the entire and original version of this document is available for download in PDF format here
“And finally there is the theological issue of how Christians are to confront false teaching and practice in their midst. If argument, exhortation, and witness are to no avail and if the levers of power in the church are in the hands of those in error, what is the Godly response? Is it to leave and start another Church or Province? Or is it to remain, be faithful, and suffer the consequences?
“These questions have received far too little attention, but they force one to ask if there is not “a more excellent way” than the ones now being followed? It would be disingenuous not to say that those who choose to remain believe there is a more excellent way. This way is often referred to as an “inside strategy.” It is often assumed that the goal of the “inside strategy” is to reform TEC from within.
“This assumption is false. Those with whom I speak who are supposed to have an “inside strategy” do not pin their hopes on the reform of TEC. Indeed, beyond seeking to find ways to band together with and give support to others who share their views, they have no strategy save to bear faithful witness and wait patiently for God to do what God will do with the church of which they are a part. Their desire is to form more than “bonds of affection” with other Anglicans both within TEC and in other parts of the Anglican Communion. Their intention is to model what they believe communion in Christ implies.
“For these reasons they support the effort to frame an Anglican Covenant whose basic principle is mutual subjection within the body of Christ. This is a way of looking at relations within the Communion and within TEC that is consistent with an earlier Anglican formulation of the same principle—“mutual responsibility and interdependence within the body of Christ.” It is also a way of relating to other Provinces within the Communion that is in keeping with TEC’s self-definition as a constituent member of the Anglican Communion.
“Mutual subjection appears to this group not as a strategy, be it inside or outside, but a more excellent way to show forth the Lord’s death until he comes. It is also a way to address the entropic possibilities lodged deeply in TEC’s Constitution and in the autonomous forms of governance characteristic of the Communion’s various Provinces. How will the creative energy the principle of subsidiarity seeks to promote be harnessed to common purpose and common life? How will the hierarchies of TEC’s various Dioceses be linked to other hierarchies in the Anglican Communion and to purposes greater than their own?
“The answer to these questions contained in the proposal before the Communion and before TEC is through a Covenant whereby each subjects itself to the others in a fellowship of both truth and love. Is this not in fact a more excellent way than the sovereign assertion of authority and autonomy on the one hand or a reactive attempt to separate from erring brothers and sisters on the other? I believe it is. I believe also that, though it will prove a way of suffering, it is a way that will lead to the development of mechanisms for the preservation of communal order in a way that the creation of new Provinces (on both the left and the right) does not.”
Dr. Philip Turner, former dean of The Episcopal Seminary of the Southwest, is a contributing member of the Anglican Communion Institute, and their website.
the entire and original version of this document is available for download in PDF format here
