The Irony of Valuing Unity

Just recently, a meeting of Global South Anglicans produced a document in which they uphold ACNA and Communion Partners as the two official ways they recommend maintaining ties of intercommunion with Anglicans in North America. It's kind of funny. ACNA was formed as a means of maintaining a "pure" expression of faith (sounds like every other church split since the Reformation, heck since 1054 when Rome and Byzantium split). Yet they are not formally recognized by the Anglican Communion. At the same time, TEC maintains official recognition in the Anglican Communion, yet most in power have espoused and actively endorsed actions that are clearly against the mind of the Communion and at significant variance with traditional Christian faith and practice.

The Global South represents the statistical majority of active Anglican adherents and have come into their own within the last 25 years as faithful, dynamic leaders of the Church. But it is with broad brushstrokes and curious blindness that the document they released paints a vision of unity and faithfulness that are willing to embrace.

I suppose the appeal to the Communion Partners was supposed to be a way of endorsing recognition for those in TEC who remain faithful to traditional Christian orthodoxy. Yet, that is a somewhat faulty proposition. First, they aren't really an organization or "party" as much as they are a loose affiliation of bishops (and rectors now?) who have signed onto certain documents affirming a more interdependent life within the Anglican Communion, but with little real effect. Second, supporting Communion Partners is either superfluous (especially in places like the diocese of Central Florida) or something that requires too much political capital for the faithful to muster (in places like Los Angeles, or even Pittsburgh, which is still healing from the re-alignment).

To me, unity is a first order priority. Jesus prayed that we would be one as he and the Father are one. Unfortunately, (and with all due deference to my Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic friends) there is no church has never split. So I see TEC's formal ties to the Anglican Communion in a positive light. So it is distressing to me when, on the one hand, some Christians leave and form their own church, and on the other hand, other Christians renege on promises they made to their fellow brothers and sisters (and it doubly hurts when those Christians seem to be the ones "in charge").

I think the Global South is justified in decrying TEC's continued impertinence, because those actions show a tendency towards schismatic thinking. But they are also shortsighted in rewarding ACNA (who are, frankly, equally as schismatic--they formed their own new church!). They are also shortsighted in looking to Communion Partners, as currently constituted, as a viable entity through which to relate to Episcopalians who are faithful in heartfelt belief and practice to the shared doctrine, prayer, ethics, and mission of the wider Communion. It's almost like saying, "Your continued faithfulness isn't enough, you have to do something more than the rest of us Anglicans elsewhere do to prove you are truly Anglican." It's a double-standard.

That's why I like the Anglican Covenant--we all have to sign it, and it has enough teeth to pinch the hands of those who sign it with the their fingers crossed. I only wish there was some provision--and protection--for dioceses, parishes, and individuals who sign on to it yet remain in bodies (Provinces, dioceses, parishes) which may not endorse it, in order that the fullest possible unity might be maintained. I guess there's no place for those who place a high value on unity in any church anymore.