If Christians are alienated from each other, culturally, sociologically and psychologically, how high a formal fence should they erect between themselves? Enough, surely to give reflective space to both and a chance to relate their partial interests in the whole gospel picture whilst they live in tension and await, in joyful hope, a new heaven and a new earth. But temporary fencing, as low and light as possible, has to offer the best way forward if it’s relationships that count.
You know — you read stuff like this and you just realize how far far away the various groups are within the Communion.
I posted a comment over there — may not get put up so I’ll post it here:
***
[blockquote]RE: “The wall is too high if it prevents interchange, and dangerous if it resorts to cantonment . . . ”
Right — but since increasing chunks of the Global South are [rightly I think] erecting that wall anyway on their own, it looks to me as if the Covenant proponents [and I’m one of the conservatives who doesn’t think the current text is any good or helpful so I speak as an outsider in a sense] are stating that the Covenant is better than what is now happening — which is the Global South erecting the wall and the chasms within the Communion growing deeper and broader.
It sounds as if you’re saying “who cares — let them go” but then if you do that, you can’t really say “and further, the [Covenant] wall is too high.” Well, you can — but by comparison with the growing Communion divide, it’s a touch sell.
Believe you me — the Covenant wall is not as high as what good chunks of the Global South is building!
Of course, my comment above about walls doesn’t really address the real issue which is the *question-begging* question that you asked in the body of the post: “If Christians are alienated from each other, culturally, sociologically and psychologically, how high a formal fence should they erect between themselves?”
As I suspect is obvious by now, those on the other side of the wall don’t grant that the current leaders of TEC [of which I am a member] believe or preach the Gospel.
So the question has to be rephrased for people like me, and for the many many thousands of others like me in TEC, and of course for the leaders of many of the provinces of the Global South: “”If Christians are in an organizational entity which is led by people who do not believe the Gospel, how should they relate properly? And further, if Christians elsewhere are in a larger organizational entity, which involves leaders who do not believe the Gospel and in fact believe something opposing the Gospel, what can be done?”
Obviously, parts of the Global South — increasing parts, too — have decided what can be done.
I personally don’t believe that the Covenant — in its current form — will help with any of this. Some of us — not you, obviously, but a bunch of us — have recognized that the leaders of TEC don’t believe or preach the Gospel but in fact believe and preach another gospel entirely.
Operating from that stance, one has to come to some basic decisions as to what to do. And they’re obviously not going to be the sorts of decisions that you come to, since you don’t believe that the current leaders of TEC believe and preach another gospel.
But give the Covenant-proponents some credit — they’re trying to stave off a larger break and a higher wall. My guess is that you — like KJS and others — would say “who cares, that’s their choice and nothing we can do about it.” But the Covenant proponents are saying “let’s try the Covenant.”
That’s my take on it, from the perspective of someone who does not share your basic views about the makeup of the TEC leaders or the revisionist activists here in TEC. Just an outside perspective, so to speak.
Sarah[/blockquote]
Good points, Sarah, but you noticed in the Bishop’s response to your first comment that in Bishop Alan World, the Africans are told what to say by conservative Americans.
I see he has come back from your first posting to say not all American conservatives are wicked (generous of him). However (and I write from the UK) I have heard other bishops say much the same thing. Their view is that the Global South is easily led (bribed?) by ambitious and wealthy Americans, exporting, as the Bishop put it, their culture wars elsewhere.
It seems to help some British people to blame Americans for all the problems of the world. And note that the Bishop writes for the Guardian, which generally looks down its nose at Americans, especially conservative Christian ones.
What I find really puzzling with people like this is their condescending attitude to Africans especially. They seem to regard Africans as children, incapable of forming their own ideas without European or American help. Oh, except for Desmond Tutu, who has the correct liberal attitudes, so must be the exception which proves the rule.
The British liberal Anglican worldview is a study in itself. But probably not a very rewarding one.
The entire British Anglican worldview is a study.