Here's a post I put on Father Jake Stops the World -- a blog of revisionist tendencies, whose commentators are generally intelligent and which Fr. Jake works hard to keep cordial. Orthodox posters, if careful about wording, are not generally abused. It's a great read if you want to get another side to all that's going on in the Communion. I thought Whitehall readers would enjoy taking a stab at this.
There is, though, something I don't quite understand about all this. There seem to be some among us in TEC who are committed first and foremost to TEC, and others who are committed first and foremost to the Anglican Communion. I know there are reasons of ecclesiology that drive many of the latter -- the idea is that our claims to Catholicity (and hence also to valid sacraments, ordinations, even salvation) depend upon our historic episcopal succession from, and continued communion with, the mother church, CofE. I see similar ecclesiologies active in Roman Catholicism and the Eastern churches. What I see from those who are committed first to TEC is a love for the church we've become in the last 40 years, the inclusive church, the church that lets everyone have their own opinion, the church that stands up for civil rights and human rights and all the oppressed -- in short, a liberation theology church. Does this mean that a preference for liberation theology is driving us to make poor ecclesiological decisions? Asked another way, what is the ecclesiological reason behind the commitment to TEC above the Anglican Communion? Is there a precept somewhere in Anglican theology that a church's identity as a national church (because that's what we began as) or as a province somehow trumps its identity as Anglican (given that it is this latter that gives uumph to our claims to Catholicity)?