'Adoption' plans proposed for anti-gay dioceses

[angli_fan]

(from the Daily Telegraph-UK)
By Jonathan Petre

Conservative Anglican leaders are exploring ways to "adopt" seven American dioceses that have rejected the pro-gay agenda of their own Church.

The proposals, which would be likely to split the Church irrevocably, will be discussed at a critical summit in Africa this month attended by 24 conservative primates, who represent two thirds of Anglicans around the world.

...If adopted, the development would sink the hopes of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, of brokering a compromise between conservatives and liberals and would provoke a formal schism.

It would be seen as a declaration of open war by liberals, and trigger a bitter "divorce" battle as rival factions fight in the law courts for the Church's wealth and property.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/11/wchurch11.xml

[Canadian Phil]

Thanks for posting this, anglifan. I hope and pray that things don't come to this because, as the article points out, forming a new province out of the dissenters is formalizing the already widening schism in TEC. I grieve that we are so close to the final tear and hope and pray that Archbishop Williams can buy more time to try to heal the schism which already exists as a result of GC 2003 and GC 2006.

Whether you agree with my interpretation of events or not, I hope that we can all join in prayer for the unity of the Anglican Communion and, particularly, for the TEC.

Peace,
Phil

[srigdon]

What I find intriguing about this is that the Global South conservatives don't seem to realize that they are sowing the seeds of schism in their own provinces down the line. We've heard some liberal voices from places like South Africa. They probably exist in Nigeria too.

The adoption action would set the precedent that a diocese can ditch its primate for another one and be accepted in another Anglican province. Are these Global South conservatives prepared to accept that? Suppose that sometime, some liberal dioceses in Nigeria decide they are tired of Akinola and want oversight from, say, ECUSA or some other Western church. They could accuse him of abandoning the historic faith by something or other. What precisely will be their moral authority for stopping such dioceses from doing as they choose? Don't we all have the right to association? A lot of foreign dioceses might find membership in ECUSA very tempting because of ECUSA's money.

Is the Global South really willing to run this sort of risk? Aren't these GS archbishops more interested in holding together their own flocks than in trying to wield influence over dioceses on the other side of the globe?

Or is the prospect of income from American dioceses just too tempting?

[Canadian Phil]

Just a brief comment or two.

First, srigdon is right about the risk of schism cascading over all provinces, liberal or conservative. Tolerance of schism, as is being suggested here, is a dangerous thing and needs to an absolute last resort. I know that the conservative diocese in question feel they've reached it, but, oddly, I don't think so. The Windsor process has aleady made so many inroads into TEC's and liberal's confidence in the sense of right that, given time, we may see a satisfactory result of this crisis.

Second, I think we have to be careful ascribing mercenary motives here to the conservative primates. Let me point out that the reason why conservative diocese are ready to cut and run is that they have been systematically ignored and lambasted for decades. As Fleming Rutledge has pointed out, if one part of the church gains nearly absolute control, division will follow. This is reaping the fruits of the rejection of conservative concerns in TEC.

Peace,
Phil

[srigdon]

Phil,

of course my comment is speculation. I can't prove these foreign bishops have 'mercenary motives.'

But why do you trust them? Think of all the poverty and problems they have to deal with in their provinces. Don't you think they have enough to worry about? Why are they worried about the West?

I'd say there is probably a mix of principled and mercenary motives. If the theological problems weren't there, true, we wouldn't be in this trouble. But I also think that if we were a tiny liberal province of a third world country, we wouldn't be worth a bucket of warm spit in Akinola's eyes.

Trust no one. Period.

Sidney

[Canadian Phil]

srigdon;

I trust them because that is what we Christians do. We trust unless we have good reasons not to. And, even after that, we continue to trust, in the hope that God's redemption will win through. I have no time or patience for conspiracy theories or for slogans about not trusting anyone. This is not a Christian position.

Frankly, I've had it up to here with conspiracy theories and slanderous speculations about motives from both sides. Charity, folks, can we have a little charity and actually believe that the other side has some integrity and principles? I know that is true of both liberals and conservatives I know both on this board and off. That is part of the tragedy of this situation; good, fair-minded people on both sides are fully ready to believe pretty much anything about each other. That is a scandal in the true sense of the word because we making the Gospel not looking a gospel of peace, but of conflict.

If all this makes me look like a fool in this world, fair enough. Look up the first part of 1 Corinthians, though, to figure out what God thinks of the wisdom of this world which tells us not to trust.

srigdon, I'll have to get back to you about your schism post, when I'm calmer, since I perceive there are some things you may not have thought of in your optimistic view of schism. But, first, I have to calm down.

Peace,
Phil

[srigdon]

Hi Phil.

Sorry you found my posts so inflammatory. While I am intentionally being cynical, I'm not trying to make war with you.

I believe my mistrust of leadership on both sides is based on observation of plenty of bad behavior. I have a hard time putting myself firmly in either camp, and quite frankly it has me questioning whether the Christian gospel really is transforming at all - and whether I belong with any Christian tribe.

But that is a topic for another thread sometime.

Sidney

[Canadian Phil]

Sorry about getting so incensed, srigdon. I've been reading faaaaar too much on the Kigali communique, much of which is as unedifying reading as anyone can think of.

I do understand what you're saying as far as not feeling entirely at home in either camp. I'm a moderate conservative, at the end of the day, which is a hardly comfortable position to be amid the polarization of church politics the last few years. So, I do understand the temptation of cynicism. I've been tempted more times than I can't to throw my hands up and just shout "A plague on both your houses!". Yet, I think it important to resist that temptation, largely because, amid ecclesial chaos and ungraceful behavior, I think it even more important to trust and to presume the best about people. In fact, it is when we assume the worst of people that we start to polarize the debate and make discussion impossible. If we have any chance of getting out of this mess, we need to maintain our willingness to bear each other's burdens and to trust each other.

I also understand your misgivings about whether the gospel is transforming or not, given the ill will radiating around this debate. If we watch the two sides relating to each other, it sure doesn't look like it, does it? Yet, this is the point in which I try to recall the good examples of the transformation of the Gospel. It is all too easy to find the bad examples of Christian behavior, but trying reversing the polarity. Look for the good examples. Look at the saints, who are as motley a crew as I know, but who, to a person, experienced profound transformation through Christ. After all, Peter was a coward and Paul was a persecutor, but, when they encountered Jesus, they overcame their limitations and became shining examples of faith and charity under very difficult situations.

Despite this whole ugly mess, I have no doubt that God will, in some way, redeem this mess. The important thing is that we don't let ourselves get distracted by the ugliness of the situation, but, instead, remain open to the good which will, God willing, come out of this situation.

Peace,
Phil