Monday, June 19, 2006

Resolution Interruptus

A quick post at the end of a long day. The House of Deputies today amended Resolution A160 to express regret at "straining" the bonds of affection in the Anglican Communion ... falling short of admitting to "breaching" those bonds and coming no where near the "repenting of the actions" demanded by the Conservative Cabal. A160 will now head to the House of Bishops for concurrence.

So far so good.

Onward to A161 -- the really stupid resolution created by the "Special Committee" that manages in the same resolution to balance the unity of the Anglican Communion on the backs of gay and lesbian people by urging the church to refrain from allowing any of them to respond to the Holy Spirit's call to the episcopate AND to apologize to them for the new one they were getting ripped by the church they're trying to serve.

You've gotta love it.

And, you've got to vote it down.

You've got to vote it down not only because it violates the canons of the Episcopal Church but because it won't do any good anyway. Gay and lesbian people will be told they are and will remain second class citizens in the Episcopal Church in order to keep at the table those who have already decided to leave.

Think not? Check out The London Times: The Anglican Church descended into “ecclesiastical anarchy” last night as American traditionalists refused to accept the authority of a woman and asked the Archbishop of Canterbury to lead them instead.

If nothing we can do is going to be good enough, I say we have the courage of our convictions to stay the course, embrace the decisions of General Convention 2003 and get on with the work of the church. Unfortunately, we didn't get a chance to vote it down today. After several hours of frankly rather disorganized leadership in the House of Deputies the debate was suspended and we go back tomorrow morning to take it back up. Ergo "resolution interruptus."

Stay tuned ... and pray for the church!



6 comments:

Jeff Martinhauk said...

I'm just putting the pieces of the puzzle together on the theory about the name change to TEC from ECUSA, thanks to the Times article.

While I love the tradition that the Anglican Communion holds, and I love the worldwide community that it represents, I would almost like to see TEC become such an alternative if only it would mean that we could go back to the business of the church. Whether they leave us or we leave them, let's just get on with it.

John Gibson said...

"While I love the tradition that the Anglican Communion holds, and I love the worldwide community that it represents,"

Well, yes and no. I love Anglican music and Anglican liturgy; I love the Anglo-Catholic style of worship (no happy-clappy for yours truly!), and to the extent that other provinces share in those forms, I am happy we are part of a world-wide faith. Unfortunately, some in some other provinces do not seem to value the parts of the Anglican tradition I hold in equally high esteem - the tradition of the three-legged stool; the tradition of the via media; the tradition of respect for human learning, even if its products call into question some of the literal words of Scripture. For at least forty years, the Episcopal Church in this country has stood for social change and an enlightened view of this nation's role in the world. Those things are emphatically NOT part of the tradition of parts of the Communion and I do not feel part of the community they seek to establish.

I completely agree with your conclusion,

"Whether they leave us or we leave them, let's just get on with it."

time's up. Let's vote.

Catherine + said...

You shall all have the prayers of those who have eyes that clearly see and ears that truly hear, Susan.

God bless you all for the work you do on behalf of all the baptized, even the ones who don't like us right now.

Catherine+

inked said...

More accurately "churches interruptus" by alleging a move of the Spirit that is not authenticated by the Anglican Communion, Roman or Orthodoxy. Do you really believe the Holy Spirit is that lazy? More likely you are in too big a hurry. But, if as you wish, ECUSA continues to walk apart from the Anglican Communion, may your new church accomplish what it can in a culturally driven gospel. You'll need all the ooomph you can get.

In all honesty, you have all but achieved this separation, and if you didn't have such an absurd need for approval, you'd have been honest and start a gay anglican church and get approval from the Anglican Communion for membership.

But you cannot or will not face the reality that you deny the Faith as it has been passed in the Anglican Tradition and Moral Theology for hundreds of years and as it is clearly enunciated by the AC, WR, Dromantine, etc.

"Churches interruptus" is your divisive premature withdrawal from the AC on the simple grounds of self-gratification above the communion by choice. The ABD the Primates and the host of the faith all advised not to so act. So, the backs of the dividers may be an appropriate place for the blame and the burden to fall. Better there than in the hotly contested areas of Africa where Muslims kill Christians on the basis of your"decadent western" moral changes.

If you had the strength of your convictions and the power of the Holy Spirit, walking apart or enabling the MCC would have done the trick. But highjacking the ECUSA and prentending victimization for the consequences of your choices when they are declared to be central rather than adiaphora is a bit rich, don't you think?

Jeff Martinhauk said...

Inked -

In short, no. The best single thing I have to say to you is that I do hold scripture and tradition dear. I only interpret them differently than you. That is a big difference that only a small mind cannot grasp.

I'm tired of arguing with you.

I've answered all your points here.

j

inked said...

jm,

Arguing with me? An interesting choice of words. Your valuation of your perception of the tradition is indeed different but this is the first you have asserted that. Delineation of that difference in perception is deeper than mere arguing. You invert it and then argue consistency. Admit you abandon it in content and action and then we might be able to argue. Thus far we have listened to each other.