Anglican Left/Right Battles and the Moral High Ground

I carry considerable despair concerning the future of the Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church at times in light of what I'll call "the troubles." Dan Martins posted a suggested solution to the botched "abandonment" charges brought up against bishops Schofield and Cox, and Greg Griffith responded forthwith that the move was quite calculated. Then there is the ongoing legal battles over property. But here's the kicker. Neither side has done the right thing, in my opinion.

On the TEC side of things, in spite of claims of "fiduciary" responsibility, the moral high ground is to let parishes leave with the property. Whether as an example of "generosity," to further demonstrate acceptance of Windsor/DES stipulations, as an act that shows they trust the claimed new leading of the Holy Spirit regardless of the cost, to avoid public perception as vindictive business-as-usual Christians by those outside the Church, or simply as an imitation of God's own character (consider the father in Christ' parable of the prodigal son), the rationale for NOT seeking what may or may not be rightfully TEC's is substantial enough for all legal pursuits to cease and allowing departing parishes to keep the assets.

On the departing Anglican side of things, for similar reasons, letting claims to property and assets go are truly worthwhile. Many sacrifices are being made by departing parishes--no clear future within the Anglican Communion, longstanding relationships and ties (some for generations), leaving behind the institutional benefits of pensions and insurance by clergy, perhaps bearing the stigma of being "schismatic" or "homophobic," even internal disagreement with fellow congregants who want to remain with TEC. With these considerations in mind, what are buildings and assets, really? To leave behind buildings and assets demonstrates a full trust in God's leading to depart, or in some cases it demonstrates that such things are albatrosses that only inhibit getting about the business of God's kingdom.

Whoever will leave the keys without a fight will be taking the moral high ground, both theologically and in the court of public opinion.

But what if both sides parted with the buildings? What if both sides never claimed a penny of the assets that remained? I highly doubt it would happen, but it might stand as a testimony of a brighter future for both sides. If both sides demonstrate the kind of humility, repentance, and sacrifice needed to create the unlikely scenario of unclaimed property and money, then there is a chance that both the fast-moving drift toward heresy and schism could be reversed, relationships healed, and a (re)formed Anglican witness not merely remain but thrive once again.

I'm a pessimist, but I'm allowed to dream aren't I?