Reconciliation Sought & Denied?
By Michael Hopkins
Friday, April 4, 2003
March 31, 2003
In a speech on November 8, 2002, at the Claiming the Blessing conference in St. Louis, I said, speaking to conservatives in the Church:
"Liberals and conservatives, progressives and traditionalists, must learn to live together in this Church or there will be no Church in which for us to live. But learning to live together must mean 'mutual deference' not moratoriums or some insistence that we all convert to being 'moderates.' …Let us commit ourselves to finding very way possible to move forward with our debate without threatening either schism or purge. It is simply not necessary for us to do so. As the President of Integrity, I am willing to sit down with the President of the American Anglican Council (AAC) and discuss ways we can proceed with the debate about our differences without tearing each other down or apart. Preferably our respective media officers should be present as well."
I did not use the word 'reconciliation' in my remarks, but reconciliation is what they are seeking. Reconciliation is a move towards unity under the grace of God. I believe it is a requirement of those who live under the Gospel when the find themselves at variance. I do not believe that reconciliation need produce uniformity, but uniformity and unity have never been the same thing. Reconciliation is primarily about mutual respect and mutual deference. It was a state of 'mutual deference' that I was seeking in my remarks.
 | |
|
|
| |
| Reconciliation is a move towards unity under the grace of God. I believe it is a requirement of those who live under the Gospel when the find themselves at variance. I do not believe that reconciliation need produce uniformity, but uniformity and unity have never been the same thing. | |
| |
|
|
| |
By December 2002 I had received communication from the President of the AAC suggesting that such a meeting were possible after the holidays and his own retirement as rector of a parish in the Diocese of Los Angeles in late January 2003.
In February 2003, the Rev. Ed Bacon, rector of All Saints' Pasadena, California (and a member of the CTB Steering Committee), received a call from the Rev. Canon Brian Cox, rector of Christ the King, Santa Barbara, California, and a member of the Diocese of Los Angeles Reconciliation Team. Canon Cox stated that he had been in conversation with the leadership of the AAC as to how this conversation might be facilitated. He suggested a conference along the lines of the New Commandment Task Force conferences held around the 2000 General Convention hosted by the Diocese of Los Angeles' team. The Rev. Susan Russell, Executive Director of CTB, followed up with Canon Cox and CTB agreed to participate in such a conference, understanding that the AAC and possibly others were desirous of it.
On March 22, 2003, Integrity issued a Statement in response to the House of Bishop's Theology Committee's paper on the ongoing sexuality debate in the Church. In it, we referenced the upcoming reconciliation conference as a real step forward in the Church.
On March 24, 2003, CTB leadership received an email from the Very Rev. David Anderson, President of the AAC, stating that it was not the case that AAC was coming to such a meeting. They had been invited, but in fact had decided not to come. On March 30, 2003, the contents of this e-mail were made public by the AAC.
| |
|
|
| |
| Dean Anderson seems to be saying that reconciliation is therefore not possible. We do not believe that. Opposing points of view about such extraordinarily central things to our tradition as the doctrine of the Eucharist have been able to exist in our tradition in a state of mutual deference. Why is that not the case now with this issue? | |
| |
|
|
| |
"The points of view espoused by CTB and the AAC are not themselves reconcilable, nor are they capable of both being right or true. Most of us have been in dialogue with one another in some capacity or another for years and both sides are beyond believing that one more story or theological point or Bible verse will change the other's mind. The point comes down to how will we live together, and on what terms."
It has been clear to us from the start (including my own intentions from the initial call in November 2002) that this is precisely the point. This is the work of reconciliation that must be done. This is the work of reconciliation that Integrity and CTB want to do. Of course, the "points of view" are "not themselves reconcilable." But Dean Anderson seems to be saying that reconciliation is therefore not possible. We do not believe that. Opposing points of view about such extraordinarily central things to our tradition as the doctrine of the Eucharist have been able to exist in our tradition in a state of mutual deference. Why is that not the case now with this issue?
CTB remains committed to seeking reconciliation, a way to live together in mutual deference and respect. We believe that this commitment offers hope for the future of the Church. We are going ahead with the reconciliation conference and invite conservatives and moderates from around the Church to join us. We ask our AAC colleagues to reconsider their decision, which, we believe, offers only the paradigm of winners and losers and continued hopeless, struggle for doctrinal purity in a Church that has always resisted such a state of being.
The Rev. Michael W. Hopkins is rector of the Episcopal Church of St. Luke & St. Simon Cyrene in Rochester, N.Y. He is past president of Integrity USA, and is a contributing editor to The Witness. Michael may be reached by email at MWHopkins@rochester.rr.com.