The Episcopal Bishop of Albany, NY issued a statement calling for unity amid the discord in the Episcopal Church.

Bishop Love is trying to hold together a diocese commonly known as a conservative. Today’s story from the Albany Times Union explains his thinking.

I found two things “interesting” in the article.

You can read the full thing at Bishop wants unity amid discord: Leader of Albany Episcopalians affirms opposition to same-sex unions and ordaining gay clergy

The interesting bits:

[Bishop William Love] also criticized the Episcopal Church for “creating a new class of victims — the traditional orthodox believers.

“If there is to be a turnaround in the Church, there must be a viable place for the conservative orthodox voice,” he wrote.

One of the keys to reasonableness is having something that everyone can agree on – like a creedal statement. Unfortunately, and sadly, the response to Bishop Love’s statement shows that key elements that are foundational for that sort of oneness do not exist.

Locally, one lay leader in the Albany diocese has a much different worry: that there is no place for the substantial progressive voice.

Marya Dodd describes herself as probably the only progressive on the Diocesan Council, an oversight panel. She says many people won’t donate money to the Albany diocese because they feel disenfranchised. She praised Love for “making a real effort to communicate with us” in the new letter but said that wasn’t enough.

“He’s not publicly recognizing the fact that there are a lot of different segments of the Episcopal Church represented in Albany,” she said. “This is not a diocese that has one vision, or one approach to the faith.Emphasis added.”

I think that it would be hard to find a parish, much less a Church, that did not have a variety of voices and opinions in it. It is funny what people believe, as made up in their own minds. However, in a Church, there are touchstones, markers as it were of unity. The Creed, sacraments, the definition and understanding of God, adherence to the totality of the faith, that is Scripture and Tradition. The folks who run the faith side of the house tend to preach that common understanding.

All of those are the check points. If the membership cannot agree on those key elements, or if they have to redefine them to suit their own purposes, they are not Church, just a bunch of folks who like to get together. But whyI recall the Monty Python bit about going to an argument clinic just to argue.?

Even certain social clubs have a more defined set of beliefs or norms upon which their members agree.

Visions are fine, but if disconnected from the things which have defined the Church (of which you are a member) at least be honest enough to define your own “faith community.” Then again, isn’t that what seems to be happening.