From 1 to 4 November, the Churches of the Porvoo Communion held a consultation in Turku, Finland on the Churches’ teaching on marriage. Delegates represented the Anglican Churches in England, Ireland and Scotland, and the Lutheran Churches in Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland. Observers were present from the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Latvia, the Lutheran Church in Great Britain, and the Latvian Lutheran Church Abroad.Boggles the mind, doesn't it? One wonders why "belonging to one another" is not a priority for the leadership in the Anglican Communion. Why can't we have a “platform of sustained communication in the face of issues which raise difficulties for [the Churches]” of the Anglican Communion? I don't know about you, but the dissonance is deafening for me.
....
The consultation concluded that differences over the introduction of same-sex marriage remain unresolved. The Churches hold a variety of views and pastoral practices along a theological spectrum. Some believe same sex marriage to be a legitimate development in the Christian tradition, whilst others see the potential for a serious departure from the received tradition. Nevertheless the consultation affirmed the benefits of "belonging to one another" and the value of honest encounter. The strong relationship of the Porvoo Communion, provides a “platform of sustained communication in the face of issues which raise difficulties for [the Churches]” (My emphasis)
The Archbishop of Canterbury assures us that there is no alternative to the Anglican Covenant. My goodness! The statement above looks to me very much like a foundation upon which to build an alternative. TINA begone! Covenant begone!
H/T to Ann Fontaine at The Lead and Simon Sarmiento at Thinking Anglicans.
What a sane, Christ-like, goespel statement. Makes me sing for joy. I have been deeply saddened by the spectacle of the AMiA implosion and dismayed to see the usual players descend in a feeding frenzy on Murphy just like they do with TEC And KJS. Despite my very pro-TEC.liberal bent I take no joy in such ugliness. The Porvoo Communion is indeed a voice crying out in the wilderness and they are preparing a pathway for the Lord this Advent.
ReplyDeleteAs one of my fellow members of the NACC said, "How do we join Porvoo?"
ReplyDeleteAs to AMiA, I first struggled with Schadenfreude, but when the full unraveling was revealed, I became sad, too. It's a sorry spectacle, and I wouldn't wish it on the group. I feel worse for the priests and the folks in the pews of the AMiA churches. I must say though that I'm not surprised. I didn't see how the association could last
How strong are the bonds of the Porvoo Communion? They aren't all the same denomination and don't share the same leaders, hierarchy,etc. They have more independence.They can go home and shake it off if disagreements get too strong. The Anglican Communion shares leaders and a name and that's why many people expect it to be uniform. Would you consider a restaurant that served dog burgers and tater tots in Beijing to be a McDonalds because it had Golden Arches? It's not McD's.
ReplyDeleteI've wondered if allowing more than one Anglican church in America like Lutheranism has wouldn't have helped rather than hurt, allowing groups from both sides to have their own "home" and then work together on soup kitchens, etc. In several ways the local progressive TEC parish has more in common with Methodist or ELCA churches here than with the conservative TEC parishes in the state. Which is why I've been trying to figure out what makes a "Real Episcopalian". Considering +Lawrence, the Lutherans letting parishes own their churches hasn't killed them yet. Parishes(and their buildings) moving between synods have gone both ways.
Chris H
ReplyDeleteI don't see why the Anglican Communion can't do the same as Porvoo. After all, the national churches are already widely different in many core aspects. Some have women priests and even women bishops, others don't. One is experimenting with lay presidency.
In TEC you have Communion after Baptism, in the CoE you still have to be confirmed.
In the CoE we hold Evangelicals, Anglo-Catholics and Liberals in tension in one and the same church and the spread of belief is astonishing.
What we're really saying is that we must all have the same view about homosexuality in order to be Anglican.
And that strikes me as complete nonsense.
Let's face it though, Liberals don't accept people who disagree with homosexuality. The name calling goes both ways. Liberals want everyone to agree with them on it just as badly as conservatives want everyone to stop it. Looking at the list of participants, I can't see a church on the list that is very conservative or isn't moving toward same sex marriage. The Church of Sweden sent letters to conservative clergy to shut up or leave when it decided to allow same sex marriage. And the different churches in the group still give each group breathing room for disagreements. Having the same title/brand and archbishop makes a difference. Does it or doesn't it bother you when Rowan makes a statement you dislike, just as Katherine's liberal, multifaith statements drives conservatives nuts.
ReplyDeleteChris, the two branches of Lutheranism are not in communion with each other, so far as I know, and it was not a matter of 'letting' the separation happen. The American Lutheran Church split into the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and the Evangelical Lutheran Chufch in America. They don't share pastors, whereas the Episcopal Church and the ELCA exchange pastors and recognize each other's ordinations.
ReplyDeleteAnd for heaven's sake, you could enter two Anglican or Episcopal Churches and wonder if the two were of the same denomination. I see no reason that we can't function within Anglicanism the same as is described in the statement by the members of the Porvoo Consultation on Marriage.
What we're really saying is that we must all have the same view about homosexuality in order to be Anglican.
And that strikes me as complete nonsense.
Erika, exactly.
Besides, if church attendance continues to decline and money dries up, I believe we will see more interdenominational cooperation and merging. The name brand is not everything. "Belonging to one another" and "honest encounter" sound mighty good to me.
Chris H
ReplyDeletethere's not accepting and not accepting.
I don't accept as a final verdict that people have the temerity to claim the right to decide about my life and to impose their judgements on me.
But I do accept that these people are members of my church and my brothers and sisters in Christ.
I would want to continue to get them to change their minds, but I would never ever want to throw them out of my church.
And I would not want to force them to accept my view either. Any change of heart has to be genuine.
But what I do believe in is the polity of the church I am a member of.
The real question is not how we feel about homosexuality but how we feel about power.
Don't forget, this Covenant may have arisen out of the gay issue but it is not about it and it is not restricted to it.
What if the next contentious point was something that was very dear to your heart? Would you be happy for an unelected, unaccountably body to be able to dilute the discernment your own national church came to after much searching?
Are you so blinded by the "presenting issue" that you cannot see that future "presenting issues" may be some where you are on the other side?
This is not a vote about gay people. This is a vote about how you would like your church to be governed.
Think carefully.
Oh brother: it's "The Tolerant are Intolerant!" canard. }-p
ReplyDelete