What is the Communion Partners (CP) fellowship?  What is being done now?  Who is involved?  How can you get involved? In this column, we’ll be doing our best to introduce you to the Communion Partners Rectors group and to keep you apprised of ongoing efforts. Often we will feature a guest contributor from the CP Rectors or Bishops groups. Please share your questions and thoughts with us about the CP on the forums.

Editor’s note: Today’s column is from our first Covenant Guest Contributor,  the Rev. Charles D. Alley, Ph.D. of the Communion Partner Rectors Advisory Committee

Before addressing the matter of the Primates meeting in Alexandria, Egypt, let me describe the group known as the Communion Partner Rectors. We are rectors of parishes in The Episcopal Church (TEC) who feel called to remain in TEC while following a different theological trajectory. Earlier this year, 13 bishops announced the Communion Partners Plan through which we might maintain fellowship within the Anglican Communion (http://www.communionpartners.org). As a response to that initiative, a number of rectors of TEC parishes met in Dallas to formulate a vehicle for giving our prayer and support to one another and to the bishops and primates who are working to form a clear Communion identity within TEC. Last November, a follow-up meeting was held in Houston where a larger group of rectors gathered with four Communion Partner Bishops and representatives of the Anglican Communion Institute to give form and definition to the fellowship that has become known as the Communion Partner Rectors.

At that meeting, we (1) acknowledged the serious challenges of this present season in the Anglican Communion due to the actions of The Episcopal Church, (2) reaffirmed our commitment to the authority of Scripture and creedal and historic faith, and (3) reaffirmed our respect for the proper authority of our bishops. We articulated the shape of our obedience to God as his people in terms of service to our various dioceses and the dioceses, provinces and leadership of the Anglican Communion. The participants identified mission grounded in the Person and Work of Jesus Christ as the center piece of our common life as Communion Partners, rather than a new organizational structure.

We feel that the proper expression of that mission is found in meaningful relationships that are informed by Paul’s words that we should be “…subject to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Ephesians 5:21). We identified five specific ways for fostering and strengthening such relationships.

1. As the basis for healthy cooperative relationships within the Communion, we support and are firmly committed to the Windsor process and the development of an Anglican Covenant that provides a meaningful framework within which we can function theologically and missiologically. We are committed to the Windsor and Covenant way forward.

2. We desire to establish ministry relationships with dioceses in other provinces which will provide for the sharing of ideas and ministry opportunities. Such relationships will be initiated through the process of listening to our partners in those provinces in order to better understand them and their particular needs, and will continue based on mutual agreement and accountability.

3. We seek to facilitate access to quality theological education and practical parish experience for our partners in other provinces, as well as ministry-expanding opportunities for our parishioners through contact with partner clergy and lay persons, both at home and abroad.

4. Within TEC, we are committed to supporting one another through prayer and fellowship, with a particular concern for those rectors and parishes that find themselves isolated geographically or theologically.

5. Finally, we aspire to provide a positive contribution to the life of this church by witnessing to the importance of an authentic Anglican identity not only within TEC, but also the greater Communion. This witness will be characterized by a consistent loyalty to the mission and relationships that best define our connectedness as members of the Body of Christ and His presence in the Anglican Communion.

This initiative provides the vehicle for a constructive Gospel-centered engagement within TEC. The Communion Partner Rectors is not a group being organized to reform TEC, but rather a group of co-laborers in TEC with the common purpose of sowing the seed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We have organized a meeting at St. Martin’s Episcopal Church in Houston, Texas, for April 17 – 18, 2009, entitled, “Anglicanism – A Gift in Christ,” which is open to all bishops, clergy and laypersons. More information and registration forms can be obtained from (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

What might the work of the Primates in Alexandria mean to those choosing to function in such a context? I think the overall message is positive. The Primates accurately diagnosed the dysfunction and made the assessment that the presently available therapeutic modalities do not hold sufficient promise for successful treatment. The course of action they proposed was to “first do no harm” as existing modalities are being modified or new ones developed.

The scarlet thread running through the Primates Meeting Communiqué was that of relationships: the importance of our relationships as Anglicans in communion world-wide; the disruption of those relationships by “deep differences” over sexuality and border-crossing issues; and the need to address these differences while remaining in relationship. This relational perspective resonates with the articulated call of the Communion Partner Rectors. During this period of discernment as to how we might “sustain ecclesial fellowship,” we support the call to “directly study the scriptures,” as the way of founding our communal relationship on our relationship with God.

We, with the Primates, “believe the securing of the covenant to be a vital element in strengthening the life of the Communion.” The Windsor Continuation Group named our demon distrust. The obvious question is how the various players in the Anglican Communion can be reconciled with one another without trust. It appears that the only way forward is to develop some tangible instrument through which mutual accountability can be established and a basis for trust restored. To date, a covenant developed through listening to voices from the rich history of Anglicanism, as well as contemporary voices, has the greatest potential for success.

The Communiqué and the Windsor Continuation Group Report present a challenge to the Communion Partner Rectors. As those being called to remain in TEC, the burden falls to us to become involved, along with our bishops and laypeople, in brokering reconciliation between TEC and the Anglican Communion, while standing firm in the faith. Being a reasonable voice for the greater Communion within the councils of TEC and maintaining our relationships within our dioceses and province will be our only hope for repairing the tear in the fabric of the Communion.

View the original post

This is all very encouraging and, it seems to me, healthy.  It de-focuses on our presenting issues and centers us in Christ, the source of our identity and the ground of our being as the Church.

I do hope, however, that the fellowship will soon be expanded beyond rectors to include clergy in general.  Sign me up to be the first Communion Curate!

I would agree. One has to be the rector of a parish which can fund going to these meetings or have private means. There seems to be little attempt to make this project public and accessible.

Thanks very much for posting this, Bruce+.  It is great to hear from Chuck Alley that CP is not just a name but something that is actually going to be an important part of TEC going forward, particularly as a result of the recent Primates’ Meeting.

I understand that the April meeting is indeed open to non-rectors and laity.  Can you provide a link to the registration form and any additional information in this thread?  The email address is helpful but not nearly as much as direct link to the information we need.

Also, can you address the question so many have asked here about laity and non-rector clergy?  Do we need to start our own CP Boosters Club?  If so, I’ll get a registration form up here at Covenant.  Or is there already a plan in place to allow the rest to show their support beyond having to travel to Texas?

I’ve just sent some material over to Craig about the April Conference, which is being developed collaboratively with the ACI. 

On the question of who’s in the Communion Partner group, the long term vision seems to be not really the creation of a “membership organization”—say, along the lines of the AAC or Network or, um, the NRA.  The “Rector” idea was a place to begin in support of the designated list of Communion Partner Bishops.  The initial idea has been to provide institutional platforms—both dioceses and parishes—within the Episcopal Church for the development of Communion relationships and to sustain those relationships as our national province may drift further away.  I can imagine a number of iterations.  “Communion Partner University Chaplaincies,” or “Communion Partner Seminaries.”  The less-institutional aspect is the development of a more enhanced, “Communion-friendly” sense of Anglican identity within the Episcopal Church.  ACI has had at least a semi-formal relationship with the Communion Partner Bishops and Rectors, and perhaps there will be some role for a community like Covenant-Communion as well.

But the question of what it means exactly to be a Communion Partner is still in development, and I’m sure this will be a part of the conversation at the April gathering.  Which is open to all.

In terms of Tony’s point, the main expense at this point has been related, I think, to the fact that the group has been now twice generously hosted by Russ Levenson and St. Martin’s, Houston.  It has been somewhat expensive to get people together, and at this point we’ve all needed to be self-funding in terms of travel and accomodations for these meetings.  As a web presence is developed and as other resources for parishes and dioceses become available it should be easier for folks to feel engaged without needing to get on an airplane or spend an overnight at the Omni.

Bruce Robison

Being, in fact, a rector, I have just a few moments before sent my name to the email link provided in the article with the request that my name be added to the list of Communion Partners rectors.

Attached is the flyer for the Communion Partners conference on April 16-17 in Houston, TX.  Attached also is the registration form.

Fr Alley wrote:

The Communion Partner Rectors is not a group being organized to reform TEC

but also

As those being called to remain in TEC, the burden falls to us to become involved, along with our bishops and laypeople, in brokering reconciliation between TEC and the Anglican Communion, while standing firm in the faith. Being a reasonable voice for the greater Communion within the councils of TEC and maintaining our relationships within our dioceses and province will be our only hope for repairing the tear in the fabric of the Communion.

This puzzles me. How is it possible, and even if it is possible how would it be beneficial, to broker a reconciliation between the Communion and an un-reformed TEC? If TEC remains unchanged, wouldn’t reconciliation simply be a near-guarantee of more tearing of the Communion’s fabric? The possibility that there will be an Episco-Buddhist TEC bishop before there is a Covenant springs immediately to mind.

I think I can grasp the idea of a group that aims at a witness of holding fast the faith within TEC, rather than seeking to change TECs direction (which latter I think is a lost cause, barring direct Divine intervention). I even think I may be called to be such a witness myself. What I do not at all understand is why such a group would want an un-reformed TEC reconciled to the Communion. Please explain.

Hi Karen, 

I do not presume to speak for the Communion Partners, nor for anyone else for that matter. This is my own read of the situation. No, TEC as it currently stands is unlikely to be reformed. But TEC and the ACoC as it now stands is (approximate guess) 60-70% made up of people 50+. This generation is quite liberal in general, (fortunately with some critical distinctions). This liberalism has led to much indifference both to the faith and to the Church. Mainline Churches, and the Anglican Church in particular are shrinking as a result. Much of this generation has or will fall away from the Church, and they will have fallen out of positions of leadership and influence in another 10-15 years when my generation (20s and 30s) comes into their prime.

When I look around at those my age who are choosing to stay in the Church, I find a significant number of conservatives (liberal folks my age really just don’t care about the Church) who have stayed because they have struggled, studied Scripture, history, theology, prayed, and sought out advice and wisdom from their elders about why it is faithful to stay; they have not stayed simply because they grew up in the Church or because it was fun, or socially convenient. And these are the folks who are going to be leading the Church in 10-15 years. Furthermore, there is an even more socially and theologically conservative generation coming up behind us that are hungry to learn Scripture and to establish deep roots in something authentic. There won’t be a lot of us left because most of my generation has left the Church, but that just means the Church we’re building is going to be totally different; it will be a mission field and given many of our temperaments, this kind of ministry is exciting to us and suits us well. 

The ministry into which we are heading will be a completely different form of ministry to that which exists at present. But this is actually exciting ... so filled with hope and expectation not based on human wrangling, but on God’s greatness ... waiting for God to break into the broken fragments of our Church to reform it according to his purposes. So the reason, it seems to me, that it is faithful to stand from within and proceed as the CP are proceeding is this: those who believe that leaving such a Church will allow them to live more faithfully in ‘the truth’ need to read more of the Old Testament and Church history ... they’re simply wrong and their own actions have thus far only contributed to tearing apart the Church (see Isaiah 9:19-21); those who believe they can stand within fighting to reform through political means are relying upon human means to build a political organization; those who stand within and wait on God to reform our brokenness, are watering and tending to that which God brings about. This latter way of proceeding will require patience, courage, perseverance, and great faith; but this is what it means to be a Christian, to wait on God, to be caught up in his gathering mission, to live knowing that he is sovereign over all the world.

What I do not at all understand is why such a group would want an un-reformed TEC reconciled to the Communion. Please explain.

So maybe it isn’t that such a group wants an un-reformed TEC reconciled to the Communion. Perhaps the group just recognizes that in God’s time, and in his ways (which are beyond our understanding) he will bring about the reconciliation if we remain faithful to the places and roles in which we have found ourselves under his providence. It is likely we will not see this reconciliation in its completion in our own lifetimes. But that is a testimony that every biblical figure but Christ would give and so too then, is it a faithful testimony for us to proclaim.

Anyway, that’s my two cents. peace.

Hi Katie,

So good to see you here!  Your third paragraph is one of the best articulations I have yet come across of articulating that “third way” of waiting on God, not passively, but not in an activist/political way, either.  Or, if it has an activist/political dimension, it is striving to eschew “politics as usual,” to build mutually converting relationships and engage in mission in the first instance, and apologetics in the second.  The key is waiting on God’s Spirit to lead us in the Way of the Cross, which leads to Resurrection Life, both in the Pilgrim Church and in the Church Triumphant, among whose saints we hope to be counted.  It is a thoroughly forward-looking, mission-oriented stance, and it does not require a “them” against which “we” pit ourselves in battle, but always that “other” for which Christ died and whom Christ calls us to reach out to in loving service.

Many thanks,

NH+

I appreciate your explanation, too, Katie.  But I also appreciate Fr. Nathan’s nuancing of the word “political.”  I think I know what you are getting at, but one will always get a lot of challenges to the suggestion that it is possible to be the Church and be apolitical from those of us trained in the Hauerwas or Milbank streams.  For the Church is itself inherently and robustly political; it is an alternative politics.  It is disingenuous to say that the CP is not a political movement, for politics is about how we order ourselves and how we go about discerning God’s will together so that we order ourselves in a godly way.  From what you say, the CP is proposing an alternative politics - they claim that their way is distinct from those other guys and gals who refuse to wait on God and who seem to have a more aggressive posture.  To the extent that they are making a claim about what faithfulness requires us to do, they are intensely political.

It’s important, I think, from a theological perspective, that we not reinforce this dualism that is anti-Church that tries to separate Church and politics.  It suggests that there are two spheres to life that we are capable of segregating and one of which is no interest to God.  If you read a little Paul, you see quite clearly that the Church is politics.  (Yes, ya’ll, I know I am channeling Hauerwas here.).

Hi Fr. Nathan!

This forum is fantastic! I really appreciate the quality of the articles and the level and charity of discussion.

Hi Craig,

Indeed, I would agree that the political needs to be nuanced ... I was not particularly concise on that point. I would in fact not suggest an apolitical response; rather the political response must set within the wider scope of God’s providence. I actually plan to look at the relationship of metaphysics, politics, and theology in the ecclesiology of the late Middle Ages and early Reformation and its influence on the construction of modern ecclesiologies (e.g. the relationship of these three concepts as articulated by figures such as Nicholas of Cusa and John Calvin and the subsequent ecclesial developments as they pertain to the formation of modern ecclesiology) for my PhD disseration; so I would definitely concur that polity is critical, but it is so in a particular way. It’s is my contention that developments in this regard are critical to the formation of modern ecclesiology and it is this that I am currently examining and what I will be continuing to examine as I continue my studies in more detail, particularly with respect to the Anglican Communion.

I entirely agree with you Craig: “for the Church is itself inherently and robustly political; it is an alternative politics.” Typically when one speaks of ‘politics’ they have particular human actions in mind that they do not set within the scope of God’s providence and this is wherein the dualism you speak of arises. This is not what I proposed in my post above, nor would I associate this type of dualism with what I perceive CP to be proposing. In fact, what CP seems to propose has a very conciliar ethos to it and that was the direction in which I was heading. However, being unsure of the person’s background to whom I was responding, I didn’t want to bring a larger late medieval conciliarist argument (one that interweaves politics, theology and metaphysics) forward just yet. That however, is the scope within which I set my ecclesiological perspective.

I wouldn’t say I know enough of Hauerwas to comment on his ecclesiology, nor of Millbank (although my fellow classmate was just talking about the latter of these two at lunch after church today and said Milbank tends to go off in some rather liberal directions ... having said this I should point out that the two of us are what I would classify as conservative evangelical, quite catholic, Anglicans who believe that a conciliar direction, that proposed by the Covenant Agreement, is the most fruitful direction for our Church at this time).

I must say I am quite excited to have this forum going on. It seems as though there are some very bright and wise individuals here and I look forward to sharing and hearing from others particularly concerning authority and decision-making in the Church (my passion and my academic interest)!

Katie,
Who’s supervising your thesis?  I would love to read your work.  We seem to share a common area of interest.  Though my work would be - if I was able to follow you up there - a bit more in applied theology (i.e. examining how certain contemporary threads of Christianity fund racism and xenophobia, and what kind of theological response is most appropriate).

One has to be careful about listening to others’ opinions of Milbank and Hauerwas.  You really need to read Milbank’s early stuff, especially Theology and Social Theory.  It’s rich.  My observation is that it is a mistake to use a binary scheme to describe most serious theologians, and certainly Milbank and Haeurwas.  It is true that their own thinking will often intersect lines of thinking from liberal secular politics, but they truly are on different vectors and arriving at their positions theologically.  Talk about conservative - I went to Duke as a board-certified Neanderthal, but I treasure the way Stanley Hauerwas taught me to think always through resurrection eyes (sounds like Calvin, eh?), which then helped me realize that a lot of my conservative thinking (using the binary scheme) was much more informed by philosophical pragmatism and humanism that it was by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Once I started to unpack those threads, I began to move in my thinking, such that I may still be a Neanderthal, but it’s really impossible for me to describe myself as either a liberal or conservative because I am all over the map on issues.

Katie Silcox - 08 March 2009 08:39 AM

Hi Karen, 

I do not presume to speak for the Communion Partners, nor for anyone else for that matter. This is my own read of the situation. No, TEC as it currently stands is unlikely to be reformed. But TEC and the ACoC as it now stands is (approximate guess) 60-70% made up of people 50+. This generation is quite liberal in general, (fortunately with some critical distinctions). This liberalism has led to much indifference both to the faith and to the Church. Mainline Churches, and the Anglican Church in particular are shrinking as a result. Much of this generation has or will fall away from the Church, and they will have fallen out of positions of leadership and influence in another 10-15 years when my generation (20s and 30s) comes into their prime.

When I look around at those my age who are choosing to stay in the Church, I find a significant number of conservatives (liberal folks my age really just don’t care about the Church) who have stayed because they have struggled, studied Scripture, history, theology, prayed, and sought out advice and wisdom from their elders about why it is faithful to stay; they have not stayed simply because they grew up in the Church or because it was fun, or socially convenient. And these are the folks who are going to be leading the Church in 10-15 years. Furthermore, there is an even more socially and theologically conservative generation coming up behind us that are hungry to learn Scripture and to establish deep roots in something authentic. There won’t be a lot of us left because most of my generation has left the Church, but that just means the Church we’re building is going to be totally different; it will be a mission field and given many of our temperaments, this kind of ministry is exciting to us and suits us well. 

The ministry into which we are heading will be a completely different form of ministry to that which exists at present. But this is actually exciting ... so filled with hope and expectation not based on human wrangling, but on God’s greatness ... waiting for God to break into the broken fragments of our Church to reform it according to his purposes. So the reason, it seems to me, that it is faithful to stand from within and proceed as the CP are proceeding is this: those who believe that leaving such a Church will allow them to live more faithfully in ‘the truth’ need to read more of the Old Testament and Church history ... they’re simply wrong and their own actions have thus far only contributed to tearing apart the Church (see Isaiah 9:19-21); those who believe they can stand within fighting to reform through political means are relying upon human means to build a political organization; those who stand within and wait on God to reform our brokenness, are watering and tending to that which God brings about. This latter way of proceeding will require patience, courage, perseverance, and great faith; but this is what it means to be a Christian, to wait on God, to be caught up in his gathering mission, to live knowing that he is sovereign over all the world.

What I do not at all understand is why such a group would want an un-reformed TEC reconciled to the Communion. Please explain.

So maybe it isn’t that such a group wants an un-reformed TEC reconciled to the Communion. Perhaps the group just recognizes that in God’s time, and in his ways (which are beyond our understanding) he will bring about the reconciliation if we remain faithful to the places and roles in which we have found ourselves under his providence. It is likely we will not see this reconciliation in its completion in our own lifetimes. But that is a testimony that every biblical figure but Christ would give and so too then, is it a faithful testimony for us to proclaim.

Anyway, that’s my two cents. peace.

Thank you, Katie, That clarifies somewhat. I was thinking of a shorter time-frame than perhaps CPP has in mind when speaking of reconciliation of TEC with the Communion. I can’t see a path from any of the near-term outcomes that seem likely to me, to reconciliation of a changed TEC with the Communion at some distant date, but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen.

I disagree that those who leave are “simply wrong”, though I cannot but see that the actions of some leavers have widened the tear. Faithful Christians can and do disagree about how one ought to respond to a given situation, and the situations in which we find ourselves differ widely. (There was some discussion of this on another thread wrt financial contributions to TEC parishes.)  I don’t think there is a one-answer-fits-all response, whether the one answer be “stay” or “go”. Stayers and leavers are both attempting to the best of their ability to obey God and build on the foundation of Christ. Whether their building has been of gold, silver and precious stones, or of wood, hay and stubble, will perhaps not be known by any of us until “the Day”.

Peace to you also.

Hi Craig,

My master’s (which is formative for what I hope to be doing with my PhD) is being supervised by Dr. Radner. I’m looking at the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission documents on the Gift of Authority, examining the historical point of origin for their articulation of the concepts of koinonia, conciliarity and primacy, analyzing their actual articulation given historical and theological arguments, providing a critique and then providing a constructive proposal for more a fruitful ecclesial direction. I would definitely share the work; though I’m not yet done (a first draft will hopefully be done in the next two weeks). Although I don’t yet know who will be supervising my doctoral work (I won’t begin the PhD until September) I would imagine, and hope, that it will be Dr. Radner.

Your work sounds very cool; I too would love to read it. Are you focusing more on concepts or on particular historical incidents? The one thing I have particularly appreciated about historical theology is the reality of incidents that ground a given theological concept and allow one to more accurately extrapolate and transpose ‘theoretical’ concepts into contemporary historical situations in a constructive manner. So for example in a paper I wrote this fall, I was looking at Nicholas Cusanus’s understanding of the unity and division of the Church. The historical incident I concentrated on was this exchange he had with the Bohemians. The Bohemians were arguing that they needed to separate from the Catholic Church because the Church had drifted away from Scriptural practices and were therefore compromising the gospel and perhaps even one’s salvation. Cusanus argued in a letter that in fact it was they who compromised the peace and order of the Church by departing from commonly held practices; and in so doing they also compromised the Church’s ability to engage in common discernment of Scripture, teaching, preaching, mission. Cusanus argued that even in drifting from Scriptural practices, it was God who would in time, “quicken” the practices of the Church and conform it to his own will as it was gathered into Christ. So in fact one’s salvation was not compromised by the Church’s ‘drifting from Scripture’ because the Church was under God’s providence, conformed to him in time. And so one’s own faithful response, was obedience to the decisions of the Church at any given time because God works through the political, hierarchical order of the Church to form the Church into Christ’s image (see Book 1 of the Catholic Concordance or Dionysis - by hierarchical Cusanus does not mean rigid structure as in what we think of today as the RC Church ... this is evidenced by his move from being a conciliarist to a papalist after the Conciliarists at Basel attempted to assert conciliarism as a doctrine of the Church which would have once again, created ecclesial schism). For now I will leave aside issues of gravely erroneous ecclesial action and individual conscience as these are long and too complicated for blog topics (but if you’re interested have a look at the exchange between Newman and Gladstone ... I’ve got a paper that if I can dig up, you could have a look at). Anyway, this particular historical incident and some of the conclusions Cusanus draws pertain to our present struggles in the Church and when brought forward can illuminate potential directions for more fruitful, practical ecclesial direction.

I will heed your advice concerning both Hauerwas and Millbank. I have only read Hauerwas’s God, Medicine and Suffering and quite enjoyed that (I read this along side Barth’s perspective which helped to give some shape and context to the various ways of addressing particular situations). Millbank I have yet to read on my own so I will most certainly reserve judgment. It is all too easy to become locked into one’s own theological views and I will admit to getting trapped in this habit perhaps too often!

Hi Karen,

<quote>I disagree that those who leave are “simply wrong”, though I cannot but see that the actions of some leavers have widened the tear. Faithful Christians can and do disagree about how one ought to respond to a given situation, and the situations in which we find ourselves differ widely. (There was some discussion of this on another thread wrt financial contributions to TEC parishes.)  I don’t think there is a one-answer-fits-all response, whether the one answer be “stay” or “go”. Stayers and leavers are both attempting to the best of their ability to obey God and build on the foundation of Christ. Whether their building has been of gold, silver and precious stones, or of wood, hay and stubble, will perhaps not be known by any of us until “the Day”.</quote>

‘simply wrong’ was perhaps an uncharitable choice of wording, I apologize. One of the challenges that we confront with those who leave however, is that it further erodes trust between all parties. I give a particular issue without naming names or groups. There is a group that wishes to stay within a given Church of the Communion for the purposes of, like CP, witnessing from within this particular Church. The members of this group gather for fellowship, discussion, prayer, Bible study, to seek advice and guidance given various situations that occur within the Church. But this group is thought of as a ‘holding tank’ for people who are ‘plotting’ or perhaps seeking to leave this particular Church. It’s members therefore are not trusted by this particular Church and so any new member, someone say perhaps not yet ordained who is seeking ordination might be told that if they become members of this group, they might not fit in well, nor be able to be ‘supported’ by a diocese of this given Church. So now this person who might be seeking ordination is isolated from the support of fellowship group; the group loses a member and the opportunity to help this person grow and develop their own ability to witness, the diocese loses a valuable voice of future leadership and conservative witness thereby narrowing its diversity, there is even greater potential for this person to become a central focus of further fracture as their story unfolds, and there is a loss of ability for any conservative to gain the trust of people within or outside of this given Church to speak with good and faithful witness (they simply get slotted in as an ignorant, ideological, redneck Bible thumper).

The other challenge with those leaving, is that the argument to leave is often based on Biblical grounds. But the problem is that the Biblical case (and the historical and theological case) is not built on strong exegesis of the whole Biblical text; rather it is often built on snippets and propositional statements. There is a very strong Biblical argument that has been repeatedly made for staying within even an apostate or heretical Church (see as one little example my reply to Craig concerning Nicholas of Cusa’s argument ... he was writing in 1435); this has to do with how God works through our structures to quicken our lives. For a more recent argument see Ephraim Radner’s “Hope Among the Fragments” particularly pp 177-end, and his commentary on Leviticus (start with Hope Among the Fragments as one sort of needs to ease their way into his writing! . Before I read his work, I was all set to go to the Roman Catholic Church. 

Perhaps the largest and most practical challenge with those leaving, is that the witness provided to the wider world, is that of confusion. When Christ speaks of oneness, he speaks of this as being essential to the proclamation of the gospel, how can we but appear complete hypocrites to the world as we continually fracture in proclaiming Christ. Must we pursue truth ... yes, most definitely, but if we do so without attending to the peace, unity, and order of the Church, we will have nothing at all to say. We cannot disentangle the gospel from our order as the body of Christ; they go hand in hand; truth and unity cannot be pursued apart from one another (for a great read on this see: Hans Von Campenhausen “Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the Church of the First Three Centuries” ... awesome book!), of course at the more practical level, one could also look at how continued ecclesial division in the name of ‘truth,’ far from spreading the gospel in North America, has contributed greatly to people’s indifference to it (there are of course a complexity of factors at work here, but this is one contributing factor, particularly when viewing the larger scope of post Reformation history).