The Church of England is to consider recognising a new conservative church in the US in a move that will place further pressure on the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, as he struggles to keep his fracturing Communion in one piece.
The General Synod will debate a private member’s motion next month calling for the Church of England to declare itself “in communion” with the Anglican Church in North America, formed in opposition to the pro-gay liberals in the official Anglican body in North America.
The synod, dominated by evangelicals, could pass the motion by a 50 per cent majority, adding to the pressure on the primates and bishops to recognise the new church.
The motion, put down by Lorna Ashworth an evangelical from the Chichester diocese, comes after The Episcopal Church in the US elected a lesbian priest, Mary Glasspool, to be a suffragan bishop in the Los Angeles diocese.
The election of Mary Glaspool could not have come at a better time.
Schism must be avoided but if the cost of not responding to the aggressive actions of revisionists who are, as the evidence seems to support, succeeding in in their attempts at a “coup de etat” of the espiscopacy of “…the Faith once given…” then an ‘exfoliation’ of the ‘schismatic revisionists’ is justified.
Recognition of ACNA by the English Church would be a major step in the ‘exfoliation’ process.
If General Synod passed such a resolution, what actual effect would that have on the instruments of unity?
I don’t see that de jure recognition of communion with ACNA [which we recognise ourselves de facto in communion with] is related to whether TEC signs the Covenant or not, nor should the Welsh imports be allowed to tie the two together.
TEC has made its bed and has to decide whether it is going to lie in it. It is TEC’s choice alone.
#3 Archer
CofE recognition of communion with ACNA IS communion with the See of Canterbury: The Church of England is made up of two local sees: Canterbury and York. Whether the ACC, JSC or ACO recognise that with their jiggery-pokery secret constitutions, whatever they may contain, is another matter, but fewer and fewer people care.
[blockquote]The synod, dominated by evangelicals, could pass the motion by a 50 per cent majority, adding to the pressure on the primates and bishops to recognise the new church.[/blockquote]Am I correct to infer from this that the proposed resolution is advisory only, and that the bishops and archbishops will decide the issue at a later date? And probably as late a date as possible, given who will be setting the agenda?
Of course, even if only advisory, we would welcome an act of Synod proposing full communion.
[blockquote] Whether the ACC, JSC or ACO recognise that with their jiggery-pokery secret constitutions, whatever they may contain, is another matter [/blockquote] One free pass to the Laffin’ Place for PageantMaster.
Yes, Br_er Rabbit. It is well deserved. And PM should probably get a second one for not including the word I would have added as an essential component: buggery. As in, “Whether the ACC, JSC or ACO recognize that with their jiggery-pokery (buggery of) secret constitutions, whatever they may contain, is another matter.”
And yes, I do rather grasp the English usage of the word, not to mention the American dictionary definitions. It is apropos in all senses.
#7 Why thank you Brer – I am deeply honored.
#6 TJ, of course while not wishing to split hairs with Ruth, 50 per cent is not strictly speaking a majority [‘though I wouldn’t like to be so certain of the position were it a vote within TEC, given the way their PB and House of Bishops carry on when deposing people and suchlike].
#8 dw – I am pretty certain that isn’t what I meant – shenanigans if you like, although I am not sure I would recognise what to do with a shenanigan if I saw one.
There’s virtually no chance (let alone 50%) of this passing.
The debate will surely be intriguing but won’t it need to pass in the CofE House of Bishops, which is I imagine very unlikely.
Ah Brian T19,
Whether it passes or not we can all note that the opinion of the Church is increasingly not with those who press/insist upon a revisionist agenda that is literally decimating their own churches that they are in charge of. Shall the Litany begin?: Rev. Dr. Cynthia Black (failed cathedral dean), Bishop Charles Otis (plummetted priest in a hollow shell at Trinity), name your diocese, the recently closed St. Barnabas in Dio. of SW. VA. (priest was a lesbian who sold antiques and lived with her partner on a cattle farm. Church died underneath such stellar leadership), etc., etc., etc. N.H.
“ye shall know them by their fruits”.
Just keep up this quality of work and the obvious just keeps on getting more obvious.
And if it does pass in the CofE House of Bishops, then what?
This motion was put on the books at their Summer Convention. NT Wright at that time indicated that it was already under consideration by one of the committees, I think on theology. It was supported by an astonishing percentage of the Synod by signature which made it virtually impossible to keep off of the list of motions for the February Meeting of Synod.
I think it will pass quite easily.
I wondered if General Synod had jurisdiction to define with whom the CofE was in full communion but on first glance its role in approving the Porvoo Agreement (full communion with various Lutheran churches in continental Europe) seems to indicate that perhaps it does. Indeed you might say that it does seem rather odd that the CofE is in full communion with say the Church of Sweden – whose territorial jurisdiction certainly overlaps with both the CofE’s Diocese of Europe and the Convocation of Episcopal Churches in Europe – but not ACNA – whose territorial jurisdiction overlaps with TEC’s.
In fact FWLIW TEC itself is already in full communion with a church with a parallel and overlapping territorial jurisdiction – namely ELCA.
#11 Brian from T19
[blockquote]There’s virtually no chance (let alone 50%) of this passing.[/blockquote]
And why pray wouldn’t we Brian? What can you name that ECUSA has done in the last year to demonstrate that it considers itself part of the Anglican family?
What is more it has given up mission in favor of litigation under its feral Presiding Bishop’s disasterous direction [see Alan Haley’s latest piece above].
Nature abhors a vacuum. I welcome a committed Anglican presence in North America and would unreservedly encourage our Synod and House of Bishops to do so – pronto.
PM, I quite realise that what I wrote was NOT what you had said or meant. I thought you should get a second pass to the Laffin’ Place for such heroic restraint. I, alas, could not for the venial sin of comparing such activity to ECUSA/TEC gozpell.
On the other hand, when one is given a shenanigan, one should properly complain that such is overtly sexist: the word contains “she” and “nani(e)” and “gan”. She is undeniably a female referent, as is nannie, and I have the word “gan” as a toddler referent to “gran(dmother” – given the difficulty of “r”.
Now, given the alleged history of the word, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shenanigan , I should think it very apropos to translate it across the pond. Americanism, indeed!!!
Budgeted $1,285,549.00 in payola for the Anglican Communion Office/Anglican Consultative Council. Follow the money to Rowan’s grubby hands.