[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]

Re: [HoB/D] Radner's essay

Re:  http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.org/articles/American_Evasion_of_Communion.htm

Bishop Whalon wrote:

> But then Ephraim begins to reply to Louie Crew, Ellen Wondra and 
> Robert Hughes, and this section is more to the point. It would be 
> good to hear what they say in return.

Dr. Wondra and Dr. Hughes may speak for themselves.  Here's my effort 
to comply with your request.

Dr. Radner wrote:

>  Rather than parsimoniously denying ECUSA's integral ecclesial 
> relationship to other churches in the world - as some American 
> Episcopalians like Crew now insist, in their efforts to protect 
> their own perceived rights from the claims of the larger church -- 
> we should....

Where have I ever denied TEC's integral ecclesial relationship to 
other churches in the world?  I have long argued that we should remain 
faithful members of the Anglican Communion, even if the Anglican 
Communion chooses to severe ties with us:

> Our openness should in no way lessen our commitments to make the 
> faithful decisions we need to make in our own province.  In the 
> worst case scenario, those who disagree with ECUSA might persuade 
> the Archbishop of Canterbury to kick us out of the Communion.  I 
> think that highly unlikely, but even if it were to happen, I would 
> urge that we continue our full financial commitments to those who 
> had booted us out, because the relative wealth of ECUSA is not our 
> money; it is God's.
> We do not move beyond schism if we violate our consciences and give 
> control of our decisions to someone else.  We move beyond schism 
> when we commit ourselves to respect one another as each province 
> goes about the task of trying to be faithful disciples.
> From my post "Re: Progress v. Schism" on June 26, 2002, the full 
> text of which is at 
> http://rci.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/natter_02/msg00018.html

What is parsimonious about that?

What is self-serving about that?

Bonds province to province within the Anglican Communion have always 
been affectional, not juridical.

It is not I but Dr. Radner who is asking the Anglican Communion to 
change its structure to enforce his party's narrow agenda. 
Homosexuality is the presenting issue now, but any revision in the 
fundamental structure of authority in the Anglican Communion will 
return to haunt everyone long after homosexuality is as much a 
non-issue as the furor over circumcision at the Council of Jerusalem.

Lutibelle/Louie, Newark 94, 97, 00, 03.  Member of Executive Council

         Drink from Samaritan wells!

Please sign my guestbook and view it.

My site has been accessed times since February 14, 1996.

Statistics courtesy of WebCounter.