I’m wondering if any of the good Episcopalians in his district are aware of his reported activities with the schismatics (he says that he is a Congregationalist in Alabama).

Someone in his district should ask him if he voted to elect Akinola as his personal religious leader, how he feels about the Nigerian law, if he voted in the Falls Church election - what is a Congregationalist doing voting in an Episcopalian election, Is he a Congregationalist or an Anglican, etc.

By the way, while Falls Church is reportedly the spirtual home of Aderholt’s buddies like Tucker Carlson, Robert Bork, Jr., and Attorney General Gonzales, etc., the only other elected official that is reportedly a member of CANA (the Akinola-led Anglicans in the USA) is Jack Kingston (R-Savannah).

Of course, hindsight is easy — living through this is not. I recognize that it’s a complex issue and quite painful for those who are part of the Episcopal church.

Binary or not, in my opinion, continuing in communion with murderers (who are actively pursuing murder as policy, not just the “incidental deaths” that Del mentioned, to be clear) is an interesting position for a Christian to take. Back when I thought this debate was over ordinations and marriages, I understood trying to stay in communion. I don’t agree with those stances, but at least they aren’t out-and-out murder. However, a very little research shows just how horrifying Akinola’s policies are.

As to your first, “aren’t the primates doing the same thing you say the US bishops are doing? They are the ones who gave an ultimatum,” I take it you’re refering to my comment about staying the course and thinking history will vindicate. I would say that the Primates are not engaging in such behavior for a few reasons. First, they have been flexible in their efforts to reconcile ECUSA to the Communion. They have taken what I consider a moderate approach (urged ECUSA to take steps to undo the harm done by the actions of the ‘03 convention), as opposed to the more radical alternatives proposed (Cut ECUSA off entirely from the Communion, etc.). Second, and more important, the Primates’ position is not one of ideology; it’s one of necessity — i.e., in efforts to maintain the unity of the Communion. Their position does not depend on history vindicating them. Maintaining the unity of the Communion is a “Good” here and now, as it will be tomorrow, and I touch on this point briefly below.

As for your second regarding the freedom of ECUSA to maintain its autonomy without having to bend to the will of the Communion, you are correct. ECUSA is only part of a larger communion of Anglican churches, with no one having a greater say than the other. It is certainly free to “make its own decisions without being backed into a corner,” as you suggest. I would add this, however. As part of a larger communion, ECUSA has an obligation to the Communion AND to its congregants to maintain that fellowship. Just as we are all members incorporate of the body of Christ, and no person can compel another to do something for the greater good of the whole, individually, we seek to maintian our Christian community. I wouldn’t intentionally do something to disrupt my communion with another brother or sister in Christ. If I felt that, as a matter of principle, I had to pursue a course of action that might disrupt my communion with another in the body of Christ, I think it is incumbent on me to do so in a diplomatic fashion that does the least damage to my communion with others. Maintaining the communion is essential to the Christian experience, I believe. It is in and through the communion that God works. ECUSA’s reckless disregard of the sanctity of that communion it what bothers me most.

Kathy, you know that my position on this issue is not one of ideology — it’s one that personal for me — and I know you’re not being snarky. Of course I can’t say the same for Tricia. And so I debate whether to dignify her comment with a response and run the risk of answering a question that does not seek a response. But to be fair to all, here goes.

Tricia, you ask if I think ECUSA “should endorse death sentences for homosexuals” because that’s what Akinola and other “conservative” bishops advocate. I think you misunderstand my position in this debate. While I may espouse a “conservative” viewpoint in this dialogue from your perspective, I am not one of those that believes the African Provinces have it right. Their hypocrisy is blatant — they condemn ECUSA for its stance on homosexuality, yet they permit polygomy and idol worship. No, no, Tricia, that is not my stance. If you have any interest in where I stand in this debate, feel free to see my earlier posts on the matter: http://www.queervoice.net/kmcmullen/2007/02/19/dont-let-the-door-hit-you-in-the-ass/#comments

Your binary approach to this issue (the suggestion that anyone who disagrees with ECUSA in this debate MUST endorse the absurd ideology of the extreme right) is disheartening. Obviously, the ad hominem attack was just too tempting. I’ll let it slide this time. If, however, you are interested in maintaining a meaningful dialogue, I’d be happy to oblidge.

Baudrillard, I too am saddened to see the worldwide communion, and possibly my own conservative diocese, shattered in this way, but I cannot criticize the ECUSA bishops for finally taking a stand, after years of footing the bill for international conferences so they could be told one more time how sinful they were. The church is one place where it’s fine to fight an ideological war, in my opinion. At least no bombs will be falling in this one.

And yes, Kathy, the American Episcopal church is indeed an independent entity. A war was fought not so long ago about that idea, too. And if conservative parishes or dioceses in this country want to leave the national church, well, it will hardly be the first time a Protestant denomination has splintered.

This disagreement isn’t just semantics any more — the stakes are literally life and death.

I cannot believe ECUSA has done this. Basically, they have said, “we know that we have disrupted the Communion, but we don’t care. You all can suck it.” They are so hell-bent on pushing their agenda, they don’t care about the effect on the worldwide Anglican Communion, the national church, the individual diosceses, much less individual Episcopalians. That troubles me — and I, too, find it discouraging.

We criticize George W. Bush, on this blog often for taking a stance, which he believes to be principled, and sticking with it regardless of the consequences. He does so because he believes that history will vindicate him. The leaders in ECUSA believe the same thing. They are fighting what they see as an ideological war, for which they are willing to sacrifice the church. They are guilty of the same demagoguery that George W. Bush is guilty of, and they will ruin the church just as Bush is ruining the country. Mark my words.