Heresy vs. Schism and the Episcopal Debate

Heresy is a tricky issue. One must carefully balance the probability of a changing the heretic against the effect the heresy has on the health of the church body. The children of Israel illustrate what happens when we entertain heresy. It is one thing to live among people who practice it. It is altogether different when you adopt it as part of your own culture. God anticipated Israel’s problem when he told them to destroy the idols of the foreigners (and in some cases the nations themselves). When they did not, Israel adopted pagan rituals and gods that eventually led to their downfall. When you consider the current issue, the same is true with the blessing of homosexual relationships and leaders by our church.
There are some issues that really should be debated. We should allow wide berths for those that differ in those views. A few examples are: women priests; blasphemy against the Holy Spirit; transubstantiation. These concepts are vague in the scriptures. However, homosexuality is not. In the Old Testament, Israel killed homosexuals. In the New Testament, Paul calls it depravity. Therefore, there is no room for argument in my opinion on whether it is a sin. I am astonished that the laity seem to have a better grasp on this matter than the many clergy that have studied the Bible. It ain’t rocket science. Even nature dictates that it is an unnatural thing!
You have stated that sometimes schism is a greater sin than heresy. In this case, the ECUSA is practicing both schism and heresy. You have even stated that the ECUSA ordained a bishop against their own canon. This action alone produced the schism. Apparently endorsing homosexuality is more important to the ECUSA than church unity. What is remarkable is that after they have violently welded the cleaver against their charge, they point the finger and blame those who are left bleeding. That is the perspective I get from the pro-AAC crowd.
As to the realities of schisms in the church, in Matthew 10 Christ says: "because you are not speaking, but the Spirit of your Father is speaking in you. Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. Children will even rise up against their parents and have them put to death. You will be hated by everybody because of My name. And the one who endures to the end will be delivered." Although Christ is not addressing homosexuality here, he is saying that His way will de divisive and sometimes not popular.
Additionally, Paul in Romans 3 discusses the purpose of the law, "For no flesh will be justified in His sight by the works of the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin.". The purpose of the law is to show we need Christ. If we change the law (which we can not do), we are telling those that break it that it is OK. There then is no need for repentance. If we did this, we would not be acting out of love. We would be condemning our fellow brethren.
I agree also that we should allow dialogue on this matter. For the most part, the dialogue is all one way: "you must adopt the ECUSA position", the canon be damned. Those against the ECUSA position have no means left to communicate their repugnance to the national church. We tried at council and our idea was struck down. That is why I support the AAC affiliation idea. It provides a clear statement as a church that we adamantly disagree with the ECUSA position. Individual membership is not by itself a strong enough statement. Those who oppose affiliation actually stifle the only means left to those in our church to say to the ECUSA that we oppose their action. I am sure that is why many have left not only this congregation but also the Episcopal Church. They have no more means of dialogue. It is important that our bishop know that AAC affiliation has nothing to do with our diocese but rather our church a and the ECUSA.
I too feel that we must not react rashly and not too quickly. We got to this point through negligence and passivity. I think the Anglican community is being wise to slowly introduce discipline to allow the ECUSA to reflect on their position and make the necessary changes.
AAC affiliation is not a rash act nor do I consider it schismatic. One can equate it to supporting the Order of St Luke’s. As they advocate healing, the AAC advocates the need for our church to remain scriptural. No one paints the Order of St Luke as an organization that wants to get rid of the medical profession. AAC affiliation is not schismatic but rather emphasizes the ministry of the scripture.
For those who do not support the ECUSA, we were told to ‘shut up’ a long time ago when the ECUSA violated canon.