Just up the road from here, an Episcopal "priest" (I hate that term for Anglican ministers) tell us us about why It’s Not about Sex:
I believe the archbishop’s essay underscores what really is going on within the Anglican Communion and beyond. Debate about sexuality, or more precisely, homosexuality, is not really the issue; it is, rather, a very significant symptom. The real issue is this divide about how the Bible is to be interpreted and understood, and its place in the life of the church. Human sexuality is the current favourite battleground for this more significant debate about Scripture. And it is no surprise that in setting forth his views about the Bible and its place in the church, Archbishop Orombi indicates that he feels much more kinship with the evangelical manifestations of the Christian faith than he does with most Anglicans in the North Atlantic provinces. I am quite sure that, if the archbishop visited my town, he would feel more at home at the huge Baptist church down the street than in our parish. And realizing this leads me to feel rather less hopeful about re-establishing unity within the Anglican Communion.
As far as the role of Scripture is concerned, he’s absolutely right. But then he follows it up with a mushy, ambiguous ramble that ends with the following:
Wouldn’t it be a remarkable thing if all the Anglican bishops were to gather together at Canterbury next year fully aware of their own incompleteness, and seeking their completion in Christ and in one another? That would be by far the most powerful witness I could imagine, both to the church and to the world.
Sermons like this is one major reason why I left the Episcopal Church. His immediate fallacy of course, is that the central focus of the church is either the Bible or Jesus Christ. It isn’t an either/or proposition; it’s a both/and one. The written Word of God is there to draw us to and teach us about the living One. Beyond that, he goes into good Episcopal/Anglican fudge to try to make the case that people like Archbishop Orombi are too quick to characterise them as a "closed-ended" revelation.
A church that follows such a vague path is pointless. In a recent dialogue with a Muslim, we both found ourselves disliking the idea of an open-ended road to eternal life. Perhaps if our East Tennessee priest would take a more definite view of where he’s at, where he’s going and how he plans to get there, he might be surprised at the "unity" he would find.