wfn.org | [ENS] Eames issues warning on future of World Anglicanism

["Matthew Davies" <mdavies@episcopalchurch.org>]

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Eames issues warning on future of World Anglicanism

ENS 101205-1

[ENS, Source: Church of Ireland] The Most Rev. Dr. Robin Eames,
Archbishop
of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland, delivered the 2005 Pitt Lecture at
the
Berkeley Divinity School at Yale October 12, issuing a warning on the
future
of World Anglicanism. Eames was also awarded an honorary Doctor of
Divinity
degree in a ceremony at the College.

The full text of Eames' lecture follows:

Where now for World Anglicanism?

I regard it as a singular honour to have been invited to deliver the
Pitt
Lecture for 2005 and to receive an honorary degree from an institution
which
has contributed so much to the theological development and understanding
of
God's world. I thank you for this honour and crave your indulgence as I
reflect on the future of that part of the Body of Christ to which we
belong,
the Anglican Communion.

My approach in this Lecture will be essentially personal. Not
surprisingly
my words stem from over forty years of Anglican Ministry. During those
years
I have been greatly privileged to find myself at what is usually called
'the
heart of Anglicanism' through membership of the Anglican Consultative
Council, the Lambeth Conference, the meetings of Primates as well as
being
invited to chair the Eames Commission on women in the episcopate, the
Virginia Report and the recent Windsor Report on the nature of
communion. As
Primate of all Ireland for some 20 years that personal journey has
allowed
me to see the world family of Anglicanism at its best but also at points
of
crisis; to see how easily an international family reacts to sharp
differences ? and in the process in the opinion of many, lose its way.

My conviction in reflecting on the way forward for the Communion stems
from
my firm belief that the core values of Anglicanism have essentials to
contribute to the world Church scene and that any erosion of those core
values can have a negative effect on our partners, our
fellow-travellers,
towards the Church for which Christ prayed.

The great English poet T.S. Eliot once concluded:

"the end of all our exploring
will be to arrive where we started
and know the place for the first time."

I cannot escape the conclusion that the search for the sort of Anglican
Communion which will emerge from our current complexities may well
produce a
similar conclusion. In fact any objective analysis of the Anglican
journey
over the centuries reminds us that discovery of new understandings tend
to
re-emphasise what we knew all along. Different approaches to, and study
of,
the nature of authority, the meaning of communion, the relevance of
autonomy
and the implications of 'unity in diversity' may produce new realities
for a
time ? in the end we Anglicans tend to return time and again not to
new
structures, but to new appreciation of a way of life, an attitude. In
short
? a being rather than a doing.

The concept of 'communion' lies at the heart of Anglicanism. At once it
provides us with our raison d'etre and at the same time as giving us our
uniqueness provides the basis for much of our self-analysis. Our
understanding of KOINONIA, our analysis of what it means and our
attempts to
share those conclusions with other Christians provides us with our
ethos.
Our pain over the past few years, well documented across the world,
stems
from our failure to embrace what we have learned of KOINONIA and to
translate that learning experience into practicalities. If we have a
virtue
it must surely be that there is a transparency about our quest ? and
we have
not hidden our pain from others. It is my submission that in trying to
find
a way forward Anglicanism will do more than indulge in house-keeping
it
will in fact help other traditions to see more clearly what the Easter
message means for the institutional Church.

A great deal of corporate energy has been expended in Anglicanism to
analyse
such concepts as the nature of authority, the meaning of communion and
autonomy. In the light of current tensions within the Anglican Communion
I
believe that we need to develop a wider theological context for the
debate
on issues which divide.

In any deeply divided situation of human relations several options can
point
the way forward to a possible solution. There is the path of
reconciliation.
There is the path of compromise. There is the path which acknowledges
agreement is impossible and that the important issue to then emerge is
how
such fracture of relationships can be managed with the highest degree of
human dignity. Those are the sort of options which appear in disputes in
human relationships, industrial relations, community affairs and at an
international level between nations. When we face them within a Church
situation there are other dimensions which cannot be ignored. The
presence
of the living Spirit of God, the grace of the sacramental life, the
healing
power of prayer and the recognition that as the Body of Christ no matter
what problems arise we must never lose sight of the 'big picture' - our
communion with the triune God.

In my experience of Ministry in Northern Ireland I have lived the
process
called reconciliation. For the people to whom I minister those issues
are
not merely academic debates. They are matters of life and death. So when
I
approach any task in the Anglican Communion I do so as one who must
acknowledge a fundamental fact of experience: there is pain in division

but there is also pain in healing. Pain in division is inevitable
pain in
healing is the cost of seeking to confront things as they are that they
may
become something better ...

As you know the Windsor Report addressed the ecclesiological problems
raised
by two specific events in the life of our Communion of world Churches.
As I
have explained on numerous occasions this Report did not enter into the
wider theological questions raised. In the light of my conclusions on
the
role of reconciliation I want to raise a further issue as this tense
debate
continues.

Can the two wings of Anglicanism, commonly but not always accurately
referred to as the conservative and the liberal, find a common and
agreed
theological ground for developing the debate?

Is it possible that two separated and divergent views could reach
agreement
on theological grounds through which that debate could develop
irrespective
of the outcome?

I ask these questions for two reasons.

First, my experience based on active involvement in the crisis has not
indicated any agreed or level playing field for considered exchange
between
the two extremes. Second, as I have sought to explain there are
mechanics to
any process of reconciliation which must be addressed which will not
mean we
talk in terms of victory or defeat, of success or failure and yet do not
speak of surrender of deeply held conviction. I have seen these
mechanics at
first hand in community affairs in Northern Ireland. I now ask ? what
if any
application can those principles have in Anglicanism at present? Is
there a
starting point in theological terms?

I suggest the starting point lies, as was concluded by Windsor, in the
doctrine of the Church, the Body of Christ. Throughout the centuries the
Christian Church has lived with internal disagreements. Those
disagreements
are well documented. But the question I feel stems from what I have
tried to
say about the nature of unity must surely be : what particular
disagreements
are tolerable within unity? What disagreement can exist without the
shattering of lasting unity? At what point does principle in
disagreement
become so tangible that unity is impossible?

I mention some examples which illustrate this historical dilemma for
theologians.

Can we disagree about the nature of God and maintain viable unity of
purpose?

There comes to mind the 'God is dead' debate and names such as Cupitt,
Robinson and Ward.

Can we disagree about the nature of Christ as in the great early
heresies
and view unity as undefiled?

Can we divide on the nature of the Holy Spirit and The Trinity as in the
discussions on the filioque clause and remain in unity?

What did the Reformation theologians say about the unity of the Church
when
they engaged in disagreement on the nature of man, sin and The Fall?

What does theology say about human behaviour when we recall medieval
attention to usury, slavery in the nineteenth century, polygamy in
contemporary Africa and now homosexuality in the western world?

What effect in Church order did the ordination of women debate of the
early
80's, or the current debate in the Church of England on women bishops
have
on unity?

Then there have been issues of inclusion. For St Paul Gentiles as well
as
Jews, slaves as well as freemen ? and we can now add the gays as well
as
straights?

Where now does one draw lines and on what grounds? Are there levels of
disagreement? Are there, as Windsor dared to suggest, priorities of
differences? For the purposes of our later discussion ? who or what
body
decides on such issues in our Anglican tradition?

To put this another way for the sake of my thesis : are modern
behavioural
problems stemming from sexual orientation more important for the Church
of
God and its unity than ancient theological and philosophical debates
about
belief? Is polygamy thus a greater problem than the current debate about
the
'reality' of God? If so, why? Is there justifiable and tangible
difference
in the importance of such issues? How do we define what is tolerable and
acceptable debate and what is intolerable and unacceptable within the
Christian body?

On the surface the appointment of a practising gay bishop to the diocese
of
New Hampshire in the Episcopal Church USA and the blessing of same sex
relationships in New Westminster, Canada, plunged Anglicanism into a
crisis.
That crisis was manifested by dramatic statements, at times vitriolic
words
and public denunciation of opposing opinions. In media terms ? and how
the
media has enjoyed itself ? north America was portrayed as the focal
point of
liberalism and the global south the defenders of conservatism. Those
terms
soon became synonymous with others as the ecclesiastical fury gained
momentum : other aspects and identities which themselves evidenced the
complexities, contradictions and dilemmas of a Communion in crisis. As
time
passed it was not possible to limit the struggle to a confrontation
between
a liberal embracing north and a reactionary and conservative south.
Within
many Provinces, not least here in the United States, issues about
pastoral
recognition and protection of minority groups, justice and episcopal
leadership burst to the surface as attitudes, concerns and apprehensions
long dormant for other reasons became focused on the sexuality question.
With few exceptions the Anglican north and west began to recognise the
extent of internal diversity which had existed long before the name of
Gene
Robinson became known internationally.

Then let us look at the tapestry before which our problems exist. The
Anglican Communion at present consists of some 80 million believers
across
the world. We have proclaimed a historic relationship of
inter-dependence
and a historic communion with the See of Canterbury. We have advanced
the
joint theological approaches of Scripture, tradition and reason, we have
proclaimed the centrality of Scripture and our ecclesiology is based on
episcopacy and synodical structures. Yet beyond these features there is
another principle which has developed as the cement of our autonomous
and
diverse world family.

The words 'Bonds of affection' are the most overworked attempt to
describe
what has held the Anglican Communion together. These words have been a
useful but not necessarily a clinical description of how a truly
international body of autonomous Provinces could relate. Pressures on
those
bonds have come from many directions down through the years but of late
have
greatly increased. When communion meant identifying with each other as
agreeing partners who all thought alike, bonds of affection were
adequate.
But with rapid growth in size, growth of cultural difference and search
for
structure their inadequacies and limitations became obvious. They were a
basis rather than a working entity. They were adequate when there were
identifiable aims and common purpose.  They were happily used and
embraced
when the Anglican Communion wanted the religious world to see and indeed
envy a cohesive family led by an Archbishop of Canterbury. They were
adequate when agreement existed simply because there was no division.
But
they proved inadequate when pressures built up. As divisive issues
surfaced
they became what bound together only those Provinces which agreed with
each
other.

What was the nature of those pressures?

First we need to be aware of their historical context. For first
generation
Anglicans the notion of Empire stemming from a mother country and a
mother
Church 'Anglican' equated completely with colonialisation. The Book of
Common Prayer and the concepts of Anglican episcopacy bound the dioceses
of
the Church of England to the colonies. The missionary outreach of the
Church
of England was the Communion. This is how you do it ? this is how it
works
this is what you need ? was the message. The context of the first
Lambeth
Conferences made it plain that the mother Church and mother country
offered
the benefits of English piety, English social structure and religious
Englishness and the expansion of the Empire also meant expansion of a
Canterbury-based establishment. The eclipse of colonialism was also the
eclipse of the influence of the Church it brought.

In that significant period the missionary societies were the first to
realise the change of emphasis. It was no longer 'do it our way' but a
gradual recognition that growth of cultural confidence, the shedding of
colonial power and the rising tide of local independence called for a
co-operative, supportive and diverse ministry in which the mother Church
among others would provide support for the new concept of indigenous
ministry. Without realising it a quiet revolution was taking place in
Anglicanism. From the early blue-print of Englishness the Anglican
Communion
was discovering local autonomy: discovering ? but not yet recognising.
Little of the documentation I have examined of this period fully
appreciated
the magnitude of the consequences of this change. Pictures on the walls
of
my home of successive Lambeth Conferences illustrate some of this
transition. Pictures of bishops attending Lambeth Conferences
demonstrated
this change most vividly to the outside world. The colour of skin, the
emergence of growing numbers of non-white bishops, spoke eloquently of
an
irreversible trend. The new confidence, the challenge of local strength
and
new elements of diversity should have spelt out warning signals that
'bonds
of affection' needed much more if this quiet revolution was to produce a
continuation of the concept of what I call 'practical communion.' Add to
that doctrinal controversies over the question of women in priesthood
and
women in the episcopate which was to produce in the early 80's the seeds
of
division and the stage was set for the current difficulties over
sexuality.
But that is itself an over-simplification of historical development. For
other things were happening of equal significance.

I recognise that the Episcopal Church (USA) views itself in historical
terms
as part of the revolutionary movement which broke away from colonial
interest. Back in the eighteenth century this Church began a process
which
is now taking on a new significance for other parts of our world-wide
Communion ? namely, how to inculturate outside the 'English' pattern.
This
was done on a primarily democratic model. But not alone in a historical
context for ECUSA but now for the Communion as a whole : our history may
indicate the development of means to inculturate beyond the English
scene
the problems of today on which we focus stem in many ways from the
results
of that process. How do we hold diversity together? Or as some are now
asking ? is that 'holding' a price  too much for them to pay?

The historic significance of Canterbury itself for generations the
fulcrum
of those 'bonds of affection' continued to be acknowledged in spirit.
But
post colonialism and with its questions about the 'happy band of
brothers'
was being replaced by the machinery of independence. Autonomy and in the
case of the Anglican Communion, provincial autonomy enshrined in
provincial
synodical and constitutional enactment was beginning to raise questions
about the nature of the relationship between autonomous freedom and
central
allegiance. This development was to place new emphasis on cultural as
well
as doctrinal divergence. While 'bonds of affection' for the historic
significance of Canterbury continued it now existed alongside a new
reality.
Was the real issue now as  much about the nature of historic affection
for
and authority granted to Canterbury and a changing world picture of
growing
cultural and therefore doctrinal practice? I have heard the question
asked :
has the centre of Anglicanism moved to somewhere south of the Sahara? I
have
been present when without loss of historic affection for the See of
Canterbury voices have been raised and opinions expressed which have
compared the 'old world of Anglicanism' with 'the new realities of
Anglicanism.' Where were the structures to embrace this new pressure?
Did we
give adequate thought to what structures were needed to hold the line of
relationships when the respective parts of that relationship was moving
into
unchartered waters? Historically we had always refused the  notion of
central authority. We did not want anything akin to the central curia of
Rome. Successive statements by Lambeth Conferences and meetings of the
Anglican Consultative Council said so. Anglicanism we believed then
could
survive on those traditional 'bonds of affection' because we wanted it
to
survive ? because we had a relationship based on agreement to
fundamental
principles which worked simply because we had never had real
disagreement? I
have examined reports of synodical debates in several Provinces of our
Communion held during this period and I am convinced the scenario for
our
present divisions was being painted. But we did not recognise it.
Anglican
ecclesiology was developing along two lines : Provincial autonomy and
Provincial independence.  Those two concepts were not necessarily
identical.

But there was a third element. Growth of autonomous confidence with its
jealous protection of cultural as well as doctrinal freedom inevitably
asked
questions about the structures which allowed 'bonds of affection' to
continue. All was well when there was general agreement. The distress
signals arose when we did not agree on everything. The events in ECUSA
and
in particular the diocese of New Hampshire in 2004 lit a fire. But I
have
often asked myself 'was this a division waiting to happen' and 'if it
wasn't
sexuality questions which would divide the Anglican Communion so vividly
and
dramatically would it have been something else?'

Here we need to emphasise not just tensions between Provinces but also
within Provinces. In the run-up to Windsor the Lambeth Commission saw
such
tensions at first hand. Despite developments since Windsor those
tensions
continue to exist within Provinces, within dioceses and indeed within
parishes.

I cannot over-emphasise the strength of conservative feeling about the
identity of authentic Christianity as being "Biblical Christianity."
Undoubtedly this is an authentic Christianity in its culture. To a
conservative Anglican it is the key issue. But what alarms me about our
current crisis is the failure to engage in dialogue on an agreed playing
field between two apparently opposing views. If Anglicanism is to
maintain a
global community dialogue on an agreed transparent basis is essential.
Sadly, so far I have found little evidence that such a process is taking
place.

Such questioning brings me to another and perhaps more controversial
issue.

Is the real question about authority rather than sexuality?

Not just authority in terms of the authority of interpretation of Holy
Scripture, but authority to be 'in communion' among diverse and
autonomous
Provinces while we're growing not only in numerical strength but growing
in
the confidence to question what communion meant if it maintained a
historic
allegiance which satisfied 'the old world' but could not address the
divisions of 'the new'?

I am suggesting that in traditional Anglican approach to theology there
must
be a new and urgent focus on first the Christian view of Creation and
second, the Christian understanding of salvation. Whatever one's sexual
orientation may be we are part of creation ? and we all need
salvation. If
our view is that homosexuality has been a part of the created world from
the
start and thus 'without sin' we need to engage at new levels of
sensitivity
with those who accept that it entered with man's first fall and so is
sinful.. Surely if unity is not to be fractured beyond recovery this
Augustinian approach must be a first rather than a final stage. At the
present stage of the Anglican crisis what could be termed 'a stand-off'
exists between the two wings. As long as there is no agreement on
approach
we will not be able to develop any lasting basis for dialogue ? and my
thesis is that dialogue is essential whatever form it takes under God.

There is one point I feel I must make at this stage of my reflections.

In the current divisions of Anglicanism it is now obvious to me that all
the
discussion of what 'communion' means, all the discussion of what
autonomy
involves, and even within the debates on the nature of authority in the
Anglican Communion, our conclusions are and must be temporary. But at
the
root of all these debates are fundamental questions. How important is
the
Anglican Communion as a structure? How important is the Anglican
Communion
as a relationship? Is it possible to be Anglicans and dismiss the idea
of a
world body however it is related to its component parts?

I want to advance the case which has somehow taken second place at
present
for the essential connection between being Anglican and accepting the
existence of an Anglican Communion. That body may change in form ? but
is
its existence essential to what I see as accepted, classical
Anglicanism? In
other words ? can we be Anglican outside acceptance of a structure of
the
Communion?

The Anglican air is full of suggestions, demands and proposals on the
way
forward. I venture to add one more.

Anglicanism needs to develop a theology of what constitutes Christian
relationships. That theology transcends ecclesiology, structural reform

and it most certainly transcends much of the evidence of sharp division
we
have seen in the last few years. In my international work for the
Communion
the saddest experience I have encountered has been the tone of much of
the
exchanges between fellow Christians. Anger can be justified in human
relationships. But surely there is all the difference in the world
between
righteous indignation and bitterness of word or action. The Christian
world
has observed anger in international relationships and rightly condemned
it
as a negative and corrosive force between nations and international
leaders.
But when it came to what should have been dialogue in charity I was
saddened
by the tone of what I came across in the exchanges within the Anglican
Communion following the events in the dioceses of New Hampshire and New
Westminster.. No one recognises more than I do the depth of feeling on
all
sides of the arguments. Good people of principle were sharply divided.
Fear
dictated reaction. But where was the love of Christ, the love for Christ
and
the love for one another in some of the statements I read? This
confrontation was not even between different traditions or
denominations. It
was actually within the family of one part of the Body of Christ, the
Anglican Communion.

In presenting our findings in the Windsor Report we appealed for a
combination of charity, patience and understanding throughout the
Anglican
Communion as we awaited reactions to our proposals. The Archbishop of
Canterbury has himself spoken of the need for 'calm'. Were such appeals
realistic? It is evidence if evidence was needed of the depth of
feelings on
all sides of our current controversy that since Windsor was published
the
scene has moved on but not in ways which have increased hope of healing.

Much of the current crisis in Anglicanism turns on attitudes to the
authority of Scripture. Interpretation of Scripture itself and its
relationship to tradition and reason is one thing ? it is quite a
different
matter when it is allowed to become an integral part of the process of
cultural approach to communion. In the preparation of the Windsor Report
I
was made acutely aware of arguments on all sides which owed much of
their
persuasive nature to what was seen as the norm of cultural experience in
north and south, east and west. A liberalist view spoke of the culture
in
which life-styles shunned by a conservative culture were now the norm.
Many
submissions I read in the production of Windsor quoted cultural
approaches.
I well recall the argument from certain Provinces which spoke of the
climate
of opposition to a liberal interpretation of Anglicanism from their
Moslem
and Hindu neighbours.

Of course all this was evidence if evidence the Lambeth Commission
needed
that cultural development across our Communion had become an equal if
not a
dominant ingredient within the 'bonds of affection.' In saying that I
need
to be aware that conservative Anglicanism resents any argument that
places
cultural difference above questions of theological principle. They argue
obedience to God's Holy Word must not become eroded by reference to
cultural
difference. The liberal argument of course takes the view that cultural
diversity has a great deal to say about what I would term the 'freedom
of
Anglican autonomy.' Am I alone in thinking that at the root of those
clashes, irrespective of our personal allegiances or preferences, lies
the
failure of succeeding generations of Anglicans to accept that there are
parameters to divergence in scriptural interpretation, there are
boundaries
to ecclesiological autonomy and there are limitations to what a world
family
of vague technical relationships can endure and still remain a cohesive
entity. I do not in any way question the depth of sincerity of the
conservative or liberal Anglican in any way. I seek only to try to
decode
the pressures which were to produce reaction to New Hampshire and New
Westminster.

In the light of this situation we are told a break-up of the historic
Anglican Communion is inevitable ? if not essential. To advance this
view we
now see proposals for groupings which can share one overall concept of
Anglicanism and an exclusion from new structures of those who are
interpreted to be in denial of true and traditional Anglicanism.

I cannot overstate the dangers I see in such developments. Not alone do
I
view them as leading to a fragmented concept of the Communion we have
inherited from generations of worship, witness and practice, I see them
as a
threat to the very word Anglican itself.

Let me quote paragraph 157 of the Windsor Report:

"There remains a very real danger that we will not choose to walk
together.
Should the call to halt and find ways of continuing in our present
communion
not be heeded, then we shall have to begin to learn to walk apart... we
note
that there are, in any human dispute, courses that may be followed :
processes of mediation and arbitration : non-invitation to relevant
representative bodies and meetings: invitation, but to observer status
only;
and as an absolute last resort, withdrawal from membership..."

Since Windsor was published events have taken place which have removed
the
sentiments of this paragraph from the realms of speculation to the
realities
of possibilities.

Among the most recent developments is one which I feel not only
questions
the future ecclesiological scene in Anglicanism but illustrates much of
the
concerns contained in the Windsor Report.

The Anglican Church of Nigeria has announced changes to its
Constitution.
Originally its Constitution stated that "the Church of Nigeria shall be
in
communion with the See of Canterbury and with all the dioceses,
provinces
and regional churches which are in full communion with the See of
Canterbury." This wording is now superseded by the omission of reference
to
the See of Canterbury and speaks of communion with "all Anglican
Churches,
Dioceses and Provinces that hold and maintain the historic Faith,
Sacrament
and Discipline of the one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church."

This wording not only removes what the Windsor Report described as "the
pivotal" role of the Archbishop of Canterbury as the instrument of unity
but
perhaps of greater significance challenges the concept of Communion as
understood throughout Anglican history. Acceptance of an individual
Province's view of orthodoxy becomes the basis for relationship. Further
the
revision of its Constitution states that in all questions of
interpretation
of faith and doctrine the decision of the Church of Nigeria shall be
final.

As a Primate of the Anglican Communion I find the implications of this
revision most serious. Am I alone in interpreting such wording as the
removal of established bonds of communion and their replacement by a
Provincial-only wide authority which will set its own criteria for
whoever
or whatever it considers worthy of a communion relationship? If this is
so I
find it is in direct conflict with much of the contents of the Windsor
Report but more importantly in conflict with what I term 'the Windsor
spirit.' Further I feel it is in direct contrast to the stand taken by
the
Primates of our Communion in their Dromantine communiqué.

Windsor appealed for a Communion-wide process which contained corporate
striving to find the Will of God in contentious and divisive issues.
Windsor
was not a Report in isolation. It envisaged a process. Localised
Provincial
authority based on the cultural and historical experiences of one
Province
were not advocated as part of that process. In contrast to this
development
I took encouragement from the reported remarks of the Bishop of Egypt:

"After the unilateral action of ECUSA, all African bishops accepted the
Windsor Report as the way ahead. This remains the right process and
should
not be delayed, nor anticipated unilaterally."

I have to add to these concerns the views of Windsor on the threat to
communion of cross-provincial interventions, in cases where parishes are
opposed to their diocesan bishop, without agreement and co-operation.
This
equal threat to 'bonds of affection' is illustrated by Nigeria's
intention
to establish "Convocations and Chaplaincies" outside Nigeria to cater
for
"like-minded faithful." Again this intention cuts across the agreed
statement at Dromantine by the Primates which placed a moratorium on
cross-provincial interventions.

Placed in its Provincial context it is arguable that such developments
as
this in one of our numerically strongest Churches can be understood on
grounds of frustration, alienation and bewilderment. But placed in the
context of the Communion at large I feel concern as to its implications
for
other Anglican entities. It raises questions of principle ? it
underlines
the need to find that level and agreed playing field for which I have
appealed. It also has something to say about contemporary understandings
of
'bonds of affection' and 'relationships'.

The path ahead for all of us is difficult to predict. Perhaps my final
plea
as I look to the road-map for our Communion is one other aspect of the
'big
picture'. What is all our division and argument doing to the first
priority
given to the Body of Christ ? the witness to a Gospel of salvation,
compassion and care for a world of desperate need.

At the end of the day if that priority suffers much more will be at
stake
than internal differences among those who "would seek the face of
Christ."

--
To SUBSCRIBE to enslist, send a blank email message, from the address
which
you wish subscribed, to: join-enslist@epicom.org

Send QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS to news@episcopalchurch.org

The enslist is published by Episcopal News Service:
  http://www.episcopalchurch.org/ens

--