A quick skim suggests that several members of the "Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion" have declared -- or have been declared for -- that they are not in communion with some members of the Anglican Communion, as commonly or even legally understood. Now, by the logic of "communion," someone not in communion with someone in a communion is not in the communion. That is, there are members of the Committee who are not members of the Anglican Communion. By the logic of "committee of," this committee cannot, therefore, be a committee of the Anglican Communion. A quick glance around shows that the other"Instruments of Union" or whatever suffer from the same problem, except, perhaps, that role presently played by Taffy Bushybrows, whose position on this -- as everything else -- is so nuanced as to be undecipherable.
Consequently, all this kerfuffle is irrelevant. The fact that some groups says it is representing the Anglican Communion in no wise means that it is, especially if it demonstrably is not (see above). So, the appropriate response to all these decrees or whatever is to ignore them, along with the proclamations of the Holy Rollers of Derby et al. To consider giving them a vote of approval or rejection is to give them a legitimacy they do not have.
Let the purple suits (since aniline dyes, so unimpressive) worry about things calling themselves the whatsis of the Anglican Communion. Let us in the communion get on with our thing, cooperating in the work of God's Commonwealth with those whose orders and sacraments are mutually reognized with ours.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It seems to me that your logic regarding "being in communion" is impeccable.
ReplyDeleteIf one Anglican church/province is "not in communion" with another Anglican church/province, then what business do they have pretending to be participants in one of the "instruments of communion"?
I am in favor of our being happily in communion with any who are willing to be in communion with us (whether happily or grumpily).
"Let us in the communion get on with our thing, cooperating in the work of God's Commonwealth with those whose orders and sacraments are mutually reognized with ours." And, whenever and to the extent possible, even with those whose orders and sacraments are not mutually recognized with ours.
Thanks for waving your flag on The Lead!
I, as a simple Episcopalian in the American Midwest applaud your logic. (I to enjoyed your comments on The Lead.)
ReplyDeleteThanx. As the only non-Michigander in my family (my Dad was between jobs in Flint and Wellston while working in Wisconsin), I redeemed myself by graduating from MSU (C when I started, A when my folks did)and basically share your literary tastes (but the later Anns seem to slack off a bit from the first -- and don't neglect the earlier Peters') and music and churches and their doors (we have an uppity Methodist church here with a red door -- those Wesley boys have a lot to answer for). Drop by again sometime.
ReplyDelete