A thoughtful essay
Lionel Deimel of Progressive Episcopalians for Pittsburgh has written another thoughtful piece about the decisions facing our General Convention when it opens in Columbus in less than a week.
He writes:
"Our object, then, despite what the militant traditionalists say, must be to save Anglicanism not to save the Anglican Communion, which we cannot allow to become an object of idolatrous veneration. Recent history suggests that our response in typical Anglican rhetoric—the subtle, nuanced, ambiguous language that has allowed us to, as the traditionalists say, “fudge” so often in the past—will, in the current climate, be misinterpreted, ridiculed, and used to stage new attacks on our church. Perhaps the decision of General Convention will be that this is a chance we must take, but it is not our only option.
We should consider making a more principled, straightforward, and courageous response. We should consider the novel ideal of proclaiming the Gospel as we understand it and defending the approach to theology that most theologians in our church actually use. In simple, clear sentences we could express our sorrow for the hurt that others have experienced and express our sincere desire to remain in communion with all our sister provinces. We could remind others of Bishop Desmond Tutu’s explanation for how we have always maintained communion—“we meet”—and insist that removing the Episcopal Church or its representatives from Communion discussion is hardly characteristic of the Anglican way. Before the Communion creates more rules, we could insist that existing ones be observed. Before we cede authority to others, we could insist that those to whom we have ceded no author-ity refrain from intimidation. And we could declare that that name-calling, misrepresentation, and subversion are unbecoming a Christian and unacceptable in a bishop.
We could, in other words, insist that we have as much right to make claims on the Communion as it does on the Episcopal Church. Most importantly, however, we could declare our commitment to save Anglicanism at all costs and to save the Anglican Communion if at all possible."
Something's in the water... I thought that David Scott's post on Dr. Harding's blog from the other side is a thoughtful reflection moving along the same lines. It's clear that both sides are retreating to talk about Anglicanism as opposed to the AC proper.
Posted by Derek | June 1, 2006 11:38 AM
Golly Moses, where to begin? Let's keep it simple.
First, had Lionel simply skipped the entire first 12 or 13 pages and gone straight to his challenge, it would be a much more effective piece. I'll give him kudos for his courage and conviction in voicing what he wants to happen this summer. No fudge lover is he.
Second, I seem to remember Jim criticizing a conservative leader on this blog for using inappropriate military references in describing the "opponent." I would suggest that Lionel might also find a more receptive audience if he dropped the use of the terms "militant traditionalist" and (more offensive) "insurgents." Let's have everybody take a deep breath, calm down, we're all trying to follow Jesus here so let's not assume someone else's motives as being anything other than honorable.
It is possible to disagree with one's position and theology while still modeling Christ's love for the person with whom you disagree. And before everyone chimes in, I will be the first to recognize that each side has struggled with this at times (too often, in my opinion).
Posted by Widening Gyre | June 1, 2006 12:36 PM
WG, I agree it should be possible to disagree with one's position and theology while still modeling Christ's love for the person with whom you disagree. And both sides have struggled with this at times. Myself included.
You should speak to the readers on TitusOneNine, I’ve been getting pummeled there all day for saying I thought the issue needed more thought and prayer and that I thought the two sides should be able to work together.
This whole fight and the extreme levels some people are willing to go to “win” do not serve the Body of Christ well. It reflects negatively on Christianity as a whole and, IMHO, actually serves Satan by keeping some people away from the church who might otherwise be reached and brought into a relationship with Christ.
Much like the “Book of Daniel” TV show, it wasn’t for everyone but it might have helped reach some people who will not be reached with conservative rhetoric. I hope there is a place for (almost) everyone somewhere in the various denominations of the church.
Posted by DanielR | June 1, 2006 3:23 PM
DanielR,
I am sorry to hear of your pummeling over at T19. While I will frequent some of the threads over there, I don't catch them all. In the past I have challenged my conservative brothers and sisters to think and pray before they type and ask whether their comment will reflect Christ or not. And I have noticed other T19'ers also calling for more respectful posts.
Of course, there are a few who I am sorry to say are beyond the reach of our influence. The best we can do is identify them, rebuke them, and hope to contain them while trusting that the folks on the other side will realize that the noisy extreme is not representative of us in the conservative middle.
Peace.
Posted by Widening Gyre | June 1, 2006 4:47 PM
WG,
I think many are more "amped" than usual in anticipation of the General Convention and are letting the letting the rhetoric and hyperbole fly more than usual. As long as the conversation doesn't stop, progress can contiue to be made.
Blessings
Posted by DanielR | June 2, 2006 2:06 PM