On the divisions in the Episcopal Church of the USA

[mmaestro]

Better late than never, I suppose

Comments

[seraphimsigrist]

well they regard themselves as being prophetic
you know and that their liberal agenda is in fact
infallible and identical to that of the Holy Spirit.

I expect they also estimate that forced to choose
between american money and global numbers that
Canterbury will go with the americans and let
the rest of the anglican communion go...

do you think that would be a mistaken assumption?

[mmaestro]

I would expect that Canterbury will likely refuse to choose. Rather, I expect that the various members of the Anglican communion will, if Canterbury cannot mediate this problem, hash out who is "associated" with whom, and those different groups will choose whether to break away from Canterbury or not. Depending on the demands placed, some sort of compromise deal will be attempted and, depending on its terms, I'd expect the American Church to have to decide, as would everyone else, whether to remain affiliated with the wider communion.
It'll be messy, but Rowan Williams seems to see his role as holding these disparate interests together, and so I expect that'll be the role that Canterbury plays in the whole thing, despite my suspicion that it'll be unsuccessful in those endeavours.

[gaudium_et_spes]

I think you're right on this one. Archbishop Williams will tray his darndest to hold things together.

The whole core/affiliated idea, if it works, may well breath new life into the Anglican communion, because the core statement of belief, if you would, gives the Anglican Communion, precisely what it needs to stop this sort of theological "unilateralism" --- authoritative teaching.

I'm a little skeptical as to whether or not this will work, for the sake of my Anglican and Episcopalian brothers, I hope it does. If it doesn't work, well, as you note... it will be messy.

Peace,
Chris

[mmaestro]

I just wonder what on Earth the core beliefs are going to be. Historically, when the Anglican Church really first came together theologically (as opposed to being a selfish reaction against the Roman Catholic Church), the only requirement was to use the Book of Common Prayer. I'd like to see that sort of definition continue. I think the problem has really stemmed from Churches who still use it, and yet patently cannot subscribe to the various texts contained therein. For instance, there are a number of Philadelphia Churches who've virtually adopted a Pagan "goddess," theology. And yet they use the BCP, including things like the Nicene Creed and Apostles' Creed. How can they do that in good faith? I don't understand it

[misplacedmind]

The whole thing makes me want to cry... for very selfish reasons, I admit. I still consider myself Episcopalian, for all that I've not set foot in an Episcopal church (excepting a single Christmas Eve service) in years. I had hopes of one day finding the "right congregation" and wooing Sean into the fold, even though here and now, he's happiest (and I'm content) with the Vineyard church we attend. I know it's a pipe dream (because he is largely opposed to infant baptism) - but it was a dream that I feel is now shattered. How can I possibly bring a husband and a family into a church that is destroying itself? How can I possibly even return myself?!

I hope and pray, for the sake of the many people I care about who still make their church homes in an Episcopal congregation, that there will be a pleasant end to this mess. I have little faith, though, that they will be so lucky.

[jjostm]

Although I do tend toward pessimism, I do think that this was all bound to happen. General Convention is more radical than most "radicals" in the province (save Newark, of course-no fruit for them). And, really, the radical edge got just about everything that they wanted...regardless of any nature of communion. And, in many respects, I do think this is a good thing, insofar that they are, at least, being honest. That said, I do think that this honesty clearly puts them way outside the bounds of communion. I think it's now a matter of figuring out what those of us-who do wish to remain in communion...what we're going to do. I think that's an easier question for "conservative" dioceses. All I know is that come September, if we're still giving *anything* to the Diocese of Newark...we screwed up somehow

[itchyfidget]

Thanks - I hadn't been reading about this much since last year, so it's quite useful to see an overview. I'm intrigued by your interpretation of what this will do for the Anglican Church overall (that pulling hard from the front will only cause the whole thing to tear) ... I suspect in the long term this will represent a global move towards the liberal, but the interim sounds as though it will be messy, and there is the question of who gets left behind and what reactionary doctrine will ensue (because, what we really don't want is a significant segment of the globe where religion and politics have split irredeemably from those of us over in this corner of the room).

Does that make any sense? I have a hard time writing in the abstract.

[mmaestro]

Yes, it makes sense. My ideal would be that no-one gets left behind, but that everyone moves forward at a more sedate pace. The yanks don't want to do that, though. I may do a post later about how the Anglican Church in England just approved women Bishops, and by over a 2/3 majority. Along with a "now, this is how you deal with controversial issues," thought. This has been controversial in many ways for over a decade. And you know what? Now it isn't. The battle's been won, and without the sort of mess and fight the Americans insist on.