THOUGHTS ON UNITY

We were on vacation this past week. It was fun, got to see a bunch of old friends and some new places (see below).

I also did a bit of reading. More like "perusing" really, but came across a portion of a quote that got me thinking. So I did a little research on the speech that was given. I've taken a few ... liberties ... with the speech; inserting different names, editing as necessary, but not ever messing with the overall intent of what was said. It's sort of like biblical interpretation; we use things and interpret things as best we can, or with the intention of making certain points, and hopefully what comes out is something edifying, not simply a bunch of proof-texts for our own ambitions. Sorry, it's long. But this guy had a lot of good stuff to say. So, here is what I gleaned:

If [we are] but an association of [Provinces] in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it? . . .

But if destruction of the [Communion] by one or by a part only of the [Provinces] be lawfully possible, the [Communion] is less perfect than before . . ., having lost the vital element of perpetuity. . . .

That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the [Communion] at all events and are glad of any pretext to do it I will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word to them. To those, however, who really love the [Communion] may I not speak?
Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our . . . fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence? Will you, while the certain ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones you fly from, will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake? . . .

If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the [Communion] must cease. There is no other alternative, for continuing the [Communion] is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority in such case will [break] rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them, for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new [network] a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present [Communion] now claim to [break] from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this. . . .

Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our [Communion] can not do this. They can not but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends . . .? . . .

We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. . . .

These words above are taken from the first inaugural address of Abraham Lincoln. When we were at Mt. Rushmore, his plaque had the last three sentences on it. His use of the words, "bonds of affection" hit home. If it were possible, I'd nominate him for Presiding Bishop.

My prayer is that our next Presiding Bishop will be as wise and effective as old Abe.