"Fulcrum Response to Consents being given to the
Consecration of Mary Glasspool
This is a clear rejection of the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Primates' Meeting and the Anglican Consultative Council.
We believe that it is vitally important for the Primates' Meeting planned for January 2011 to go ahead, and that for this to happen the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church should not be invited to attend. Actions have consequences."
I think this is well worded. The Anglican Communion is an organisation (if nothing else) with leaders and committees - the usual paraphanalia. It is light on universal canons but that does not mean there is no authority to be recognised by member churches in so far as they wish to meet, cooperate, and work with fellow members. To not recognise that authority does raise a question about membership. The question may or may not be best answered by expulsion, suspension, or demotion to a 'second tier'.
I say 'may or may not' because while the Communion is an organisation, it is also a family or fellowship of churches. From a family perspective it may or may not be fruitful for the long-term benefit of the family to banish a member of the family.
Now is a time for the Communion to focus on what it holds in common across its member churches. We should be considering how we might enlarge the family to include those who share those common things.
Last post you appeared to be for including TEC, now you won't allow one of the primates at the primates' meeting. Are the primates there by invitation, not by right? If so, who invites them, and on what basis? & why have you changed your stance between posts?
ReplyDeleteHi Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteThe statement I posted is from Fulcrum not from me, though I have republished it and expressed that I like it. That is not quite the same as saying I agree 100% with it. Nevertheless I think it is plausible for the Communion to (a) be generally minded to include TEC not exclude it from the Communion (b) determine it helpful to discuss responses to action by TEC without its Primate present, without that (c) implying the Primate of TEC is excluded from all future meetings of the primates.
I think the primates are invited and not there by right; but I may be wrong.
From a family perspective it may or may not be fruitful for the long-term benefit of the family to banish a member of the family.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the family metaphor, I don't think it's terribly helpful, now, to use the case of an adult child not married to the person with whom they share their bed. Forty years ago it would have been taken for granted that if you brought your boyfriend or girlfriend home for an overnight stay you'd be sleeping in separate bedrooms. Now many parents seem to feel obliged to show how open, caring and inclusive they are by making up a double bed for the unmarried couple.
But what about the case of a child who is using or selling drugs of addiction? Most people are still willing to be shocked by such goings on. Some parents have actually dobbed in their miscreant offspring to the police, and then seen them charged, found guilty and sent to prison. These parents don't take such a course to be mean and horrible to their child but to try to turn them around. Whether it does turn them around is, of course, up to the child and to the grace of God.
Hi Janice
ReplyDeleteIndeed re changing times!
But is the question in this instance whether TEC and its "behaviour" is more akin to selling drugs or to missing the mark on the doctrine of marriage? With the supplementary question, What would be most effective in response, to turn them away from the family home or to do something else?
I find Janice’s comments outrageous! To compare faithful, monogamous relationships to selling drugs, indeed! It’s exactly this type of argumentation that makes many of us in TEC want to chuck the Anglican Communion, and to join with Christian Churches that have entered the 21st century.
ReplyDeleteKurt Hill
Brooklyn, NY