From biblical times Communion is a key word in church history meaning a fellowship of Christians devoted to the apostles teaching. The Anglican Communion, mirroring the Commonwealth, is a network of independent church provinces, giving a position of honour to the Archbishop of Canterbury, just as the Commonwealth sees the Queen as its symbolic focus of unity, and until now the Communion has relied upon strong bonds of mutual affection to hold it together.
Sadly, that seems no longer to be the case. There’s now talk of one province or another being expelled from the Communion if they don’t change their ways; and the argument that their ways make perfect sense in the context in which their church is set, no longer convinces all the members. There’s a demand for club rules, dignified by being called a Covenant. Fine perhaps, if they merely spell out the kind of behaviour expected in this family – less fine if they result in the stern demand – “Go and never darken our doorstep again” – for the family rules are not the family; as Groucho Marx also said, “A child of five would understand this – send someone to fetch a child of five.”
I’m a big fan of Anselm’s [i] Cur Deus Homo? [/i] but can see how it loses some of its persuasive power without the context of Feudalism…
Likewise, the Bishop’s reflection loses something as one reads it outside of a state church context.
He leaps from “here’s how the Commonwealth functions” to “here’s
how the Church should function” and it just doesn’t track for me.
Then he brackets it with quotes from Groucho Marx – a real pastiche that notably fails to include any Biblical descriptions of the Church.
He writes from such an insider’s POV that it brings his accusations of “clubbishness” right back on his own head. It’s all Brit culture and CofE jargon – how is one not immersed in these to make heads or tails of what he’s getting at?
RE: “There’s a demand for club rules, dignified by being called a Covenant. Fine perhaps, if they merely spell out the kind of behaviour expected in this family – less fine if they result in the stern demand – “Go and never darken our doorstep again” – for the family rules are not the family . . . ”
So then . . . Bishop Butler is not for expelling Pakistan from the Commonwealth?
It seems that Bishop Butler (like most reappraisers) is an extreme legalist and literalist. Since the rules don’t specifically forbid what we want to do, then we can do it! Oh – the current rules are all that matters and the desire to make new rules is unlawful because the current rules don’t allow for it.
Bishop, if TECUSA had not broken the bonds of affection that held the Anglican Communion together in the first place, then there would not be a call for a covenant or a communion wide authority. Lack of authority works so long as everyone agrees on what is right and wrong and continues to act right. Police are not needed in a city without crime. They are only needed when criminals start to act. Likewise, a covenant between sister churches is not required while all the churches continue in the Apostles’ teaching. However, when one (or a few) churches depart from that teaching and still claim to be acting “legally” then a covenant is required.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Heis dead wrong on every level. A communion can exist only as long as it controls those members who, uncontrolled, would destroy it. The failure to controll those who only have destruction at heart is not Christian charity, it is cowardice, a simple lack of spine. The strong must protect the weak and there be many in a congregation who need such protection. This is not a declaration for the punishment of all dissent, but there is some dissent that does not seek a remedy but seeks for that very control which it relies on not being applied to itself. TEC is such a case, and the refusal to expel TEC is like refusing, in the name of charity to one’s enemies, to kill the bacillus that causes plague. If Typhoid Mary cannot be cured, she cannot be embraced from pity. Larry
Is this the same bishop who was the focus of a drinking scandal in late 2006? Anybody know how he survived that?
“…and until now the Communion has relied upon strong bonds of mutual affection to hold it together.”
Man, this dude needs a history lesson. Which province breached those bonds?
[blockquote]There’s a demand for club rules, dignified by being called a Covenant. Fine perhaps, if they merely spell out the kind of behaviour expected in this family – less fine if they result in the stern demand – “Go and never darken our doorstep again” – for the family rules are not the family; as Groucho Marx also said, “A child of five would understand this – send someone to fetch a child of five.”[/blockquote]
Thought for the day from the toy-throwing [url=http://ship-of-fools.com/Features/2006/southwark_service.html]Bishop of Southwark [/url] has made my day! Thanks.
SAJ – the ABC nicely gave him a pass.
I can’t think of anything intelligent to say on the issue so I won’t.
Pity the Bishop did.
#5, you have a good memory. Here is a link that will tell the story of his toy-tossing: [url=http://tinyurl.com/ypmr4a]Bished as a Newt: drunk bishop cracks head[/url]
“Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.” Abraham Lincoln
“I sent the club a wire stating, PLEASE ACCEPT MY RESIGNATION. I DON’T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT ME AS A MEMBER.” Groucho Marx
I wonder what the bishop thinks of KJS who has now sworn in court that her DeS “yes” meant “no”. So much for clubbishness.
My, my! The good Bishop seems to have lost his credibility. If anyone finds it, would you please return it to him.
Reappraiser or not, stewed or not, +Southwark misses the main point of excommunication (as famously discussed by St Paul in 1 Cor 5) — its purpose is twofold:
* To bring the sinner to repentance, so that he can rejoin the community of saints;
* To protect the faithful from the temptations (and risk of false teaching) of exposure to unrepentant sin.
So it’s never “Go and never darken my door again”; it’s always “Go, and return when you have come to your senses and repent your sin.”
That this basic, elementary point of Christian teaching apparently escapes the good bishop speaks volumes for the state of Anglicanism in the thoroughly secularized West.
# 8: He’s the bishop of Southwark. It’s what he does.
#12: Of course, it all depends who you decide to excommunicate – or at least try to ……
http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2006/06/coekin_wins_app.html
I suggest they follow the medieval custom and make a boy of 5 yrs the bishop. Seems such an one would be at least at good at it as this obviously challenged by his position fellow. God save the Queen if this be the standard of her clergy.