|
t is now several days before the start of the 75th General
Convention of the Episcopal Churchwhere, we may hope, meeting one
another, again or for the first time, the corporate prayer,
conversation, laughter, and decision-making of the bishops and deputies
will be conducted with both charity and clarity; according to the Lords
own prayer to the Father: Sanctify them in the truth; ... so that the
love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them (John
17:17, 26).
And yet, how easy it has been for many of us in the last months and
years, the present writers included, to talk past one another when it
comes to the difficult matters at handnot presuming charitably, not
conceding points whenever possible for the sake of a common pursuit of
truth. The problem here is that we have rarely gone the distance
togethereven, say, to the point of convincing our interlocutor that he
or she has been heard and understood, much less advancing to initial
agreement or tentative coperation.
In the conviction, however, that it is not too late to make good on our
Lords particular commandments (John
13:34,
14:15-17),
we have followed up our recent, rather different essaysDeimels Saving Anglicanism and Wells Wounded in Common Missionby committing to read and think carefully about the others
reflectionsaccording to a standard assignment in three parts:
-
What can I agree with in the other persons
essay? For instance, what do I recognize in it as truthful or
especially useful?
-
How, briefly, would I restate the central
contention in my own previous essay with the point or points of
agreement enumerated in (1) in view?
-
Given (1) and (2), how shall I respond to
either (for Deimel) the Anglican Communion Institutes (ACI) piece on the Special
Commissions resolutions (What
it will take) in a way that coordinates with my own suggestions
for amending the resolutions; or (for Wells) Lionel Deimels
piece on the Special Commissions resolutions (What
Should General Convention 2006 Do?)?
We do not pretend to agree when we come to (2) and (3), though we
agree on some points. Our goal, however, has been to state clearly,
succinctly, and charitably (avoiding rhetorical inflation) the choices
before us; in a way, furthermore, that we hope is interesting and
fruitfulputting off (3) till we had exercised the discipline of (1) and
(2).
 Granted,
there is not total parity in the assignment, on several counts. Lionel
has written two piecesan essay and a commentary on the
resolutionswhereas Christopher has only written an essay (albeit with
some engagement of the resolutions) and is not formally associated with
the ACI (though his essay was published on their Web site, and he
agrees with much of their work). Further, Lionel is not a deputy to
Convention, whereas Christopher is; and the latter served on the Special
Commission that produced the resolutions in question (included
in the Commissions report, One
Baptism, One Hope in Gods Call),
and will also serve on the legislative committee slated to handle the
Commissions resolutions at Convention. We share, however, a passion for
the future of our church and the perduring of our Anglican Communion;
and also a passion to try to state once more the issues that are before
us, in a way that may be useful for deputies to Convention as they
organize, in their minds and hearts, the welter of material that will be
coming before them concerning the nature of the church and communion.
To read the dialog, click on a link below. These pages are linked to one another, so
you can start at any page and work forward or backward. To start at the
beginning, click here.
Introduction to the Dialog by Lionel Deimel
Introduction to the Dialog by Christopher Wells
Reflection on Wounded in Common Mission by Lionel
Deimel
The Spiritual Exercise of Saving Anglicanism by
Christopher Wells
Rethinking Saving Anglicanism by Lionel Deimel
Communion, Once More with Feeling by Christopher
Wells
Another Look at the Resolutions by Lionel Deimel
Resolutions for What Sort of Communion?
or Against Craftiness!
by Christopher Wells
Conclusion by Lionel Deimel
Conclusion by Christopher Wells
|
