From a July 5th entry on the Inclusive Church blog
The growing number of bishops created by African provinces for “pastoral oversight” in North America (and potentially in other provinces), the attempts to create a Covenant that defines Anglican doctrine and ethics, and the apparent intention to organise an alternative to the Lambeth Conference in London next year all point towards one thing. The strategy to destabilise the Anglican Communion is moving into another phase.
The creation by the provinces of Uganda, Kenya and Nigeria of extra-provincial Bishops is against the expressed wish of the Windsor Report and the post Lambeth ’98 process of listening and reconciliation. It is more evidence that the Primates of those provinces and their supporters in the US and Britain profoundly misunderstand the nature of the Communion. We very much regret that the Chair of the Covenant Design Group, the Archbishop of the West Indies, has welcomed these appointments.
Inclusive Church’s aim is to support and celebrate the traditional breadth and generosity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as it has been received and passed on through Anglican history and lived out in the Communion. This creates challenges when there are fundamental disagreements. But the way to respond to disagreements is not to walk apart, nor to create separate structures, nor to seek to impose one particular point of view on the Communion. It is to engage, to communicate, to speak, to listen and to learn.
Clearly there are outstanding issues over how the Communion should respond to the reality that many Provinces include lesbian and gay Christians who live with partners in loving, faithful relationships. But the extraordinary way in which this issue has been allowed to dominate the life of the Communion over the past ten years is not coincidence.
There can be little doubt that the issue is being used by some, mainly conservative, Christians as a lever to try to change the Communion into something it is not; from a conciliar church into a confessional one. From a praxis-based Communion where the bonds between us are the bonds of fellowship and love to a codified Communion where exclusions are legally determined and legally enforced, and where the Communion defines itself not by who it includes but by who it excludes.
The Covenant process has been moved, by this group, away from its original intention which was to affirm the bonds of fellowship which exist. The way in which the draft was received by some at the Primates meeting in Tanzania is indication that, whatever the intention, it will be used to enforce a particular interpretation of the Scriptures to the detriment of the life of the Communion. We do not need a Curia, and the process of drafting a Covenant is already giving more power to the Primates than is justified by our history, by our life and by some of their actions to date.
[blockquote] We do not need a Curia [/blockquote]
As presented in the article, this is merely an opinion, perhaps true, perhaps not. It would be useful to debate and discuss this opinion regarding the “need” for a Curia-like function within the AC. Appeal can be made to the traditions of the AC, of course, but I am more interested in a reasoned response to the following question:
[i] Given the widening divergence of theological opinion within the AC and the apparent fractioning of communion that is currently in progress and may well continue, would the Anglican Communion be well served if it had a body that would perform Curia-like functions for the Communion as a whole? [/i]
“The strategy to destabilise the Anglican Communion is moving into another phase.”
And just whose strategy is that? Certainly NOT the ‘rescuers’, you know, those rascally African primates; therefore, the strategy belongs to 815, DBB, and the host of vacillating and vapid present and former bishops ordinary of the, formerly Christian, Episcopal Church.
Thank God for the men and provinces that have offered lifeboats to the perishing of TEC.
Which reaping will catch you up into the final harvest?
Why?
Why not?
Remind me now, why did the Windsor Report come about again? Was it in response to the Vast Conservative Conspiracy? Oh, right, it was the election of a practicing gay bishop–elected and consecrated after the whole Communion begged them not to. What is Inclusive Church’s idea of Communion? Liberal autocracy = prophetic? Conservative, reactive autocracy = anti-communion? I don’t think so.
Translation: Nobody in the Communion understands Communion except us. We alone are working for Communion. Everybody else wants to break up the Communion.
There’s a dump-load of irony.
We don’t need a curia, especially not since we want to go our own way without regard for scripture or the rest of the Communion. We argued for diversity and communication while the issue was in doubt *within* TEC. But, when our dominance was established, now we need a curia within TEC to ensure conformity with our new gospel but not, for heaven’s sake, we need no curia *OUTSIDE* TEC which might rule against us and compel us to go back on our new gospel. Inside TEC, yes; outside, no!!!
Did I get that right? ^_^
Formerly Episcopalian (51 years), now Roman (3 years), my experience leads me to think if you don’t get a central authority you will shortly be dead in the water. That might not sit too well with Protestantly or democratically inclined Anglicans, but consider this:
Revisionism is just a logical and inevitable outcome of the rebellion which appeared in the Church catholic (small “c”) during the Reformation and is still the basic guiding sppirit of Protestantism. Witness the huge number of Protestant denominations there are. If the trend continues, most Protestant denominations will have only one member, and he will be of divided mind!!
I’m not proposing you become Roman, although I obviously do believe it’s an alternative, but it’s something you need to get under control or see the Anglican Communion inevitably atomize itself. It can only be prevented with an acknowledged central authority with enforcement power.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
Gotta love it when liberals complain about others not abiding by the Windsor Report. Who knows, maybe next they’ll be complaining about others not following Scripture, not following church tradition… who knows what new areas for complaint will be explored by our intellectually challenged opponents.