From Ruth Gledhill at the Times Online:
So is this it?
....
Arguably, this is a schism that's been waiting to happen for 400 years. A denomination or communion founded on divorce, both of a king and of a church, is hardly one that's predicated for infinite unity. The right for the freedom not to be bound by archaic and arcane doctrine tradition was what the reformers fought for, and is what liberals in TEC would argue is their right today.
....
Maybe this isn't a train crash at all.
Maybe it is just an inevitable decoupling, the 'walking apart' described prophetically in Windsor.
In that event, perhaps, it is to be welcomed. The parties can cite irreconcilable breakdown. Reconciliation has been tried, and failed.
All that will remain is to divide up the assets.
Then division will be absolute.
What we have to remember, in all the pain, recriminations and self-righteous accusations that will undoubtedly follow, is that in spite of the rhetoric of the train crash used so powerfully by the Bishop of Durham in The Times, there are no dead bodies.
In fact, there are a lot of happy people. They are the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender minorities in the US, and their friends and supporters, who have found spiritual haven in The Episcopal Church. Conservatives should perhaps not object too strongly, because they can now opt for the new Anglican Church in North America.
The miracle that might yet await is recognition of the new Anglican province, and acceptance of that by TEC. Then they can all sit around the table together, and in five years time we might wonder what all the fuss was about. Dream on, you might well say, and why not? Dream, and pray, and maybe, just maybe, it isn't over yet.
Ruth posted a video of the American Anglican Council press conference after GC09, starring Bishop Beckwith of Springfield, Illinois, and Bishop Love of Albany, New York, with Rt. Rev. David Anderson (President, AAC) and the Rev. Phil Ashey (AAC) in supporting(?) roles. Bishop Beckwith starts the ball rolling after a little Alphonse/Gaston routine with Bishop Love. The video is long, and I confess that I haven't watched it in its entirety yet, but I will.
Ruth links to writings by other journalists, which I do not provide here, so read the whole article at her blog.
The video is a bit sad, because Bishop Love, who is basically, I think, a man of integrity, if misguided, is being used here by the AAC guys who organized this press conference at the tail end of Anaheim. Beckwith, by contrast, is a sanctimonious jerk. Ashey is the "go behind the scenes and blow them up" fellow, who here is attempting to blow up here is the status of ACNA.
ReplyDeleteBeckwith is a piece of work. I hear from folks in his diocese, and the best thing he could do for them is retire.
ReplyDeleteCertain conservative bishops are being used. They may not be aware of the back-room politics and scheming that has been going on for years amongst those groups who want to take over TEC.
Did you read PBKJS's letter about property on The Lead? In her own amazing way, she named the schismatics as exactly what they are. I'm sure the would-be schismatics who are so sure of their right opinion of Godde's word but fearful of giving up their power are all the more frustrated.
ReplyDeletePiskie, I read it. I want to blog everything that interests me, but I'm only one person, and I do have a shred of a life left offline.
ReplyDeleteOh, Mimi! A life offline? Never!! ;-)
ReplyDeleteI try to read Ruth Gledhill, but sometimes I wonder if she just tries for sensationalism at any cost. Of course, she may not be making up the headlines of her articles, but her blog titles are just as bad.
Susan, while I too often have problems with Ruth's writing, what I particularly like about this piece is that she mentions the elephant in the living room - divorce. Those who prattle on about one-man/one woman seem to have convenient memory lapses when it comes to the many divorced and remarried in their midst.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, I think she goes for sensationalism, but I don't know whether she writes her own headlines. On her blog, I'm guessing she does.
Ok, then I will probe further! Does she mention all the serially divorced Bishops?
ReplyDeleteAnd as to the last paragraph you posted, I am totally skeptical that we will _ever_ be pure enough to sit at the same table with ACNA. At least I thought that was their whole objection...
ReplyDeleteRuth Gledhill has, in my opinion, become much more fair-minded recently. I don't think that an intelligent person could read the garbage that wing-nuts post to her site, day after day, and a not reach a conclusion or two of their own. Yes, she often goes for the sensational, but remember that she is a national journalist. The US does not have a religion reported of comparable status. And she's broken some important stories.
ReplyDeleteSusan, Ruth doesn't mention the bishops, but we can, and we do.
ReplyDeleteAnd you're right. The ACNA folks will never want to share a table with the great unwashed in TEC.
Lapin, she has improved, but she still makes me sigh.
Ruth Gledhill isn't known for for her ability to keep the facts... ummmmm... straight.
ReplyDeleteJeffri, I'm somewhat concerned about that, too. I hope she's keeping her facts straight.
ReplyDeleteI've got my own ideas I'm trying to hammer out about schism and our mutual places in the courts of the house of our God.
ReplyDeleteMark, let me know when you're done hammering.
ReplyDeleteWell, true to my exhibitionist nature, I've been forming my thoughts publicly.
ReplyDelete