Being or doing?
With all the talk of schism within the Anglican communion, the Archbishop of Canterbury has now suggested a new solution to the Episcopal 'problem':
Dr Williams is proposing a two-track Anglican Communion, with orthodox churches being accorded full, "constituent" membership and the rebel, pro-gay liberals being consigned to "associate" membership.
All provinces will be offered the chance to sign up to a "covenant" which will set out the traditional, biblical standards on which all full members of the Anglican church can agree.
But it is highly unlikely that churches such as The Episcopal Church in the US, the Anglican churches in Canada and New Zealand and even the Scottish Episcopal Church would be able to commit themselves fully to such a document.
These churches and any others that refused to sign up could opt to cut ties to Canterbury altogether, or could choose to remain in associate status.
My own personal bias is that the so-called 'traditionalists' are the real rebels here. In seeking to enforce a particular view of orthodoxy, they are wanting to transform the Anglican Communion from the broad church it has always been into a narrowly defined evangelical sect dominated by the shallow opinions of a few very loud fundamentalists.
Father Tobias Haller sees a silver lining. Being relegated to 'coach' class may actually free the Episcopal church to concentrate more on the real work of the church, and less on "all the intrigue and gilded butterflies of the ecclesiastical 'court.'"
The problem with the contemporary church is we're thinking about ministers instead of ministry: all this focus on personal qualities and manner of life instead of whether they do what Jesus said to do [...]
The only downside to Rowan's reflection is his still being mired with this particular sticky matter: "The Church's One Obsession" with its own structure, its being rather than its doing; the tendency to exalt form over function. But I'm hopeful the two-track solution might actually be liberating for us all!
So let's embrace an imperfect communion based on mission instead of a pure one based on the lifestyles of the missionaries!
Of course it goes deeper really than manner of life. What the 'orthodox' faithful really object to is not lifestyle per se but the acceptance of certain ways of being Christian, specifically that of being gay and a bishop or a woman and presiding-bishop. At the center of 'orthodoxy' lies a black heart of misogyny.
In this I'm reminded of the words of Jesus (Matthew 5:10-12, The Message):
You're blessed when your commitment to God provokes persecution. The persecution drives you even deeper into God's kingdom.
Not only that—count yourselves blessed every time people put you down or throw you out or speak lies about you to discredit me. What it means is that the truth is too close for comfort and they are uncomfortable. You can be glad when that happens—give a cheer, even!—for though they don't like it, I do! And all heaven applauds. And know that you are in good company. My prophets and witnesses have always gotten into this kind of trouble.
How true!