Drell’s Descants

Whether we have one AC or two (institutional Canterbury & confessional Global South), a Covenant will be needed. We have seen that vague “bonds of affection” are inadequate. Sometimes, even in a very affectionate family, you get a troubled member. Boundaries must exist and responses must be decisive or the damage spreads.

Comment by Timothy Fountain — 6/30/2007 @ 10:59 am

We already have two communions. A predominatly black CHristan one and a whitey one.

The real problem is not intercommunion or covenant or councils or whatever.

The real problem exists primiarly in the US and is individualism and congregationalism. The idea that a parish could join the new province, then decided it doesn’t like that province’s theology and then leave and go somehwere else is disguisting! So is the idea that clergy could transfer to and from ECUSA and the new province, or remain in the ECUSA pension scheme.

The challenge for the new US province is to adapt models of discipline from Christian provinces to the legal frameworks of the individualist, private-property-based US legal system.

Comment by Sinner — 6/30/2007 @ 8:11 pm

“The idea that a parish could join the new province, then decided it doesn’t like that province’s theology and then leave and go somehwere else is disguisting! So is the idea that clergy could transfer to and from ECUSA and the new province, or remain in the ECUSA pension scheme.”

Maybe, Sinner. But the perplexing point for this mere layman is to fathom why TEC cares about the African initiatives at all.

I read jingoistic blasts from bishops, saying how the Afticans should butt out of the flowering of an American expression of the Anglican genius on these shores. Of course, if the traditional Anglican (and Christian) view of theology and morality is to be jettisoned, why shouldn’t the believers on other continents serve up what the native American church has rejected? Indeed, how can the American church claim to be “catholic/small c” when it bolts the consensus of the Anglican Communion? — not to mention the wider “large C” Church?

Dr. Tighe’s comments suggest that the Roman Catholic Church is expecting an influx from our congregations. Even the Orthodox are waiting for our refugees. Of course, neither of those bodies will want for property. (I remember reading Brad’s explanations about why he lacks interest in those alternatives, but others may not share his objections).

What disgusts me about this debate is how it debases the teachings of our Church. Over and over have I heard that a “church is not a building at all — it’s the Body of Christ — that is, we are the Church - all of us here comprise the real Church — it’s not property at all.” Those points are trotted out in sermons just before annual pledge or capital giving campaigns.

There is an old saying that America is a nation of laws, not men. That old saw never made any sense to me. Could there ever be a nation of laws without men?

Perhaps TEC is aiming to give that principle a try. It may end up with many congregations or even with much property but without people. And that it would brag about such poverty is disgusting indeed.

Comment by Chip. — 7/2/2007 @ 4:00 pm