Anglican Update
February 20, 2007, 7:21 am
Posted by Robert P. Imbelli
The story of the Primates Communique unfolds: here in The Guardian and here by Ruth Gledhill in The London Times. A conservative Anglican blog has initial commentary here.
There is so much at stake both for the Anglican Communion itself and for Anglican-Roman Catholic relations. Archbishop Rowan Williams’ comment at the news conference has immense poignancy: “None of us agreed that litigation or counter litigation can be a proper way forward for a Christian body.”
However true, that Christian sentiment will be a tough sell in a litigious society like our own. Perhaps we can all gain perspective from the Lenten injunction: Medio Vitae Mortui Sumus.
Someone has written: “Why is the greatest sin of the 21st century in the Catholic Church not nuclear proliferation or ethnic cleansing, prison torture or blowing children up with bombs or land mines, hungry people in the richest nation on earth, homelessness, rape, murder, or priest abuse of children, but ending a pregnancy, even at the zygote stage?”
Is homosexuality a close second?
Is there any connection with the fact that both issues involve women and gays?
I sure hope these two high church bodies, TEC and the RCC, merge so they can more easily celebrate stately celebrations and lawn parties and not be distracted by heresies.
I certainly don’t hope the Episcopal and Roman Catholic churches don’t merge, it would eliminate my current moral quandary in one fell swoop.
But, at least from the perspective of the Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon, I rather the dismissal of litigation as something imposed on the church by the outside society. As I understand the current bankrupcy settlement, and objective news is hard to get, it seems that nobody has really had any financial hardship, the lawyers have had a good deal of profit, and the powers that be — I only say that because I can’t think of a better phrase, “institutional church” being both overworked and inexact — get a gag order and the ability to keep a lot of stuff in the closet, which is unfair to innocent and guilty alike. And more to the point it closes off the question of just what in hell was going on with the priesthood over the past fifty years, which I at any rate find vital to figuring out where it’s going in the next fifty years — and whether I ought to be going with it.
John Allen reports (in the new NCR on line today) that there is no thought of complete reunion at this time -too many hard isues (e.g.homosexuality) still divide the two faith groups. The document, he stresses, is about more practical day to day cooperation.
As usual, premature leaks are blamed for the misunderstanding.
Here’s what I’m wondering:
What’s going to happen to the middle-of-the-road Episcopalians?
Most parishes I attended accepted gay parishioners, active and celebate, some blessed gay unions, but the priests stopped when the bishop told them to.
Most object to Gene Robinson’s ordination, not because he’s gay, but because he’s living out of wedlock, which has never been allowed for Episcopal clergy.
So where are the Midwestern broad church Episcopalians going to end up? They’re not enamored of TEC, but they sure aren’t eager to hang out with Akinola and his Pentecostlicans.
Given that choice, I’ll take a nice lawn party and even hold out my pinky when I sip my tea.
I had really hoped this thread would go on – because the story goes on.
In the Sunday (Feb.25) NY tTmes Week In review, Laurie Goodstein profiles the question as to whether a division might become a divorce in the Anglican communion.
She rightly notes the growing power of the global South, but situates ( I think properly) the problem in the difference folks bring there to how they view Scripture and Tradition.
It’s a probably good question for all of us today .
Every time I think about it, I can’t get out of my mind a favorite musical, “Fiddler on the Roof.” Our protagonist tells us at the outset we’re .like fiddlers on roofs, “scratching out our existence.” What helps us maintain our balance in this shaky situation?
Tradition -and, in the play, it’s true -traidition will help these poor Jews survive the pogrom to come.
Yet, when his daughter wishes to marry the poor tailor she loves, instead of the rich butcher, the arranged traiditional marriage is undermined. And then our hero tells his arranged wife, Golda, of many years, “it’s a new world.” So he asks her, “Do you love me?’
She tells him he’s nuts, but finally concedes “I suppose I do.” And, with great tenderness and humor, he ends by telling her “And I suppose I love you too,”
Well it is a new world and the question of what is vital to marriage – physiology or love is tearing folks apart.
Goodstein notes that blogs in the Episcopal church have turned downright nasty-name calling (another reason I’d like to see the discussionm continued in thus usually civil venue.)
Can it be that the call for dialogue – genuine dialogue- is still possible not only on the marriage issue, but how is it we look at our roots in the Scriptures and our traditions?