The Anglican Communion should reshuffle its executive leadership, said a conservative archbishop who has resigned from the body citing its failure to challenge liberal developments in two Western national churches.
He pointed out that Western churches have been smothering opposition to their acceptance of homosexuality from churches they are financially supporting by threatening to withdraw that aid.
“The current ACC and SCAC (the executive body of the Anglican Communion) should resign,” said The Most Reverend Dr Mouneer H Anis, who leads the physically largest and most diverse Anglican province.
He said: “It is incomprehensible to think of dioceses (an administrative territorial unit administered by a bishop) or provinces (mostly national or regional churches but also city or subnational churches) that have not committed themselves to covenantal relationship to participate in the decision making processes that affect the life of those dioceses or provinces that have adopted and signed the Covenant. A new Anglican Consultative Council and SCAC, or at the very least an ad hoc Standing Committee, must be formed.”
Bring on the Office of the Inquisition, show them the instruments of Torture, not Union. If this and Ephraim Radner’s voluminuous comments do not convince readers that the only intent of the Covenant is to place power over your Church and mine in the hands of the religious extremists, dream on. The ACC is selected by the Primates on the basis of size of the Province. The JSC is selected from the ACC. The whole of the Church is represented. Since it still isn’t doing what the extremist minority want that order must be replaced.
Pot. Kettle. Black. Exactly who are the “extremists” here? Those who adhere to the faith once delivered to the saints, or those who have imposed and are imposing a worldly analog in it’s place, all the while trying to imitate it’s majesty with a danse macabre?
If one can make any sense out of #1’s asinine comments, it is only to recognize the irony that the inquisition that is already occuring is the witch hunt conducted by TEC leadership to inhibit and depose conservative priests one by one and quash any dissension to their inculterated gospel of inclusivity; meanwhile they continue to try to influence others in the AC by financial clout and subtle racism.
#1 certainly evoked a good chuckle, so thanks for that. Religious extremists? Christians are called to sacrifice their lives for the sake of the Gospel – pretty extreme. Doug apparrently prefers rleligious non-extremist “liberal Christians” or non-religious extremists – secular humanists seeking to remove all vestiges of Christanity from American life. These two groups are best allies.
Of the four “instruments of communion” of the Anglican Communion, which include:
(1) the Archbishop of Canterbury (ABC),
(2) a meeting/synod of the primates of the national churches,
(3) a meeting of all bishops called called by the ABC every ten years, and the
(4) Anglican Consultive Council (ACC),
the ACC is the least representative and the most politically manipulated of the “instruments.”
It has been charged that the ACC, which receives a significant portion of its financial support from The Episcopal Church (TEC), that the TEC ‘has the ACC in its pocket’ and that the ACC ‘acts as an arm’ of the revisionist of movement of the TEC in its deliberations and proclamations.
For those on the outside of the ACC, it has been difficult to determine just how prejudiced in favor of “revisionism” the ACC actually is. Now with the resignation of Archbishop Anis from the ACC and his public comments, ‘the truth is out.’ The veil has been lifted from the alleged ‘sub rosa’ activities of the ACC.
Read my thoughts on the call for new leadership at The Deacon’s Slant.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Deacon Phil unfortunately is calling for the “followers” to put their heads back into the sand. The “leaders” are steering the ships to the rocks. ABp Anis resignation letter reveals ugly manipulation of the Covenant “process” that will flush the Anglican Communion down the toilet. And we are suppose to disregard this?
Robroy,
You missed the point of my post. It seems that we currently have things backwards. We look for leaders first and we get disappointed when our leaders are not leading in the direction of Jesus Christ. We need to return to looking for disciples first and then turning the disciples into leaders. There are two problems – the short term and the long term. In the short term, we are in a real mess. But using the methods and practices that got us into this mess in the first place is now way to get us out of it. In the long term, we will not emerge from this mess until we radically change how we select and train our ordained clergy. The first feature we must look for is discipleship. How has being a disciple of Jesus Christ changed you?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
RE: “If this and Ephraim Radner’s voluminuous comments do not convince readers that the only intent of the Covenant is to place power over your Church and mine in the hands of the religious extremists, dream on.”
Let’s re-write this so it actually makes some sense.
If this and Ephraim Radner’s apt comments do not convince readers that the main intent of the Covenant is to actually require that churches which purport to be in the Anglican Communion actually adhere to and promote the Christian gospel — that which is adhered to and promoted by the vast vast vast vast majority of Anglicans within the Communion, so often laughably called by the teensy cabal of foaming revisionists in TEC as “religious extremists,” than we can all only pray for such a pleasant dream to come true.
RE: “The ACC is selected by the Primates on the basis of size of the Province.”
Um — no. It’s not. Not in any way, shape or form. Revealed ignorance in that assertion.
The fact that the Anglican Communion consists of episcopally led and organized dioceses means that we must episcopally address our problems. Whether we address them from the bottom up or from the top down, we still need to address them in an episcopal manner.
Evangelism at the bottom is a very good thing, but if it is not supported by an episopacy that “… follows the Faith once given…,” then what?
If the “then what” is that the evangelical laity/priests go their own ways regardless of the episcopal problems, then what they do is no longer in support an episcopacy of the Church Catholic.
Phil Snyder-continues to speak with a voice of reason and sensibility.
Sarah- I refer you to the Constitution of the Anglican Consultative Council and the section on Membership and the Table of Membership among other resources. You can tell us what isn’t true after that.
robroy-nah, just a loyal member of the Episcopal Church, like the “vast, vast, vast majority of” (hat tip to Sarah) Bishops who choose to obey their vows of ordination and remain loyal.
Doug, the membership of the ACC is not based on province membership – it doesn’t change as membership within a province changes. If we are going to make the ACC a truly representative body, we should tie the number of delegates that a province sends to the ASA for that membership. The problem is that TEC, CofE, and ACC would experience relative losses and Uganda, Kenya, and Nigeria would experience relative gains. Now, I think this would be a good thing as the ACC would then truly represent the communion as a whole, not just the “first world” provinces.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
MBIC Phil, I might have missed the point of your post, but you missed the point of ++Anis’ call. He is talking specifically about the leadership that comprises the SCAC. This can’t wait for us to rebuild the ecclesiastical structures by a return to true Christian discipleship.
P&B, rr
Phil Snyder-There is a slight difference in what we are saying. My comment was “based on the size of the Province”. You refer to the “province membership”. I certainly defer to your knowledge of the issue but believe we are both telling the “truth”. ACC membership is described in at least one reference as being 3 members from large provinces, 2 from medium sized, and one from small, however those descriptions are derived. The Table seemingly accords to those derivations. I personally would not favor a “1 vote per member” rule simply because I have no faith in some of the folks doing the counting and reporting of membership or counting the votes, and “it’s not a democracy”, never was never will be. The Communion is a voluntary autonomous confederation. It should remain so. Perhaps we need two houses and a bicameral system to replace the ACC, but the “authority” of the ACC under its original intent and Constitution is extremely limited. The demand to surrender autonomy of the ACC and the “rule” of the Church as a whole to a universal order, even if “democratic”, simply reinforces my original theme.
RE: “Doug, the membership of the ACC is not based on province membership – it doesn’t change as membership within a province changes.”
Nor to even some “size” definition, whether geographic or something else. But not to worry, rather than admit that he actually [i]did not have a clue[/i] as to how the ACC is selected but was simply making stuff up as he yodeled along, he’s opted for referring us all to documents which don’t say what he thought he knew.
No surprises.
Doug,
The “sizing” of the provinces was made about 40 years ago and does not take into account the growth in Africa or the shriking in ACoC, TEC, and CoE. We could easily set up a bicameral body with the ACC being the equivalent of the House of Deputies and the Primates being the equivalent of the House of Bishops.
The problem is that TEC has broken the bounds of affection. Contracts were not considered required so long as a man’s word and handshake were considered good enough. Legal structures exist where non-legal ones failed. The Anglican Communion said that it believed certain things. But many in TEC’s leadership no longer believe those things and they still are considered members in good standing because no mechanism exists with which to discipline them. If being Anglican is to mean anything, there need to be boundries and those boundries should not be set by dollars donated, but by belief and practice.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Robroy, I get what +Anis is trying to say. But, unless we take the time to make sure that our bishops, priests, and deacons are disciples first, simply changing the leadership will be like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. If we are going to have new leadership, we need to take the steps necessary to see that those leaders are first disciples of Jesus Christ and not political activists in fancy costumes or social workers with funny shirts.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Doug Martin, as Sarah suggests, your ignorance of the marked under-representation of the Church of England, the Church of Nigeria and the Church of the Province of Uganda with respect to The Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church of Australia and the Anglican Church of Canada, all of whom (along with a number of others) send three members to the ACC is risible in the extreme.
Size? What in the world does that mean? Geographical area? If that be the case, then why is England – and not Brazil, or the Southern Cone, or Mexico – up there with the “large provinces”?
There are means easily to apportion membership in the Anglican Consultative Council in such a way as to reflect the weight of membership within particular Churches of the Communion, without relying on possibly erroneous counting of members. But, even give or take a million or two, Uganda and Nigeria far outstrip The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada in terms of members.
I do agree with you, though, that “it’s not a democracy”. Would that the General Convention of The Episcopal Church and its defenders realized that.
The Anglican Communion doesn’t need a curia, and it doesn’t need a parliament. What it needs are councils. Lambeth should become an actual decennial episcopal synod of Anglican bishops in communion, not just a jamboree; the Primates’ Meeting should become something analogous to the Standing Conference of the Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the Americas, but Anglican and on a global scale; and the Anglican Consultative Council should apportion its membership in a way that more accurately reflects the complexion of the Communion, and serve exactly that function that its name suggests: a consultative and advisory role to the bishops’ councils in the Communion.
Todd Granger-good word risible. However, if you look to the ACC Constitition all those which you mention stand with equal footing (3 members), determined by size of the Province (Sarah), even if not adjusted for actual membership since its institution (thanks to Phil).
Changing the membership to accord with current provincial membership would still have little to do with the purpose and authority of the ACC unles its Constitution is rewritten to some other purpose, i.e. to judge an punish members of the Communion who disagree with its new perspective on “belief and practice”. Like women’s ordination, ordination and service by divorced clergy (and lay members), and yes, inclusion of homosexuals.
I agree with much of what Phil Snyder says and the situation is regrettable, but the solution is not a new Inquisition led by a rechartered ACC, and that is clearly what the Covenant proponents are exposing the Covenant to be.
[blockquote]However, if you look to the ACC Constitition all those which you mention stand with equal footing (3 members), determined by size of the Province (Sarah), even if not adjusted for actual membership since its institution (thanks to Phil).[/blockquote]
Doug Martin, no “however” to it. This is precisely my point; viz., that all of the provincial Churches which I mentioned have equal footing in the ACC, when they have nothing approaching the same actual membership (even give or take a million or two).
Why precisely would changing the membership schedule of the ACC to accord with current provincial membership “still have little to do with the purpose and authority of the ACC”, even if the ACC continues possess those powers granted it in Section 2 of the Constitution of the ACC? If provincial membership numbers – or whatever metric was originally used to determine the schedule of membership – be not important, why does a schedule of membership even exist, beyond each province’s sending, say, one bishop, one presbyter, and one layperson?
However, you may have made a valid point. If, in my [i]desideratum[/i] for the reformation of the Instruments of Unity, the Anglican Consultative Council is to fulfill a consultative and advisory role to a decennial Episcopal Synod and to a Standing Conference of Primates of the Anglican Communion, then apportionment by actual membership numbers may be completely beside the point, and too redolent of parliamentary democracy. In that event, perhaps all that is needed is two presbyters (or perhaps, one presbyter and one deacon) and one layperson from each province, supplemented from time to time by such at-large members as the Primates may designate; e.g., theologians and experts on canon law.
RE: “However, if you look to the ACC Constitition all those which you mention stand with equal footing (3 members), determined by size of the Province (Sarah), even if not adjusted for actual membership since its institution (thanks to Phil).”
No.
Not determined by size at all, either geographically or by membership or by attendance or by number of bishops or anything else pertaining to size. In fact the word “size” is not even mentioned in the Constitution nor anything even approaching that word mentioned as any criteria whatsoever in the appointment of members.
On the other hand, it is good that Doug finally googled the Constitution of the ACC and tried to discover evidence for the claim post-claim.
Good to see Todd Granger’s reference to “Instruments of Unity” (the older term) rather than “Instruments of Communion”, which I think was first mentioned in the Windsor report in 2004 and has crept into regular use since then, but doesn’t necessarily have any status.
Its use in the Windsor report seems to have been in an attempt to cast ABC as the primary “instrument of unity” with Lambeth and the Primates Council in a secondary role, which would be a new concept in the Anglican Communion.
Its good to see that ++Anis has the courage to proclaim some truths that many would prefer to forget:
1. “He pointed out that Western churches have been smothering opposition to their acceptance of homosexuality from churches they are financially supporting by threatening to withdraw that aid.”
This is a particular sin of TEC and it needs to be called to public account, as ++Anis has done.
2. “Furthermore, Archbishop Anis highlighted, the standing committee, which comprised five primates (leaders of Anglican provinces) including Anis, has not implemented the recommendations of the Windsor Report and the Primates Meetings in Dromantine in 2005 and in Dar es Salam in 2007 which called on the U.S. and Canadian national churches, which have ordained an openly gay bishop and blessed a same-sex union, to withdraw their members from the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC), the executive committee of the Anglican Communion.”
Primates Councils tend to be ignored by the liberals whenever it suits them. It is common for liberals to claim that the primates are not united about this or that. But the Primates in fact have spoken out very strongly and in a united manner. In a sense, subsequent meetings of smaller numbers e.g. the Global South or Gafcon, go no further than the councils of all Primates have already gone at Dromantine and Dar-Es-Salaam. Praise to ++Anis for drawing the Communion’s attention to pronouncements already made by their Primates.
It is hardly surprising that ABC declined to call a Primates’ Council in 2009 (when it was due, and as he had promised at Lambeth 2008). They might have made another fearless declaration of true doctrine.
3. “In this way, the SCAC has missed an opportunity to show how serious the Anglican Communion is in upholding its standard teaching (Lambeth 1.10) – the teaching which we say we uphold, especially to our ecumenical and interfaith partners”
Amen.
However, there is one point where the author of the article gets it wrong:
“…his January 30 letter of resignation from the standing committee of the executive body of the worldwide Anglican Communion”
The current status of the body from which ++Anis resigned is the Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council. As its name suggests, this is *not* the executive body of anything, let alone of the Anglican Communion.
Doug Martin wrote at #1:
“If this and Ephraim Radner’s voluminuous comments do not convince readers that the only intent of the Covenant is to place power over your Church and mine in the hands of the religious extremists, dream on”.
This doesn’t reflect what ++Anis is saying. If you read the article carefully, he wants TEC to be precluded from signing the covenant.
Note the following extract:
“Archbishop Anis, the leader of four Anglican churches covering numerous countries in the Middle East and North and East Africa, advised the Communion to prevent provinces that are not sincere about showing respect “in word and deed to the whole Communion†from signing the Anglican Covenant, which he noted will not be able to resolve the problems at hand.”
In other words, ++Anis thinks that TEC should not be permitted to sign the covenant, until they implement the directives of the Primates’ Councils at Dar Es Salaam and Dromantine (which go further than the Windsor Report) “in word and deed”.
So its hardly putting an inquisition over TEC, rather, the contrary – the majority of the rest of the Communion can be part of the “inquisition” (if that’s what you want to call it) and TEC will be off on its own, in ++Anis’ view.
Sarah- so assertive but so wrong. Match the membership table of the Constitution against a membership list of the Provinces (say the Usable Statistics report from Anglican Mainstream) and you will find near perfect adherence between size (membership) and number of representatives. Those with 3 representatives have membership over 2 million, the interesting exceptions being Rwanda, Tanzania, and Canada. Those with 2 under 2 million (the exceptions being Kenya and the Sudan if one believes the reported numbers), and the final group of single representation being less than a quarter million (with the possible exception of Burundi). It’s either intentional, or a miracle of coincidence. The miracle is explained in several other reference sources but you wouldn’t accept them I am sure.
Phil Snyder-although I appreciate your style you are also dead wrong in your premise that membership “hasn’t changed in 40 years”. Well, yes it has. You can do the research but look at the 1968 (Resolution 69) creation membership and today’s and you will find that it has ben continuopusly adjusted as provinces have split, been created, and grown, notably with the addition of Nigeria, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda on full footing with CofE, TEC, and the other “colonial powers”.
RE: “Match the membership table of the Constitution against a membership list of the Provinces (say the Usable Statistics report from Anglican Mainstream) and you will find near perfect adherence between size (membership) and number of representatives.”
Heh.
But not perfect enough for Doug’s thesis.
You’ll need to come up with another criterium to explain the fact that in fact it does not match size [which you’ve now finally defined as membership].
[i]And all of this to try to backtrack and come up with support for your original ignorance without acknowledging that you were clueless.[/i]
A striking — and typical for TEC revisionists — lack of integrity and courage.
This small example, of course, can be matched with so many more and greater examples, too. Ignorant assertions, blustering, covering, twisting, backtracking, adding, blustering again . . . All of us can return to this thread and see him twisting in the wind, trying to cover the gaps in knowledge, and recognize . . . [i]”that’s how he does with other comments about more important issues too.”[/i]
Cheerio, Doug