An interesting piece here on protests by various deputies to the Episcopal General Convention regarding the confirmation of Rev. Robinson’s election.
One paragraph stood out to me:
In his statement, Harmon stressed the impact the confirmation will have on other churches in the Anglican Communion, noting that, during a committee hearing and the house debate on the confirmation, “not a single person, not one who spoke in favor … mentioned anyone beyond the borders of this country.” While “the vast majority of Anglicans throughout the world” consider the confirmation vote “terrible,” he said, “it would appear that in the United States the opinion is ‘So what?’ This is what horrifies the vast majority of Anglicans,” since such an attitude makes the issue more than just about sexuality, but “about the way we make decisions as Anglicans.”
There’s a certain degree of validity to that. One of the things that makes the Anglican Communion so interesting is that sense of being fellow-travellers, guided by and providing guidance to each other.
Nonetheless, while the opinion of, say, the Archbishop of Singapore is of some interest to me, I find it significantly less compelling or interesting or guiding than the opinion of my own bishop — or the opinion (in this case) of the diocese of New Hampshire.
Where it gets interesting would be in examining opinions about this in comparison to opinions about US unilateralism in, say, Iraq. I suspect that many of the “church liberals” who rejected guidance from the rest of the Anglican Union were among the most horrified by the American “cowboy diplomacy” in the months leading up to the war — whereas more conservative Episcopalians were among those most rooting for Dubya to go it alone, if he thought it was the right thing to do.
I don’t know that to be the case, but I suspect it is.