Non-schismatic Realignment

Is a Non-schismatic "Realignment" Possible? (A Variation on ROOM)

Emphasis My comments

I asked myself the other day, "If a 'realignment' of the Anglican Communion in the United States is inevitable, and will happen whether I like it or not, what conditions would need to be in place for such a 'realignment' not to be schismatic?" I realised that I had been thinking that "realignment" was a euphemism (possibly self-deceiving on the part of those who employed that term positively) for schism. (Good so this means he realized the mistake was on his end)

I decided that I would assume for the time being that such a non-schismatic realignment was possible, and see where this thought experiement took me.(This is a good start it is where you should have started to begin with)

The answers I came up with all revolved around two basic principles:

1. Realignment must not succumb to any form of donatism.(Agreed but it also must not compromise with Heresy. Refusal to accept heresy is not donatism it is simply smart)
2. Realignment must preserve the possibility of "free angency" for clergy & laity alike(Alright?).

As for #1, I mean that separate communities are all right for preserving and maintaining particular disciplines that they freely take on themselves (If in fact we are only talking about a matter of discipline then I agree but the question is are we strictly talking about a matter of discipline or are we talking about doctrine), but that when these communities define themselves over against all communities that do not maintain their own standards, we run into problems. So, for instance, a community that decided that it would only allow celibate & traditionally-married clergy should be encouraged to maintain that discipline and enforce it as a community norm. But if that same community were unwilling to be in communion with other communities that had only celibate clergy, or whose discipline in the area of clerical sexual ethics was less stringent or well-defined, then we run into the sort of donatism that James Alison and I have written about.(again the question that comes to mind is what exactly is the author talking about, it is unclear to me if he means some simple practice such as married or unmarried clergy or if he is including priestesses in the mix)

As for #2, I mean that if clergy from one "province" (or "synod," or what have you) were allowed to serve parishes of the other "province" as long as they maintained its doctrine & discipline(The question is answered here, Doctrine does not belong to one province or another it belongs to the whole Church. We can compromise on discipline we cannot compromise on Doctrine.), that would allow moderates in each "province" to follow God's call to whatever parish (or other position) they felt led(because "moderate", "progressive", and "Conservative" are vocations God leads us to?). Likewise, if laity were allowed to be members of parishes in either "province" as long as they followed and lived into that province's doctrine & discipline, then this would allow moderates to find the parish most suited to their spiritual needs without having to make a false choice between being a "real" Anglican or a "real" Episcopalian.(Is the Choice false? The author seems to misunderstand the need and desire for the realignment. "The Anglican" and "Episcopal" Church are degenerating into paganism with the ordination of Priestesses, and Bishopesses, as well as the acceptance of practicing homosexuals.)

Number one is more theological in its implications, number two is more logistical, though both have practical outworkings. Were there to be a realignment, the best case scenerio for Episcopal clergy in North America would be if both the conservative and the liberal brands of Anglicanism shared the same pension fund!(again the purpose is to create and reinforce alliances against the prevailing heterodox. The reason heterodoxy has been so effective in the Anglican Church is that it has been allowed to creep into areas. A realignment would draw a line in the sand and say "If you seek your own destruction and wish to degenerate even more into paganism then by all means. But if you seek God and His truth we will welcome you with open arms. Either way we will pray for your souls.")

I also have some ideas about property sharing and common mission and ministry, but these will have to wait.(property sharing and joint missions is a must not. It would erase the line we are trying to draw, to share even buildings with those who hold heterodox beliefs is not possible, we must try to save our brethren from their error but we must be careful not to drink their poison.)