Will this save or break the faith? -- Ruth Gledhill
I'm not just providing a link to this column by Ruth Gledhill at the TimesOnline because she makes reference to my earlier post raising an issue of the similarities to the current schism and that of the Nonjurors more than 3 centuries back.
It is an excellent piece full of helpful links, including pictures and video from the consecration of Martin Minns this past Saturday.
Gledhill poses a question that is probably worth considering, though it is a difficult one for us.
One thing that puzzles me through all this, however, is why so many of us assume that this is part of a process of breaking up. Why cannot it be seen the other way round, in the bottle-half-full tradition, as a way of staying together? Surely this action from CANA should actually be part of the solution, and not part of the problem. The two sides, unable to agree, can in developments such as this remain in communion with Canterbury and agree to live alongside each other, in parallel but separate jurisdictions within the same geographical boundaries.
Whatever happens, the church is suffering. And yet, the best outcome might be limiting of that suffering. Separation may be required for that to happen.
Comments
I see things more or less the way Gledhill does, though I'm obviously outside the Anglican tradition. Limited or impaired communion is better than no communion at all. In the past, churches that disagreed with TEC's liberal moves (moves I wholly support, to be clear) on WO, LGBT rights, etc., have left for the Continuum, which has no relationship to Canterbury and parts of which are these days looking toward Rome. At least this solution, difficult though it may be for all sides, leaves open the door to reconciliation down the line.
I stand corrected -- installed not consecrated. None-the-less the damage is being done!
First thanks for stopping by and leaving a note! I'm flattered to be included in your posy, I mean post -- we all do that!!!