|
Let's not get too upset over the apparently trial-balloon versions of what
might be in the Eames II report.
In the pre-GenConv 2000 & 2003 discussions, I offered the following
conjectures of what might happen if ECUSA took steps that the majority of
the Anglican Communion didn't approve of:
- ECUSA might be given observer-only status at the 2008 and/or 2018
Lambeth conferences. This would be in fact no major loss, since the
Anglican Communion has no legislative authority anyway. Then in 2018 or
2028, our ideas will have become well-enough accepted -- even in the
third-world nations -- for ECUSA to be re-admitted to full status. History
is on the side of those who understand that the bible was written to
describe people's experiences of God - most of it was not written as a
handbook for behavior. It was not written by a process in which God spoke
and some prophet or scribe took his words down in shorthand. (The part which
was written primarily as a handbook for behavior (the Deuteronomic code) is
predominantly no longer considered authoritative either by Christians or by
Jews.) This information about the nature of the bible is being diffused
throughout all societies as young people receive higher education and/or
watch the History Channel, et al.
- ECUSA might lose up to about 5% of our members -- less than that if
the calculation is done on a "net" basis, adding back the numbers of new
members who are attracted because of our stance/actions.
- Within this decade, we will probably see some US-located appendages of
autocratically-led third-world Anglican Provinces desire to come back to
ECUSA after they have experienced a few years of life in an
autocratically-run church. We should therefore let them leave now in a way
that does not build obstacles to their subsequent return. Remember, once
non-democratic practices suffuse these US-located appendages, these
appendages will be less attractive to most Americans. An appendage will
also be more likely to return to ECUSA when the leader who led it out has
retired or moved on, and a replacement leader can be more objective.
Ted Mollegen,
Connecticut
|
|