MLW+ & DKD+,

The same thing happens within ECUSA on the other side of the splits, to wit,
Women's Ordination, new BCP, and, just you wait and see, other gender- or
life-style-issues.

I think that has more to do with charity vs. party spirit than anything
else.  Many factions within ECUSA began by asking for tolerance and now
refuse to grant it.  Look at the movement for women's ordination.  TO be
ordained in ECUSA now, one has to profess a belief that women are capable of
ordination.  Twenty years ago, one merely had to tolerate the policy.

Not only is such an example instructive as to teh consequences of partisan
behavior, but it tells us about the causes of those behaviors.  The WO
faction in ECUSA has ram-rodded their "view" (once one of many within ECUSA)
down tradtionalist's throats.  So much for comprehension where tender
consciences are exercised by that issue.  The uncharity is manifest after
the fact.

The lesson for us continuers is that we don't face a tension between truth
and unity; we face a tension between (perceived) truth and love.  Part of
the reason there are so many brand names on the Anglican shelf is that we
think we've finished proclaiming the truth; now we just have to unify.

I remember C. B. Moss's fourfold purpose of the Church: liturgical,
doctrinal, pastoral and missionary (I don't have the book with me right
here, but I think those were his words).  If you start excising our history
("not so many Articles for me, please, I'm trying to cut back on my
Reformation intake"), you lose sight of how the Church achieves these
purposes.  The last stage in this process of "ressourcement" occurs when the
deposit of canon law is taller than all your jurisdiction's Parish
Registers.

More importantly, you create two Churches: one before the undesirable period
(the Reformation or the Middle Ages depending on preference) and one after.
There's a difference between saying I'm an Anglo-Catholic and disowning my
ancestors who weren't.  It's like trying to pretend that the dotty old man
who drools in his plate at every Thanksgiving dinner is not my grandfather:
if he weren't, I wouldn't be here!

We should stop telling ourselves that if ECUSA had been composed entirely of
one expression of Anglicanism, none of the looniness would have taken hold.
To take the WO issue again:  I rather like having both the alter Christus
argument favored by Anglo-Catholics and the "headship" argument recently
advanced by Evangelicals in my kit bag.  They both help me as I teach
parishioners what it means to have validly ordained ministers.

If some Evangelical had not been charitable enough with me to present that
argument to me, I should not have as firm a take on the truth.  Which shows
that charity leads to truth rather than proceeds from it.  You can reduce
some truths to paper and remain petty and mean.  But you can't reduce
charity.  Nor can you confine.

Paul Blankinship+


all the time bearing in mind that Anglicanism -- for better or
> worse -- is and always has been much broader than many of us are even
> comfortable with.  Otherwise, your observation in your original post is
> exactly correct: there is something flawed in our ecclesiology (but schism
> itself carries that flaw implicitly in it, doesn't it?).
>
> MLW+
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Lexorandi2@...>
> To: <faithandlife@...>
> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 12:14 PM
> Subject: [FaithandLife] Anglican Comprehension [was ++Williams]
>
>
> > In a message dated 6/27/2002 10:29:25 AM Central Daylight Time,
> > mward@... writes:
> >
> > <<
> >  > and the question is bound to arise whether there may be an essential
> flaw
> >  in
> >  > "continuing church" ecclesiology.
> >
> >  From what standpoint?  Just curious.... >>
> >
> > DKD:  Bear with me, Mark+, as I'm really just thinking aloud and have
not
> > come to any certain conclusions on this.  But to use my own jurisdiction
> > (REC) as an example, we separated in 1873 because our founders were
> convinced
> > that there was no longer any room for them in PECUSA.  In other words,
> they
> > were leaving a church that was increasingly intolerant of
"evangelicals."
> > However, the result of the REC schism was not the formation of a more
> > tolerant church, but rather of a less tolerant church committed to
> righting
> > all the wrongs our founders perceived in the parent church, based upon
> > principles that were considered extremely partisan even amongst Anglican
> > Evangelicals of their own day.  What has been the result?  Over a
century
> of
> > stagnation.  In 1873-75, the RE schism amounted to about 25% of the
parent
> > church.  Today, even with their rapid loss of membership, ECUSA lays
claim
> to
> > around 2 million members.  The REC (in the USA) has just over 10,000.
> Why?
> >
> > Carry this over to the continuing church movement of modern times.  Far
be
> it
> > from me to dismiss or deprecate the very REAL doctrinal issues which
> incited
> > the continuing church movement (especially women's ordination).
However,
> it
> > is interesting to observe a similar dynamic to the RE schism.  How many
> > continuing churches set out to right all the *perceived* wrongs of the
> parent
> > body in accordance with their own narrow partisanship?  Again, feeling
> that
> > the parent body had become unbearably intolerant of them, many
continuing
> > churches were established on principles even more intolerant than the
> parent
> > church.
> >
> > Anyway, just a thought.  Appreciate any comments.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Daniel+
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, send ANY message to
> <faithandlife-unsubscribe@...>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to
<faithandlife-unsubscribe@...>
>
>