership such is promotion of flagrant defiance of scriptural authority, a warping of the sacrament of marriage, and a scandalous life.
In other words . . . important stuff for which [i]his preferred definitions[/i] of Anglicanism are rather hopeful fantasies.
Sarah’s analysis of this piece is spot on. Christopher’s contribution is interesting mainly in that it reflects the sort of fuzzy thinking about Anglican theology and ecclesiology that got us into this mess in the first place. It assumes, for instance, that Anglican theology is SO flexible that it’s incapable of identifying or coping with heresy — even of the most obvious sort. The current turmoil in the global Communion is demonstrating the basic fallacy of this assumption.
His point is simple and clear. His writing is dreadful, and in a sense, its babble gives away his real point, that if one uses enough words, throws smoke and dust into the eyes, qualifies and rationalizes, the impatient reader may grant him what he really wants – the sanctioning of homosexuality at all levels – by default. This essay really isn’t worth much in the continuing debate. His diagrams are games, not serious entries into the argument. LM
Venn diagrams are wonderful tools because they help get conversation to the point quickly. There is an obvious inconsistency in the second digram. All the circles but one in the second diagram represent groups of people. The “Christ” circle is ambiguous. Christ is not a group of people and it includes “World” which includes “CHURCH CATHOLIC” which is all Christians(?).
What determines whether someone is Christian or not? And does it make sense for non-Christians to participate in communion?
It is not clear to me how the awareness of the complexity of Christian groups and beliefs makes any significant point. The essence of the argument seems to be that because there are many views we should all have communion together.
Thanks, Sarah, for getting in a ahead of me to point out that the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral was a minimum statement of which Christian bodies we could consider ecumenical efforts with, not a sufficient statement of Anglican practice and discipline.
Any article containing the barbaric phrase ‘self truncation’ should be dismissed on aesthetic grounds alone.