Comments on: Why Not A Velvet Divorce? The Honesty Of Schism. http://blog.ancient-future.net/2007/09/24/why-not-a-velvet-divorce-the-honesty-of-schism/ The Ancient and Future Catholics Blog Sat, 06 Sep 2008 00:26:11 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU hourly 1 By: The young fogey http://blog.ancient-future.net/2007/09/24/why-not-a-velvet-divorce-the-honesty-of-schism/#comment-1045 The young fogey Tue, 25 Sep 2007 20:08:00 +0000 http://perchristumblog.wordpress.com/2007/09/24/why-not-a-velvet-divorce-the-honesty-of-schism/#comment-1045 That's essentially what I've been saying lately in the polite liberal Episcopal blogs, where I get the well-meant answer, 'let's ignore our differences on this and go to Communion together' (shut up and let us have our gay weddings), or when bored, one of the popular in-your-face ones where people are rude to you.<br/><br/>Anyway, I tend to agree with the Episcopal presiding bishop that at least 90 per cent of Episcopalians would not be affected in any way if their church is no longer in the Anglican Communion.<br/><br/>This would not close down the Episcopal Church nor in a free society, which I believe in, should it.<br/><br/>So why not just let it go?<br/><br/>I think this obsession with Anglican polity in the shrill element among the liberals is really to do with their pride and wanting to stamp out the American conservative Episcopalians as a group. They're totalitarians at heart.<br/><br/>And they're hypocrites about that polity historically: when they break the rules (like when they ordained women in 1974) it's 'prophetic'; when conservatives do it (like when some of them leave the Episcopal Church to join African Anglican churches) it's 'schismatic'.<br/><br/>Also, <i>Broad Church</i> doesn't describe the African Evangelical Anglicans. Broad Church and Evangelical are mutually exclusive. Broad Church means <i>liberal</i> and is a category that is, well, broad, covering everybody from former Anglo-Catholics and former Evangelicals who are credally orthodox but OK with women clergy and the gay thing to the fringe like John Spong the atheist.<br/><br/>Evangelicals historically are Calvinists and otherwise stray beyond Anglican thinking, believing the episcopate is optional. Like Anglo-Papalists (Anglicans who believe the papal claims and now use modern RC services) they are nearly unknown in America. Today they can include charismatics and similar happy-clappy folk.<br/><br/>Old-fashioned Central Churchmen, classic Anglicans not on board with gay weddings (I know some), are endangered as are Anglo-Catholics.<br/><br/>The credally orthodox and even liturgically conservative person who accepts (and sometimes is) women clergy and the gay thing is the new centre in the Episcopal Church.<br/><br/>There is a generational divide between old radicals and young relative conservatives there much like in the Roman Church. The people in their 20s and 30s have more in common with me than the elderly Spong or middle-aged Gene Robinson or Katharine Jefferts-Schori.<br/><br/>What a wonderful photo of the Bishop of the Rio Grande - I regret he won't find nearly as nice in mainstream RC. I knew Dr Steenson long before he was a bishop - he is a gentleman. That’s essentially what I’ve been saying lately in the polite liberal Episcopal blogs, where I get the well-meant answer, ‘let’s ignore our differences on this and go to Communion together’ (shut up and let us have our gay weddings), or when bored, one of the popular in-your-face ones where people are rude to you.

Anyway, I tend to agree with the Episcopal presiding bishop that at least 90 per cent of Episcopalians would not be affected in any way if their church is no longer in the Anglican Communion.

This would not close down the Episcopal Church nor in a free society, which I believe in, should it.

So why not just let it go?

I think this obsession with Anglican polity in the shrill element among the liberals is really to do with their pride and wanting to stamp out the American conservative Episcopalians as a group. They’re totalitarians at heart.

And they’re hypocrites about that polity historically: when they break the rules (like when they ordained women in 1974) it’s ‘prophetic’; when conservatives do it (like when some of them leave the Episcopal Church to join African Anglican churches) it’s ’schismatic’.

Also, Broad Church doesn’t describe the African Evangelical Anglicans. Broad Church and Evangelical are mutually exclusive. Broad Church means liberal and is a category that is, well, broad, covering everybody from former Anglo-Catholics and former Evangelicals who are credally orthodox but OK with women clergy and the gay thing to the fringe like John Spong the atheist.

Evangelicals historically are Calvinists and otherwise stray beyond Anglican thinking, believing the episcopate is optional. Like Anglo-Papalists (Anglicans who believe the papal claims and now use modern RC services) they are nearly unknown in America. Today they can include charismatics and similar happy-clappy folk.

Old-fashioned Central Churchmen, classic Anglicans not on board with gay weddings (I know some), are endangered as are Anglo-Catholics.

The credally orthodox and even liturgically conservative person who accepts (and sometimes is) women clergy and the gay thing is the new centre in the Episcopal Church.

There is a generational divide between old radicals and young relative conservatives there much like in the Roman Church. The people in their 20s and 30s have more in common with me than the elderly Spong or middle-aged Gene Robinson or Katharine Jefferts-Schori.

What a wonderful photo of the Bishop of the Rio Grande - I regret he won’t find nearly as nice in mainstream RC. I knew Dr Steenson long before he was a bishop - he is a gentleman.

]]>