Anglican vs Episcopalian
There was an article in the Washington Post on Thursday talking about the impact of the split between the Episcopalians and these "Nigerian-American Anglicans" (or NAAs for short) in a small town in Viriginia. It was a heart breaking story. And it put a very human face on the impact of the schism.
As I mentioned before, it think it's sad that when the NAAs voted to leave the Episcopal Church, they forced the remaining members of the church to find someplace else to worship. Interestingly enough, an old family friend is quoted as saying: "It cannot be shared when things are in limbo, and that's the position we're in," said Ward LeHardy, a congregant serving as spokesman for the majority group. Such an arrangement "would complicate legal and spiritual aspects."
Well, that's partly true. But not the part that is most important. I don't see how sharing the church would complicate things spiritually at all. The Episcopalians could worship at a 9AM service, and the NAAs could worship at an 11AM service. Both groups, who have nutured their church for many years, would be able to worship within the church. Isn't that what brothers and sisters in Christ should do?
No, the reason why they can't share is more legal in nature. The lawsuits are coming and it's not going to be pretty. But it is going to be petty.
Oddly enough, in church today we heard about Paul's letters to the Corinthians in which he talked about the very fractured church of his time. And he said:
"That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular."
I wonder if the Nigerian American Anglicans had the same readings we did today, and whether they really heard them or not?
(I promise non-religous or political blog entry soon!)
As I mentioned before, it think it's sad that when the NAAs voted to leave the Episcopal Church, they forced the remaining members of the church to find someplace else to worship. Interestingly enough, an old family friend is quoted as saying: "It cannot be shared when things are in limbo, and that's the position we're in," said Ward LeHardy, a congregant serving as spokesman for the majority group. Such an arrangement "would complicate legal and spiritual aspects."
Well, that's partly true. But not the part that is most important. I don't see how sharing the church would complicate things spiritually at all. The Episcopalians could worship at a 9AM service, and the NAAs could worship at an 11AM service. Both groups, who have nutured their church for many years, would be able to worship within the church. Isn't that what brothers and sisters in Christ should do?
No, the reason why they can't share is more legal in nature. The lawsuits are coming and it's not going to be pretty. But it is going to be petty.
Oddly enough, in church today we heard about Paul's letters to the Corinthians in which he talked about the very fractured church of his time. And he said:
"That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular."
I wonder if the Nigerian American Anglicans had the same readings we did today, and whether they really heard them or not?
(I promise non-religous or political blog entry soon!)