« Summary of the Actions of the 75th General Convention | Main | Tony Clavier: AFTER THE BALL WAS OVER »

June 25, 2006

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b57769e200d834d0d2e669e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference That they all may be One: Why divorce is not an option.:

Comments

Nick,

Thank you for this very helpful post. I've linked it on my blog.

Rick Lord

I just want to thank you for what you're writing, and especially for reminding me why I love the Middle Way - and the Episcopal Church, too.

A person can breathe again around here. Thanks.

I've always rejected "divorce" as a metaphor for schism, so obviously that's why I agree with your premise, at least, that divorce is not an option.

I say this because the imagery of Christ's teaching is overwhelmingly that we are spiritual brothers and sisters, joint heirs to God's Kingdom, adopted children of the King. We are NOT "spouses in Christ." So, extending the metaphor, we can't divorce a brother or sister. We can become estranged. We can disown one another. But guess what... we are still brothers and sisters by blood, the blood of Christ.

So those who talk of sectarian divorce are deluding themselves. As long as any of us proclaim ourselves as children of God, then we are still connected to all the other children. Believers may pretend not to be, but at their own grave peril. They may estrange themselves, but God has not granted ANYONE the authority to stop loving or to stop being accountable to other believers. And by choosing estrangement, it's easy to figure out who loses; who has separated themselves from vital parts of Christ... his Body.

But is there any way of protecting the orthodox diocese and parishes within ECUSA - I mean any way that those who say they do not want a divorce would actually be willing to accept? The failure to protect the orthodox and provide alternative oversight has been the great missed opportunity by ECUSA.

Pendennis88 - I believe so, but it's not the existing DEPO that is presently on the table. It's going to have to be stronger for it to work. I'd be happy to see it made stronger if it means we can start to talk with each other again.

I'm praying that other people in the Church will be willing to let that happen as well. Perhaps now that we see so clearly *why* it is neccesary for the people we love and want to say in relationship with. It's an imperfect solution, but this whole thing is imperfect at the moment.

We've already had to leave our parish; after a rather acrimonious debate (or rather, lack of debate) on the WR in which much distrust was on display by both sides, but especially by our pastor... we no longer feel welcome. There is no other Episcopal Church in our town; no other viable Episcopal Church closer than Toledo, which is 60 miles each way.

What else can we do? We are determined to tremain Anglican. We don't think TEC is going to do so; it just told the rest of the AC to take a flying leap (or, more correctly, patted them on their little heads and told them "there, there, it's not so bad as that and we really do want to stay in communion, but we're going to do it our way.")

There is no middle way. Either we believe the rest of the AC when it said that the WR was the irreducible minimum required to return to Communion (not stay, return), or we don't. TEC didn't believe the AC. It still remains to be seen whether the AC will follow through... but it looks as if they will.

There is no middle way. Either Christ is "the way, the truth and the life" or He isn't. TEC refused to say He is, and elected an open heretic as PB.

I just can't hang with that. Even if I had still been in ECUSA on Saturday, I wouldn't have been on Sunday.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    FYI