WHAT makes a group (of voters, relatives, believers) stick together, even when its membership is varied and quarrelsome? Sometimes deference to a common authority; sometimes fear of adversaries; sometimes common axioms that trump any differences; and sometimes a sentimental “family feeling” that makes people tolerant of eccentricity or even obnoxious behaviour. If none of those factors is present, then break-up looms.
The Church of England may be approaching that point. Matters came to a head at the session this week of its ruling General Synod, which saw more than its share of tears, jeers and cheers. The topic under discussion””or so it was reported”” was whether women, who have served as priests since 1994, could also be bishops.
Actually, that was not precisely the matter at issue; the idea of women bishops had been accepted in 2005, and nobody suggested that this decision was reversible. The furore was over what accommodation, if any, should be made for the minority of the faithful who disagree with the idea of women bishops (and, in most cases, with the idea of women priests). Of these, some say that administering the sacraments (to put it simply, rites in which God’s grace is mysteriously invoked) is a male-only prerogative; others take literally the teaching of Saint Paul that authority in the church is best handled by men.
The last paragraph quoted above is a reasonably accurate description of the issues and positions taken. How refreshing!
Katherine:
I generally agree. And this is why I believe that it is a shame that there has not been a more strategic approach taken by the leaders of the various GAFCON delegations regarding the Lambeth Conference. There is still an opportunity here to keep Lambeth from just being part of a diabolic game of “patching over the cracks.” It would not have been a stretch to have at least a small number of bishops from each of the dissenting national churches (and traditionalist organizations) to attend Lambeth, and they could have done so with various forms of protest, boycotting of various sessions and refusal of fellowship that would have been inspiring to the orthodox laity of the Communion and spiritually and symbolically significant. They might even today consider how the element of surprise could work powerfully to set those who are planning our destruction back on their heels.
The more I read, the more I am becoming a supporter of the vision of GAFCON, especially as it regards protecting parishes in hostile provinces and dioceses. But the commitment to preserve the Communion expressed in the GAFCON statement has to include supporting, at least in small ways, all those among the faithful who are working by God’s grace to battle the darkness, even where there are some strategic differences. Many great councils of the Church turned out much differently than their organizers had planned. And I think the ABC might be open to considering the priorities of traditionalists after the disrespect he was shown by the liberals and feminist progressivists in the CofE Synod. I know its a long shot, but prayer and the Spirit of God have, over time, changed many of us. I have a hard time believing +++Rowan no longer has ears to hear.
Are we still awaiting the comments of NT Wright and the ABC on the CoE decision — or was it so prompt (like both were after GAFCON) that I missed it?
[blockquote] liberals were disinclined to put family unity before their own principles [/blockquote]
the new definition of “inclusive”