They all say the creed every Sunday...
The good news, one supposes, is that lots of fed up, beat up, and theologically exhausted Anglicans will probably convert en masse to Catholicism if this Mother Jesus bullshit continues. (Sorry Jesus, not for cursing, but for repeating the Episcopalian Church's Presiding "Bishopess"'s damned pathetic attempt to name you in a transgendered form. [Post edit: here's a link with some commentary on the "Mother Jesus" reference the Bishopess used. Raging liberal warning: NewsBusters is a pretty sickeningly conservative site. Don't blame me if you go blind from click on that link!])
At any rate, in an attempt to patch a flat tire on the plummeting airplane known as the "Anglican Communion" (comprised of many different national churches and sub-denominations - in America it's mainly the Episcopalian Church) apparently Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury (who oversees the Anglican Communion... well... kindof by influence - he has no real authority on theological matters) has proposed a two-tiered system of membership in the Anglican Communion...
See, the African Anglicans, and many Anglican churches are fuming about how the English, European, and now American churches are throwing all caution to the wind as regards ordaining women, electing women to be "bishopesses," and likewise making openly and sexually-engaged men and women priests and bishops.
Right, what was I saying? Oh yes... Rowan Williams proposes a "two-tiered system" of Communion. Which repulses all sensibilities of logic.
The very definition of being "in communion" means being of one mind. (Look up the word's definition.) As would befit a group of churches, being "in communion" means that they agree on the same ideas and theology. (Bonus irony to be found here: In the case of the Anglican Communion, it would seem like one of the shared founding ideas central to the "Communion" would be that if you disagree with church authority and have power and influence (for example, if your name is Henry VIII) it's fine to forcefully change theological fineries to suit your present needs and that dissenting parties should be persecuted, and locked up and executed all grizzly-like if necessary. That's exactly how the Anglican church broke off from the Catholic Church back in the 1500s... odd that such events could give rise to a religious group that claimed it had anything in common with each other outside of doing whatever the hell they all wanted. But yes, I digress.)
So here's the quick of the argument: you can't have a two-tiered system of "communion" where churches are being overseen and included overall in a psuedo-hierarchy but separated into the two tiers based on different theological foundations... it's a house divided. And not just divided... this shit is busted wide open. One group thinks the other is morally abject, completely bending to secular and political correctness; vice-versa the other group considers the first group to be biggoted and anti-love, close-minded and unaccepting of all the different forms of human love.
This isn't just some kind of superficial semantic argument... this is foundational and basic to all facets of belief in these churches.
It's like the Communist China's attempt to rule it's capitalist provinces under psuedo-democratic representation, but using traditional Communist authoritarianism to rule the rest of China with an iron fist. You read the government documents that extoll the virtues of Communistic (odd that the word "commune" is at the root of even this analogy) socialism, and can't help but smirk at the farcical and hypocritical way that comes off in light of how it preserves the ever-so-successful market economies booming in Hong Kong raking in all sorts of money and technology for China.
At this point, it has become exactly two different "communions" that choose to, in name only, belong to a single "Anglican Communion." It's silly. It's asinine. Moreover, it doesn't gain anything other than saving, in formality, a visible climax of schism in the Anglican Communion's ranks.
Is de facto schism kept silent in the consciences of Anglican believers better than outright schism within the churches?
Honestly, I think either way produces the same results: people believing different things. The point here is that reading about Rowan Williams trying to save the Anglican Communion reminds me of the times I tried to lie to my parents growing up. As if the words that came out of my mouth could mask the reality of the situation. I learned as a kid that that's kind of a silly, 15-second-fix. God, like my parents, can surely smell the bullshit...
At any rate, in an attempt to patch a flat tire on the plummeting airplane known as the "Anglican Communion" (comprised of many different national churches and sub-denominations - in America it's mainly the Episcopalian Church) apparently Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury (who oversees the Anglican Communion... well... kindof by influence - he has no real authority on theological matters) has proposed a two-tiered system of membership in the Anglican Communion...
See, the African Anglicans, and many Anglican churches are fuming about how the English, European, and now American churches are throwing all caution to the wind as regards ordaining women, electing women to be "bishopesses," and likewise making openly and sexually-engaged men and women priests and bishops.
Right, what was I saying? Oh yes... Rowan Williams proposes a "two-tiered system" of Communion. Which repulses all sensibilities of logic.
The very definition of being "in communion" means being of one mind. (Look up the word's definition.) As would befit a group of churches, being "in communion" means that they agree on the same ideas and theology. (Bonus irony to be found here: In the case of the Anglican Communion, it would seem like one of the shared founding ideas central to the "Communion" would be that if you disagree with church authority and have power and influence (for example, if your name is Henry VIII) it's fine to forcefully change theological fineries to suit your present needs and that dissenting parties should be persecuted, and locked up and executed all grizzly-like if necessary. That's exactly how the Anglican church broke off from the Catholic Church back in the 1500s... odd that such events could give rise to a religious group that claimed it had anything in common with each other outside of doing whatever the hell they all wanted. But yes, I digress.)
So here's the quick of the argument: you can't have a two-tiered system of "communion" where churches are being overseen and included overall in a psuedo-hierarchy but separated into the two tiers based on different theological foundations... it's a house divided. And not just divided... this shit is busted wide open. One group thinks the other is morally abject, completely bending to secular and political correctness; vice-versa the other group considers the first group to be biggoted and anti-love, close-minded and unaccepting of all the different forms of human love.
This isn't just some kind of superficial semantic argument... this is foundational and basic to all facets of belief in these churches.
It's like the Communist China's attempt to rule it's capitalist provinces under psuedo-democratic representation, but using traditional Communist authoritarianism to rule the rest of China with an iron fist. You read the government documents that extoll the virtues of Communistic (odd that the word "commune" is at the root of even this analogy) socialism, and can't help but smirk at the farcical and hypocritical way that comes off in light of how it preserves the ever-so-successful market economies booming in Hong Kong raking in all sorts of money and technology for China.
At this point, it has become exactly two different "communions" that choose to, in name only, belong to a single "Anglican Communion." It's silly. It's asinine. Moreover, it doesn't gain anything other than saving, in formality, a visible climax of schism in the Anglican Communion's ranks.
Is de facto schism kept silent in the consciences of Anglican believers better than outright schism within the churches?
Honestly, I think either way produces the same results: people believing different things. The point here is that reading about Rowan Williams trying to save the Anglican Communion reminds me of the times I tried to lie to my parents growing up. As if the words that came out of my mouth could mask the reality of the situation. I learned as a kid that that's kind of a silly, 15-second-fix. God, like my parents, can surely smell the bullshit...
Comments