Anglican cheekiness!

I read this and thought "That's a bit cheeky" but then Anglicans in high places are prone to a diet of cheekiness and churlishness these days. Some have more of one that the other and vice versa. This is the bit I thought a bit cheeky.

Former Archbishop of the Middle East Clive Handford has said that in the long term some sort of statement of shared beliefs and an agreement to abide by them would be necessary if Anglicans are to stick together. Fair enough. But he went on to say, with regard to traditionalists, "It's a bit like having a member of the family who is not getting on with the family, having an aunt or uncle who can take them under their wing while they work for the restoration of the family." Well, I'm not sure what he means because it's not a matter of "not getting on" as I can get on very well with people who have differing beliefs and I know a lot of others of the same disposition.

However, if he means accepting a process of gradual (or maybe rapid) acquiescence of new doctrines in order to placate those who have found the new formularies exciting, then I would not find that terribly appealing. It seems that devices are being promoted that keep us together regardless of conscience or integrity.

I do not feel it an abandonment of unity if the Anglican Communion has two or maybe more tiers or structures or whatever. A different form of unity, respecting difference but allowing integrity, would not be a failure. It would be a recognition that a body of Christians, all flawed in some respect, can get on with each other without having to be bound together. In other words, it is accepting that impaired communion is better than no communion at all.

Posted in: Anglican Communion,Christian unity,traditionalists