Friday, March 02, 2007

Topic of the day: Schism and Heresy

I'm trying to do some listening today rather than flapping my own jaw. Here's some things I've read.

Kendall Harmon writer of titusonenine: "Anybody remember back to the immediate aftermath of General Convention 2003? Again and again we heard that 'Schism is always worse than Heresy.' ... Apparently, with regard to the new theology and practice embraced by TEC’s leadership, their own standard doesn’t apply and they are willing to split the Anglican Communion over their convictions. .... But now it is worth breaking apart the third largest Christian family in the world over. Sounds pretty important to me."

Jim Naughton writer of daily episcopalian: " I think the number of people willing to get out of bed on a Sunday morning to attend a Church that defines its charism as 'facilitating the conversation' are probably rather small."

EHCulver: "I'm tired of doublespeak and riding fences. Let's have the courage to stand behind our conviction..."

Doug Simonsen: "What our leadership characterizes as the urgent need to 'remain in conversation' in order to influence the trajectory of the AC, from another perspective will just look like the old colonial mindset, the unreflective assumption that we know what's best, and that everyone else needs our advice. Can we truly say they're wrong?"

Henry: "The principal proponent of the position that we must renounce full inclusion of LGBTs in our church is also the principal proponent of legislation that would criminalize gay advocacy and association in Nigeria. This is not a nice little conversation about inclusion. We're talking about someone who desires to persecute gays even to the point of arrest, torture and death. This is not an Anglican tea party. This is very much like Neville Chamberlain at Munich. Are we going to placate Akinola to avoid a breach of the communion? The ABP has been playing Chamberlain's part very well. Unfortunately, our PB is also playing along at this point."

revdoc: "I too believe we should split from the AC. The one argument that has prevented me from saying that more resolutely in Miroslav Volf's argument that at Creation, God separated things but also bound them together. Now I must disagree with Volf, as much as I admire his work, pointing out that sometimes, being 'bound together', however divine the plan, can deteriorate into abuse."

mscottsail: "I'm not sure those are the only choices."

Roger B: "I suspect that we have more support around the Anglican world that we realize, and that power represented by the Global Primates is of a much more limited nature than they think. The problem has been, in my opinion, that no one has stood up to them and told them they are wrong. We need affirm what we truly stand for; if we don't, we stand for nothing."

Florida Gordon: "The thought of separating from the Anglican Communion is painful. And what TEC and the AC is going through is not different from the conflicts leading to divorce. But even though divorce creates pain on both sides, at the end of the divorce process comes a time of growth."

John B. Chilton: "I like Henry's vivid Neville Chamberlain parallel. But I wonder if it fits well. What if the example was the US policy of engagement with China? Trade has its economic benefits to both sides, but it also may have an effect on China's human rights policies. The US government believes it will have a good effect. Meanwhile the Chinese government presumably believes the policy allows it to delay human rights reforms."

No comments: