Notable and Quotable (I)

Is it possible that relationships among members of the Communion would actually improve if the Communion did not exist? That is what I am starting to wonder.

-Jim Naughton

Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, Episcopal Church (TEC), Lambeth 2008

6 comments on “Notable and Quotable (I)

  1. APB says:

    “…Communion did not exist?” Be careful what you wish for, as that may well happen in fact if not in name.

  2. BCP28 says:

    Perhaps in the short term, and depending on what one would call “relationships.” If you want a better answer, look at the LWF. (Not my solution, by the way.)

    Randall

  3. j.m.c. says:

    It’s interesting here that Jim Naughton considers the option of the communion not existing before he simply considers the withdrawl of TEC.

    Is it possible that many in TEC would prefer the demise of the communion to its own voluntary withdrawl or diminished status – i.e., if we don’t want to comply and thus can’t be in it, we don’t want anyone to be able to be in it?

    Perhaps the bishops of other provinces should ask TEC bishops if this is what they think, and consider as well what they themselves think about this matter. It would perhaps also help, if the other communion members aren’t contemplating the dissolution of the Anglican Communion of TEC does not live up to its promises, to ask TEC for some kind of concrete demonstration of goodwill that it is not out to completely undermine the communion if it does choose the path of non-compliance.

  4. John Wilkins says:

    Jim’s onto something, but the conservatives would not be happy with the consequences. In the end, plenty of African churches don’t really care about what TEC says. My own parish will have a relationship with a local parish, and my diocese will do the same with another diocese. They may think differently, it might be the women and laity who do most of the bridge-building, but perhaps everyone should let everyone go. If you need ideological purity, then vet the people you meet, and vet who’ve they’ve met, and go all the way down the line to ensure you’re clean. But if you just want to do mission, then seek whatever help you can.

    But I suspect the conservatives simply want victory and punishment. Wrath is God’s – not theirs.

  5. pendennis88 says:

    #4 – then why is TEC suing orthodox diocese and deposing orthodox priests and bishops who just want to continue their mission? How hollow are calls for letting go, for bridge-building, and for mission, with actions like that.

  6. John Wilkins says:

    Pendennis, I have no doubt that there are leadership and personality issues when it comes to some of the challenges you mention. In my own church, orthodox clergy and the bishop respect each other enormously. But I think there are several layers to those disputes.

    For example, I suspect there is the simple property issue in some disputes: the diocese (whether orthodox or not) and the reasserting churches assume one holds the property over the other. This isn’t a theological issue: Liberal members shouldn’t do that in a conservative diocese. Since we can’t agree on doctrine, it behooves us to agree, at least, to play by secular rules.

    It’s wrong for orthodox priests to be deposed simply because they are orthodox. But if you’ve declared obedience to a bishop, the bishop has every right to expect obedience. From the bishop’s perspective disobedience is disobedience. If my bishop were conservative and I didn’t let him preach, he would have every right to ask if I’m upholding my end of the bargain. I admit, the bitter, lonely and self-righteous orthodox priests I’ve known don’t do very well with liberal priests. The magnanimous, caring, thoughtful orthodox priests tend to be more successful. And if the bishop is suspicious that the orthodox priest is going to harm the diocese, you’ve got an electric combination.

    Living in the wilderness is tough stuff. Those who have decided to leave Egypt (say, TEC) will wander. They will have to leave churches and begin new congregations. They will have to call new clergy leadership that isn’t formally recognized by anyone. But let them then build mission in their contexts free from TEC. Let them decide who they want to engage. It might be liberating. But from TEC’s perspective, when a priest decides they want nothing to do with the church, TEC has every right to protect the resources, assets and integrity of their orders.

    My father once said, “you may break the law for a good cause, but plan to go to jail.”