Take the hint

A local online dialogue is taking place around the latest missive from the Global South prelates. If Queen Victoria was not amused, it is probably fair to say we were not impressed.

In order to give my comments some context, I am sharing tidbits (with anonymity).

The first observation:

You can usually gauge the level of maturity in a group by their propensity to claim "They made me do it." By that standard, we are not dealing with adults among the Global South Primates.

Another friend writes, tongue-in-cheek:

One would think a group of primates could come up with something genuinely original.

Next comment:

Why are earth do you think a group of primates could come up with anything particularly original. That is a trait I have rarely notice prevalent among bishops, and since I rather skeptically believe advancement in the church more often than not is a result of staying in the middle and being nice and going along to get along, I rather expect primates to be a rather dull lot. The current PB is, I suggest the exception that proves the rule. Is all of that too harsh?

My snarky response:

I would expect a group of prelates to come up with something conformist, fear-based, authoritarian, dualist, and coercive (and, with this group, completely pedestrian, anti-modernist, and vaguely heretical, though they are unaware of the latter). They did not disappoint. My expectations of western hierarchy received a delightful surprise in Vatican II but the Italian Church is busy restoring its dismal reputation these days. Anglicanism is rapidly taking on the worst characteristics of the Roman and Puritan factions it once distinguished itself from.

As my best friend has said on more than one occasion: Everybody's dirty little secret isn't sex; it's power.

Fear does not generate brilliant policy, great theology, or good pastoral care.

All right. Somebody's feeling his Wheaties this morning.

Another friend jumps into the fray:

To Paul's point, I think the COE and TEC positions did suffer all the disadvantageous sins of both the RC and Protestant heresies well into the Nineteenth Century, and what we are facing today is the incompleteness of our "conversion" under the Oxford Movement. I blame a lot, but certainly not all, of this on (1) Cardinal Newman, and (2) the Western and Northern branches of Anglicanism's insistence at ecumenism at all costs. We set ourselves up for a fall and now John Paul and Benedict are driving in the nails to the coffin with the help of the likes of Akinola, Duncan and Iker (who are, ironically, also doing it in the name of ecumenism).

I respond:

This is partly a response to X. and partly, as is obvious, me thinking (typing) out loud again.

By ecumenism do you mean an ill-advised yearning to re-unite with the Italian Church (I love MadPriest's name for Rome), a broader propensity to waffle in order to get along with anyone, or something else? I am guessing you write of the tendency to become more like the RC "one true Church" (thanks, Bennie) with its curial magisterium and insistence upon conformity in opinion and practice, or something like that.

I rather like Quadrilateral-based conversation and collaboration as it strictly limits what is deemed to be at our core Christian identity. [This is not unrelated to the Anglican Church of Canada's recent determination that committed same-gender relationships do not touch "core doctrine" though it is rightly part of doctrine as it involves our understanding of what it means to be human, to incarnate God's love, to be agents of God's reign, to live a sacramental and Christ-like life, etc.] I also prefer identifying and building on what we have in common with others (religiously, culturally, or in any other category), though being honest about where we differ is essential in all true dialogue.

As an historically "broad" church, the COE and its collective offspring will always carry traits of various factions. Some lament and some celebrate the abiding tension of being catholic, evangelical, hierarchical, participatory, traditional, reformed, etc. In an idealized (and illusory) world we would enjoy the best gifts of all these strands while eschewing their flaws and excesses. Alas, we do "suffer the disadvantageous sins" of the whole mess.

I am as unclear on your reference to the RC and Protestant heresies as my readers were, no doubt, unclear on my jab about heretical prelates. Not sure either of us needs to elaborate, just noting.

One Saturday before Palm Sunday I stood in the church parking lot, hosing down palm branches before they could be taken inside the church, and two Jehovah's Witnesses walked by. We chatted briefly. They asked whether I didn't think God wanted us all to worship the same way in heaven.

What an odd question! A friend opined that this would be like a symphony orchestra with only kind of instrument and wondered why on earth (or heaven) God would ever want such a thing. What a hideous thought.

I am aware that we are called to "unity, constancy, and peace," and heartily affirm this when I pray it at the Eucharist, but I fear that a strange kind of likemindedness has become a very great idol of conformity and I dearly wish to see that idol toppled and smashed.


Our unity does not come from thinking alike; it comes from our devotion to One Lord. If we desire unity, then we need to fix our gaze firmly on the pioneer and perfecter of our faith. Unity is a byproduct of our being united together in Christ, and He remains our goal. I repeat, unity is not our goal, it is a byproduct. Christ is our goal.

Frankly, I am tired of communion talk and see it as idolatrous because it has become paramount in too many discussions. I would rather have an untidy collection of sinners at a common table, folks who disagree on all kinds of things yet who know they are all hungry for the grace at that table. They not only don't have to agree, they don't even have to like each other; but they are commanded to love, and that is a commitment to each other's good. The Most Holy Trinity, however, has taught us in Jesus that divine love and commitment to the other's good is not coercive. We could take the hint.

--the BB