Last week I was embroiled in a vigorous conversation about Open Communion. Reflecting on that a week later with a friend I was intrigued to have this sentiment put to me (in my words), “It doesn’t matter how many reasons you put up for baptism-then-eucharist, I am convinced that Open Communion is the right and loving thing to do.” It has struck me that I am slow to “get” certain things (as indeed I am). Here is highlighted my continued determination to find reasons for actions and beliefs, when others are unconcerned about this. To coin a phrase, there are “twin tracks” to Anglican theologizing, reason and emotion, head and heart.
In my previous post I drew a distinction between the track TEC is on and the track the C of E is on (under ++Rowan’s leadership). Perhaps now I have a better understanding of the propelling fuel in each case. ++Rowan, for all he is castigated for being obfuscatory and oblique in his logic, is attempting a faithful rendition of the great Hooker for the 21st century: articulating each and every step of the Anglican journey with reasoned reflection on Scripture and tradition. TEC’s fuel will not run out (as I proposed yesterday) because it shows signs of poor reasoning based on bad exegesis. Rather, it’s real fuel is the powerful mix of heart and emotion, responding to the presence of homosexuality with a wide open heart and an openness to follow that heart wherever it may go.
So I take a step back, wonder what all this means for ACANZP, where we are definitely a railway company with two tracks (probably more!).
… and, just wondering, as all rationalists do, what the heart-and-emotion folk open to homosexuality say to the heart-and-emotion folk whose sentiment is against open expression of homosexuality in the church? A stalemate which can only be broken by the head-and-reason types?