Before meeting the Episcopal bishop of New York I nose around the massive cathedral. On a wall, between two side chapels, is a brass plaque, inscribed in copper-plate with some august words of sacred scripture: When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands, blah blah blah, We declare these truths to be self-evident, and so on. Maybe the Declaration of Independence should be more prominently displayed, for this Church has recently got in touch with its revolutionary side. In a sense the whole crisis in the Anglican Communion originates in its awkward propensity for democracy (bishops are elected).
Mark Sisk doesn’t look like a revolutionary. He looks like an older thinner Bill Bryson: round specs, light beard and genial smile. He has no lordly airs: my pompometer stirs not. His hobby, appropriately for a follower of Jesus, is carpentry: he has built himself a house in the Catskills. He is seen as an old-fashioned liberal, a pragmatist….
It’s a weird business when political entanglements are a terrible thing on one side of the Atlantic but as cool as a wall poster of Che Guevara, on the other.
A revolutionary with a lovely little place in the Catskills. A dacha perhaps?
A cute article:
[blockquote] Has the Church been pretty united in backing Robinson, despite all the external anger? ‘Yes, not unanimous of course, but press reports of internal dissension have been far overblown. In this diocese, which admittedly is not typical, no parish has left. Overall, two or three hundred parishes have, out of seven thousand congregations.’ Losing five percent of the Church doesn’t sound too fatal, but it could get worse if the dissenters are granted recognition by the Anglican Communion, as the more authentic Anglicans.[/blockquote]
If its only five percent, then it probably isn’t too fatal for TEC. And TEC’s leadership may well retain the confidence of her parishioners.
And re the last sentence, I am a supporter of ACNA but this doesn’t make sense – if a person is happy to remain in a church that consecrates practicing homosexuals as bishops, then why would they leave just because another group gets recognition?
[blockquote] “lots of voices want to say, oh they’re just being up to date with all the latest secular thinking” [/blockquote]
Which surely +Sisk and his cronies would have anticipated? Yet he seems surprised.
[blockquote] “Our disciplinary procedures for clergy are actually very rigorous, compared with certain other parts of the Communion, including parts of England in fact.’” [/blockquote]
*ROFL* Who could put it better? How many priests and bishops has the TEC inhibited or expelled? One cannot argue with the man!
[blockquote] “In an attempt to keep the conservatives from walking away, Rowan Williams is urging all the provinces to sign a Covenant – essentially a promise not to innovate in ways that are unacceptable to the majority.” [/blockquote]
Yes, which the conservatives suspect, with good reason, will be used against them! As do the liberals. And they are probably both right. The covenant has been essentially read since December 2009, and here we still are…
[blockquote] Provinces that prize their autonomy too highly to sign will be reduced to ‘associate’ members of the club. Would such a change in status matter to the Episcopal Church? [/blockquote]
For that matter, would it matter to conservative provinces if they never sign the covenant in any capacity?
[blockquote] The crisis has showcased the democratic habits of the Episcopal Church. If the debate in the Communion starts going its way, as progressives assume, it could emerge with new authority, as the new model of Anglican Church, could it not? [/blockquote]
Authority? Over whom? Authority derives either from respect, or from power. There is no enforceable legal authority by any province over another, nor can there ever be, so you can forget power. That leaves respect. Which has to be earned…