The Episcopal Church is in a Level Five conflict. It’s not getting better, it’s getting worse. We continue on this trajectory and the entire communion is affected. The best thing would be for The Episcopal Church to withdraw for a time certain, work through their theological issues, and then come back. Perhaps in that time, the rest of the communion will have worked through and discovered that yes, God is Doing A New Thing and glory hallelujah. Or not. Then The Episcopal Church can decide whether it belongs in the Anglican Communion.
Hmmm, don’t know what I think of labeling the trouble in the Episcopal Church/Anglican Communion as a Level 5 conflict. I do hope it hasn’t come to that.
I think she has it right. BUT, thing is about level five conflicts, one party usually won’t quite until they’ve destroyed the “other” side.
Exactly, #2. All those lawsuits and restrictive property sale conditions are all making sense now, no?
I agree with BB’s assessment – Level 5 for sure. I call this “Total Annihilation Mode” – Do y’all think both sides are at Level 5? It seems as if the majority is there, but I wonder if the minority is too?
It’s important from the perspective of those outside the US to see the way folk gravitate to the addendum re the level of conflict, as opposed to the actual contents of the ACI post which are extremely thorough and very well integrated in their analysis of the recent Anglican history.
What does that say about both the so-called majority and the minority in the US? And what lessons are there for other parts of the AC? With no doubt importantly different lessons for different parts too. That basically it has become sheer conflict??
Dated.
In her article Baby Blue says:
“Instead of taking on the content of the paper, this is what happens. Individuals are attacked personally and called vicious names. This pattern is what made so many of us wary during [b]the recent Smile Offensive[/b] at General Convention. Those With Whom We Disagree were far too nice. It was all joy and Happy Feet. There is no way one can spit out this type of language and then go around telling people how wonderful they are and oh, by the way, “here’s my business card, let’s do lunch.” It was so Umbridgean and disingenuous and Jim’s frustrated rhetoric provides us insight into the reality on the ground.”
The “Reality on the ground” which the deputies of the Diocese of Albany and the other faithful dioceses experienced was desperately grim — and I know because I am one of the experiencers.
We were as thoroughly ostracized as ever. Our assigned hotel, as always, was the one furthest away from the conference building. We were NOT invited to lunch by anybody. Almost none of the other deputies bothered to try to greet or get to know us. People rolled their eyes and or sighed or even laughed when we came up to microphones — which were cut off as soon as possible and always before our questions were answered.
Personally, the only time [i]my[/i] feet were happy was when I took off my sandals, clapped the dust off them over my head and walked out. Why did I do that? Because the whole Hods had just voted enthusiastically and unanimously — minus Albany and the other 4 “hold-out dioceses” — to remove the words “Blessed Virgin” from Mary in the liturgy. We can’t have Her being blessed or a virgin, now can we? This was done in the face of the fact that the HoBs the previous day had restored the words “Blessed Virgin” to the text. They were removed by the Committee on Liturgy and Music after the bishops’ vote and then they lied about doing so. This is a true description of what happened, and we had proof.
The only reason that Bonnie Anderson crowed about “how nice we all were to one another” is because, although we DID get up and tell the truth and make our points, there were too few of us there even to bother with. We were simply ignored.
But do NOT say that it was all nicey-nice because it was a miserable ordeal start to finish.
Most people just started referring to us and the other dioceses as
[b]The Losers[/b] and The Losers don’t do lunch.
#7, Thanks for sharing what actually happened. Of course, the party line of GC09 is everything was wonderful. And many bishops say nothing has changed! In light of the resolutions past, I wonder what GC they attended….in any case, BB talking about the level of conflict in the EC is simply describing the situation…
But she does address the ACI piece…acting like she does not is not a reasonable analysis of her piece.
In any case, the ACI continue to produce excellent pieces…but they put so much faith in the Instruments of Communion and the ABC and I just don’t see why?
Thus, far, anytime something of substance has been encouraged, it has been undermined by the ABC or some other group in the process and that includes the EC. Accepting the EC at their word in that they mean what they say is delusional. Time to realize they will say and do anything to remain at the table.
As far as level five conflict, I must say it is the leadership of the EC that is employing a scorched earth policy. Those who have concluded (right or wrong) the probability of reform or change or even slowing down this new thing, have chosen to leave. In other words, they see continuing the conflict at this level is counter productive. Yet, the EC continues the war in the media and spinning their web trying to convince as many as possible that they are doing God’s work and those who oppose them are bigots and evil.
In a debate, it is a common tactic when one is losing the debate argument to turn the attack personal and take it off the issue being debated. BB is pointing this out…it is a good point and deserves consideration.
I am quite certain that the Episcopal Church has [i]already decided[/i] that they belong in the Communion, but [i]only on their terms.[/i] If they can’t continue in the Communion on these terms, [i]they will leave[/i], and as a matter of fact, I think they’ve already made contingency plans to do just that.
LumenChristie- finally the truth…thank you
#9 – Agree. Although TEC will continue to persue its “conversation”. The +ABC gave a glimmer when he said in his [url=http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/2502]Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future[/url]:
[blockquote]7. In the light of the way in which the Church has consistently read the Bible for the last two thousand years, it is clear that [b]a positive answer to this question would have to be based on the most painstaking biblical exegesis and on a wide acceptance of the results within the Communion[/b], with due account taken of the teachings of ecumenical partners also. [b]A major change naturally needs a strong level of consensus and solid theological grounding.[/b][/blockquote]
Delay, stall, conversation, delay, stall and more conversation are the order of the day that has worked successfully in the past. The bishops behind the meeting with the +ABC need to get their feet on the ground and lead a new orthodox revival with or without the +ABC’s blessing. This could be done while “in” TEC until the powers that be decide to depose them, if they don’t do that before.
#7 – thanks for sharing your experiences.