The Möbius Strip Shuffle. I love mathematics and, in particular, the somewhat different fields like
topology. For example, my kids and I play the
torus game: I'll ask "is an unattached garden hose more like a piece of cooked spaghetti or a full mug of coffee?" The answer, since this is the torus game, is the mug of coffee since both have a hole through them (the mug being the hole created by the handle). Mathematically, they both have a
genus of one.
I love
Möbius strips (a one sided surface) and
Klein bottles (a bottle with no inside). These imaginary things are wonderfully fanciful and allow one to do mental calisthenics.
Having said this, I can not begin to describe how positively convoluted Rev. Keith F. Axberg's
argument is claiming that those who seek to remain faithful to the Anglican Communion are schismatics. I quote it here in the entirety, so as to not do the man a disservice:
There are two kinds of schism: schism in the Church, and schism from the Church. ?Schism in the Church is a breach of communion between local churches ?
though neither side has changed the fundamental faith and order of the Church? (Moss, 281). Schism in the Church, then, isn?t a leaving, but a rip in the fabric of our common life in Christ. It is an estrangement, not a divorce.
?Schism from the Church?, on the other hand, ?is the revolt of persons, large or small, who separate themselves from the Church by rejecting her faith and order ?
? (Moss, 282). Calvin, for instance, rejected the Catholic Church, calling it the synagogue of the Anti-Christ. He saw it as being beyond redemption, beyond healing, and beyond God?s capacity to reform. So he created a new church organization over and against the old church. The Protestant Reformation was most literally a schism from the Church.
The debate raging within the Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church is partially clouded by the use of the term ?schism? without the defining prepositions: in or from. The Episcopal Church is clearly experiencing schism in the Church over such issues as Prayer Book revision, the ordination of women, gay, and lesbian persons, human sexuality, etc. Those persons, parishes, or dioceses not able to abide such changes are, themselves, departing from the faith and order of the Church by choosing not to accede to the authority of the Constitution & Canons of the Episcopal Church (USA) and the actions of General Convention, and not the other way around.
I've left his emphasis in.
Let me repeat his payoff sentence, Axberg's conclusion:
Those persons, parishes, or dioceses not able to abide such changes [i.e. "Prayer Book revision, the ordination of women, gay, and lesbian persons, human sexuality, etc."] are, themselves, departing from the faith and order of the Church
!
Talk about "pay, pray, and obey!"
Let's look at Axberg's definitions. First, let's do the "in" thing. Rev. Axberg writes "Schism in the Church, then, isn?t a leaving,
but a rip in the fabric of our common life in Christ. It is an estrangement, not a divorce." A rip in the fabric, hmmm. Where have I heard that before? Oh yes, the Primates'
letter -- the one signed by every primate present in London, why, just last month. Even Frankie ("Lyin Eyes") Griswold signed it. What was that phrase they used -- you know, the leaders of the Anglican communion.
Oh yes, they said "This will tear the fabric of our Communion at its deepest level..." Okay, so it's slightly different, not a mere rip, but a tear at the deepest level. So what was the "This" the Primates referred to -- according to Rev Ax, it must have something to do with failing to accept the ordination of a guy who believes gay sex is sacramental. How did those primates define what would tear at the deepest level? "If his consecration proceeds . . ."
Well, how about that...
No wonder Rev. Ax decided to go for that second option. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. Come over here and let me show you the real schism. ?Schism
from the Churchis the revolt of persons,
large or small, who separate themselves from the
Church by rejecting her faith and order ?
?
By golly, Rev. Ax, do you think that's them pesky fundamentalists we've got lurking around the 'piscopal church?
Rev. Ax sure thinks so.
When all the Primates get together, year after year after year and "reject[] homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture" that doesn't establish the Church's faith and order.
When the Scriptures teach that God created us male and female, that doesn't have anything to do with the Church's faith and order. When the Scriptures teach that marriage should be between one man and one woman for life, that doesn't have anything to do with the Church's faith and order.
When those same Scriptures - without equivication -condem homosexual acts as sin, that doesn't have anything to do with the Church's faith and order.
When the constant teaching of the Church Catholic through the decades and the centuries is that homosexual practices are sin, why that doesn't have When the Scriptures teach that marriage should be between one man and one woman for life, that doesn't have anything to do with the Church's faith and order.
When the Scriptures and teachings of the Church tell us that a Bishop should be holy and blameless, why that doesn't mean squat.
When every single Christian denomination tells us that what ECUSA is doing is wrong. Eh, who cares?
Again, when the Primates unanimously tell us that ordaining Gene Robinson is wrong, why, that doesn't have anything to do with the Church's faith and order.
No, it seems all that matters for Rev. Ax is what 60 bishops in Minnesota thought on a hot day in August.
Those of us in the congregations who are seeing our churches ripped to shreds by a handful of selfish, self-centered American bishops are having to decide if we want to follow that, "revolt of persons, large or small, who separate themselves from the Church."
Hmmm, do I go with the Church or those in ECUSA revolting from it?
Not a hard choice, Rev. Ax.
I must say your argument is not a very good topology. In fact, I'd say it's a lousy
tautology.
It's full of holes. It's a one-sided surface. It is a bottle with no inside: it doesn't hold water.