Another factor has a profound influence as we consider Anglican strains around the world – a much greater influence than I had realized previously. The distinct polity (church governance) of the Episcopal Church is included; however, this is a larger and more significant matter than polity alone. As Americans, our country was born in revolution, and our individual rights are matters that hold almost a holy quality for us. Our constitutional Bill of Rights is nearly sacred writ in our self-understanding.
Yet the Anglican world values communion and community life as still higher aspirations and greater goods. Individual self restraint and forbearance for the sake of the common good are entirely consistent with Anglican values and priorities in most of the world. Matters involving individual rights and personal justice do not take as high a priority in many other countries as they do in our own. In many places, focus of attention is directed to the whole, rather than to the parts. Please understand that neither is excluded, but the emphasis is often different.
To express this matter as I heard it put repeatedly at Lambeth – when all the Instruments of Communion agreed on a direction for all churches of the Communion, it astounded our fellow Anglicans that we in the Episcopal Church did not follow that course. I need to add that colleagues in Great Britain and elsewhere considered the actions of General Convention 2003 to be much more confrontational to the entire Communion than I did at the time. Having spent these weeks at Lambeth, I do understand better their perception of apparent American disregard of Communion concerns. In the view of many Anglican colleagues, the Archbishop of Canterbury, along with the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council, and the Primates, all indicated disagreement with consecration of an openly gay man in a partnered relationship and yet the Episcopal Church did precisely that. Therefore, our appeals to Provincial polity have a very individualistic and hollow ring in the ears of many fellow Anglicans.
I am not sure about what he is trying to not say.
I see it this way: According to TEC, “They just don’t understand our polity.” I would tell Bishop von Rosenberg that they do indeed “understand your polity.” In fact, they understand it all too well! Your polity, and what has happened as a result of that polity, has been disastrous for the Anglican Communion in recent years.
Cennydd,
The polity of TECUSA is not the problem. I submit that TECUSA is not following its own polity. General Convention was not designed nor empowered to make changes to the actual faith of the Church. It has no authority to declare that what was sinful behavior to now not be sinful behavior.
The problem is that the leaders of TECUSA have no interest in world wide communion. They don’t really care what the rest of the world thinks. They are the enlightened ones who know the truth and the rest of the world just needs to catch up with them. They will subvert what ever they can to acheive their ends.
The polity of TECUSA worked very well until the early 70s or so – the era of political activism. Rather than makeing theological decisions based on scripture, tradtion, and reason, we started making them based on indentity, political power, and activism.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Surprise? Really? It appears to have taken five years for the bishop to hear that his actions and those of his collegues offended the AC. When will he listen to what the rest of Christianity is saying?
As far as making ordinands keep [i]their[/i] vows, he begs the question: can you hold someone to heretical polity? But then it’s only heretical outside of TEC… and then only if they hear them.
I’d say he was pretty slo………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………w.
Gee, Charlie? Ya think?
Yeah, Phil, you’re right, as usual. Their polity seems to be more important to them than maintaining the faith…..except as THEY see it. The only “faith” they’re interested in spreading is that which serves to legitimize their agenda.
When I referred to TEC’s polity, I meant to say that the Africans don’t understand how TEC does things…..according to TEC’s leaders. As I said, the Africans now understand very well how they do things…..as do the rest of the provinces, I assume.
You know, one change that needs to be made: Gay needs to be replaced by homosexual. Gay in this context is such an absurdity; it is a silly euphemism, after all. LM
Agreed. I seem to remember one reappraiser chewing out one poster because they used a word incorrectly, refering them back to the ‘original meaning’. In that case, I say we raise just such a fuss when ‘gay’ is used, pointing back to the original meaning as having no relation to the current usage.
No. 3 – Phil Snyder – I’m not sure I like the current polity of TEC, but your analysis in that post is clear and accurate. Thx.