First, I hope AKMA knows how much I respect and admire him. Heck, ya gotta luv a guy who writes a Greek textbook! Furthermore, I took his Historical Jesus class, and am profoundly grateful to have done so. (I still have to write my parody of Depeche Mode's "Personal Jesus" as, what else, "Historical Jesus." But that's another blog.)
Recently, in reflections on the recent Chicago diocesan convention, AKMA opined:
Then also, people say that the American Episcopal Church has withdrawn from communion with the rest of the churches — again a crude misrepresentation of what has happened. Yes, the US church has gone ahead with a gesture that gives offense to many other diocese and provinces around the world; but the US church has given no indication of its unwillingness to share communion with these aggrieved others. If there’s going to be a breach of communion, it will have to be initiated by the other dioceses. (Some dioceses seem to have set up “If . . . then. . . ” resolutions — but the action to break communion still originates with the diocese that so moves, not with the US church that remains eager to sustain positive relationships with other national and regional churches so long as the US church can maintain its regional theological integrity.)
My response is brief and metaphorical. This claim that communion is only broken by those who resist the Robinson consecration, after all, the consecrators aren't doing any disfellowshipping, is tantamount to an adulterer still claiming he loves his wife and wants to continue to be married, but not to repent of his adultery. The relationship has not been broken by the aggrieved spouse, who now wants a separation, but by the actions taken by the adulterer.
Father Adam may well deplore the rhetoric of adultery employed here, but I think it accurately captures, if this is all it does, the mindset of the worldwide communion. Whether or not the Robinson consecrators have committed ecclesial adultery, however, would be good to explore.