fpb | You couldn't make it up dept. no.39: High theology

You couldn't make it up dept. no.39: High theology

The American Episcopal Church is currently holding a convention which is, by all appearances, being used to lay the bases of a schism from the worldwide Anglican Communion. So it must have been with considerable surprise that the delgates heard that the first vote would be: “The Cucumber Sandwich is the official food of The Episcopal Church.” Incidentally, according to journalist Ruth Gledhill, there was nothing like a cucumber shandwich available. The vote was to test out the new electronic voting system which is coming soon to a General Synod near you. It was lost, 335 or 41.9 per cent for and 464 or 58.1 per cent against.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I was amazed at the language they used about consercrating gay marriages. It was along the lines of "use utmost caution and sensitivity" (or something equally noncommittal). Basically they worded it that way so the overwhelming number of liberal Episcopal priests could rush out and prepare to do the very thing they were not really advised against. My parish may well see one in the near future, I suspect, albeit quietly and with little fanfare. (I live in the American South, of course.)

The schism is as good as here - the convention was practically designed to make it visible. It refuses to speak of ECUSA, rather calling itself "The Episcopal Church" (because, you know, there are no bishops among Lutherans, Methodists, Catholics, Old Catholics, Lefebvrites, Orthodox, Armenians, Jacobites, Copts...) and calling up every international delegation it could lay its hands on - mostly from such fortresses of Anglicanism as Haiti or the Federated States of Micronesia. They managed to have representatives from 16 states, thus casting themselves no longer as the American branch of the Anglican communion, but as an international communion itself.

Frankly, I would say, bring it on. A schism would clear the air in the international Anglican community, and, but for the dead and rotting albatross of Establishment hanging from the neck of the English Church, it would have happened long ago. Establishment means that the desperate pretence of unity in the Anglican Church must be carried on at all costs; growing Evangelical and orthodox areas must be kept somehow in communion with people who are no better, sometimes worse, than Unitarians; bishops have to be appointed who have the least possible amount of distinctive opinions.

Establishment has to go. Most countries where Christianity is in trouble still have a State Church or, as in Germany, its legal remains. In world communions such as Anglicans and Lutherans, this leads to spineless European bishops appointed by ignorant or atheistic parliaments having to pretend they are the same, with the same right and authority, as African bishops elected for their leadership qualities by missionary communities.

The pressure of international confrontation is slowly driving the Anglican Church of England, very much against its wish, towards confrontation. (The same is happening among the Lutherans.) The clash between Christians and Unitarians, between Akinola and Griswold, is here, and there is nothing they can do but take sides. And there is a tendency towards providing the Communion with Vatican-like international disciplinary powers over bishops and local communities, because one thing that has become clear to almost everyone outside England is that it simply cannot continue to allow separate and incompatible views to be preached in the same churches.

One way or another, good luck to it. Let the Episcopalians have their own Unitarian church, without having to pretend they are anything like Christian any more. Let the Anglican Christians in the US unite in a new province of the Anglican Church. Let the Anglican Church acquire, or rather re-acquire (she had them, until a Liberal Parliament nullified them in the 1850s) instruments of doctrinal unity and authority. And let us clear the air. Of course, I am convinced that the Episcopalians will quickly become irrelevant, but it's their business. And the existence of a clear alternative does a lot of good. I hear funny things coming out of Los Angeles: Cardinal Mahoney, the arch-demon of liturgical and doctrinal extremism, has SIGNED the letter of support to the Marriage Amendment co-signed by many orthodox religious leaders from Christianity, Hebraism and Islam. Ooooh, his gay friends won't like that. I wonder whether this has to do with the presence of a schismatic "Bishop" from somewhere in the fever swamps of "Old Catholic" episcopal ordinations, who is getting plenty of good press from LA's liberal and theologically illiterate media (some of whom are taking him for a real Catholic!) for offering all the things that Mahoney, as long as he is in communion with Rome, simply cannot do - women priests, open gay ordinations, and so on. Open confrontation is so much better and so much more wholesome than creeping unadmitted change.

I agree with wholeheartedly with the notion that if the status quo isn't working that it's time to change the status quo. What's going on is the same internal, only spoken of in whispers rot that is taking place in so many governments all over the place -- where it's somehow better to overfund and prolong ineffective and often harmful programs than it is to admit error (or worse, willful addiction to power) and move on to something new that should work better.

I came to the conclusion long ago that many people want change only because they have a burning desire, for some strange reason, to fix what's not broken. If not that, then they'd rather co-opt something already in existence and then change it to suit than work to start something from the ground up, because let's face it: those people are also inveterate lazy bastards. It's these people, preaching change and revolution for all (but for the most selfish of reasons), that attract and then become addicted to "leading" that portion of the population who long to follow.

That's the situation as I see it.

Yeah. I'm something of a cynic.

I came to the conclusion long ago that many people want change only because they have a burning desire, for some strange reason, to fix what's not broken. If not that, then they'd rather co-opt something already in existence and then change it to suit than work to start something from the ground up, because let's face it: those people are also inveterate lazy bastards.
You've got a point there. On the other hand, I'm a great believer in giving people exactly what they claim to want. So you want your church to be progressive, diverse, etc. etc.? Great. You've got it. Get on with it and stop bothering us. It's not as though the schismatics would have to even build up anything out of nothing: they have a massive, long-established church structure (one reason to call the new church Episcopal is that it probably would have more bishops than parish members) with flourishing upper-class contacts and a vast endowment. It is the loyal Anglicans who will have to rebuild a church from the foundations. But as for anyone who does not want to take part in the umpteenth great experiment - quitcherwhinin', either stay in or get out, but show some consistency. Now that you have your Episcopal Church and your Metropolitan Churchs and your United Church of Christ, there really is no excuse for you to hang around Catholic or Lutheran or Anglican porches any more.

Now that you have your Episcopal Church and your Metropolitan Churchs and your United Church of Christ, there really is no excuse for you to hang around Catholic or Lutheran or Anglican porches any more.

I've made that unpopular point quite a few times with several of the more liberal members of the local parish, and -- like most members of any denomination -- they view the Episcopal Church as "theirs". It turns into some kind of possessive thing about the Church, the Faith, and even of God Himself. Pardon me for being so blunt, but it's all fucked up now, the Episcopal Church. For the sake (if you'll pardon the play on word and phrase) of all that is holy, they really need to go ahead and make the split, call it a day, and get up tomorrow morning and start their respective new church anew.

I grow weary of the hand-wringing, especially since it isn't like no one didn't see this coming a mile away.

What I want to know is when the hosts will start coming in five-flavor packs.
I missed the burning issue - will the schism shot-heard-round-the-world be baked chicken versus fried at the vestry meetings, or War of the Watercress at the parish picnic? America has a right to know.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

You couldn't make it up dept. no.39: High theology

"High theology"? Yeah, they must be high.

Re: "High theology"? Yeah, they must be high.

Re: "High theology"? Yeah, they must be high.

Re: "High theology"? Yeah, they must be high.

Re: "High theology"? Yeah, they must be high.

no subject