“Church of England says no to full communion with breakaway entity”
Ah yes, the spin from the new ‘talking points’ sent out to Matthew Davies – Lorna Ashworth’s motion was not rejected, it was amended and it is supportive and recognising of ACNA. Further it recognises the ‘divisions’ in the churches of North America and asks the Archbishops to report next year on progress with formal recognition procedures for ACNA, which it encourages.
RE: “However keep spinning – no one believes you.”
I do.
I mean — the passed resolution certainly “recognizes” ACNA — it says its name. What a standard for “recognition.”
Ashworth’s motion didn’t get a chance to be rejected. She *knew* it would be rejected and then substituted for the original the pap amendment that originally gutted her resolution.
The headline as it is written is precisely true. What the story leaves out is that *even the original Ashworth resolution* did not offer “full communion” anyway.
But the original Ashworth resolution didn’t pass.
At this point, though, the fact that the five or six ACNA lobbyists for the original Ashworth resolution were not ridden out of town on a rail is now counted as a “success” so it doesn’t matter anyway.
If the standard of success is “many in the COE had warm feelings towards us” then so be it. It was “successful” then.
Sometimes it is more than a common language that divides America from England. Sarah, you are correct that this isn’t recognition, but it is a goad to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to start the process. I share other’s exasperation over the process since that’s not how we in America tend to do things. But, it serves as a good example of British “muddling through.”
While we have been suffering through many years of our “common language” in the various Anglican ‘troubles,’ the difference in this situation is that this is the very first salvo in the relationship between CoE and ACNA. At the end of the day, a relationship came into existence, and it was not one of antagonism or even indifference, but one of sympathy.
Well, BlueOntario, I think the cultivated image of the British “muddling through” is a convenient image but not very accurate for what happens. This wasn’t a “muddling through” — the end result was calculated and utterly predictable. As I said when the resolution was first introduced, there was no way that the establishment [ie, those with the power] interested in protecting their institution was going to allow such a thing to pass. If that can happen, and the image of “muddling through” can be preserved, then all the better. Certainly Rowan also would far rather be seen as muddled and confused rather than a deliberate saboteur and I don’t see those made in the same mold as any different. And besides — the British are nice people even if they do reject you.
; > ) Much better to do it and make the subject of the rejection feel good about it, then leave the subject angry and distressed.
Here’s my fuller take, cross-posted from elsewhere:
Interesting to read the reactions.
Here’s what I see as the timeline.
— Ashworth puts forward a resolution that is quite moderate and is merely another province — albeit the COE — stating that it is in communion with ACNA [like it’s in communion with the Church of Sweden]
— Mike Hill guts the resolution with an amendment saying this:
“Leave out everything after “That this Synod†and insert:
“(a) recognise and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family;
(b) acknowledge that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and
(c) invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011â€.
— we all rightly decry it on these very pages as the obvious punt and self-protective [of the institutionalists in the COE] that it is — it guts the resolution entirely
— a debate occurs at General Synod
— TEC supporters try to move on or adjourn or end the debate — this is not successful
— Many express warm feelings towards the ACNA
— It transpires that much of the “challenge” with the COE being in communion with ACNA is that it puts the Communion Partners into a “hard place” — because . . . oh . . . the Communion Partners is still stuck permanently in an undisciplined TEC and with no options to be accepted as part of the Communion through dioceses signing the Covenant [and even more importantly, in a nutshell, the COE being in communion with ACNA makes CP bishops fear that laypeople will perceive ACNA as a valid alternative to their Communion Partner diocese and more likely to leave — ACNA would be perceived as more of a competitor to steal laypeople away from the ridiculous situation that CP dioceses and parishes are in, since the Communion has not only hung out to dry ACNA but also the CP folks too]
— Ashworth, recognizing that the resolution will not pass, inserts the following as an amendment:
‘That this Synod
(a) aware of the distress caused by recent divisions within the Anglican churches of the United States of America and Canada;
(b) recognise and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family;
(c) acknowledge that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and
(d) invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011.’
The only difference between this amendment and the Mike Hill gutting resolution is the addition of “aware of the distress caused by recent divisions within the Anglican churches of the United States of America and Canada.”
The Mike Hill amendment + additional line of distress awareness passes overwhelmingly.
The positives are 1) none of the ACNA lobbyists were ridden out of town on a rail, 2) the word “ACNA” was said in a resolution, 3) the debate was not adjourned or ended by TEC supporters, 4) many had warm feelings towards ACNA folks and 5) good publicity about the nastiness of TEC was gotten out to Synod folks.
With that as the standard of success than I suppose it was “successful.” Really bad bad bad things did not happen, friends were made, TEC is nastier, and friends were made, and friends were made, and nobody was injured or beheaded in any way.
But I can’t help but note that the ACNA folks who think this is a vision of successful resolution-making and parliamentary work not three years ago would have decried a similar resolution, say, about TEC or the Windsor Report or “DEPO” or the need for alternative Primatial oversight, or pretty much any other topic at all as the most unadulterated and useless pap possible, with much castigations of the ABC, Bishop Hill, Synod, etc, etc, etc.
So either the standard of success has been quite radically altered over the past three years [in which case ya’ll all need to apologize to the ABC, etc for all the harsh things you said] or this particular topic — ACNA — gets special rules of “success” applied to it.
Consider such a resolution passed about the need for Primatial Oversight or the need for discipline: “That this Synod
(a) aware of the distress caused by recent divisions within the Anglican churches of the United States of America and Canada;
(b) recognise and affirm the desire of those who have [stated their need for Alternative Primatial Oversight] to remain within the Anglican family;
(c) acknowledge that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and
(d) invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011.”
It’s too soon to know how this will all turn out in the end. As Br_er Rabbit rightly noted above (#5), this was only the first salvo in what may be a very protracted battle.
Personally, as a member of the ACNA, I’m neither excited nor disheartened by this initial action of General Synod. The outcome is pretty much what I would’ve expected as an outsider not privy to any deep knowledge of the CoE. After all, it’s not how a race begins that counts, but how it ends. The issue isn’t going to go away.
I’d say that time is on our side, as the ACNA continues to grow and become more familiar to other Anglicans around the world, even in the insular CoE. And as TEC continues to implode and self-destruct. Just look at how today’s news coming out of SC shows that the PB and her infamous henchman David Booth Beers are continuing to make the leadership of TEC at 815 look very, very bad indeed.
“Breakaway [b]entity?”[/b] Umm, no, that’s not true, my Episcopalian friends. We are the [b]Anglican Church in North America,[/b] and not some amorphous will-o-the-wisp that will blow away with the wind. We’re here to stay, and we’re growing. You, however, are shrinking. Does that concern you? It should!
Sarah at #6,
[blockquote] Really bad bad bad things did not happen, friends were made, TEC is nastier, and friends were made, and friends were made, and nobody was injured or beheaded in any way. [/blockquote]
I really don’t understand your reasoning. What “really bad bad bad things” could have happened? I suppose the motion could have been completely defeated, e.g. if liberal influence in the CofE was very strong – how would that have been bad for ACNA, let alone “really bad bad bad”?
ACNA already has the recognition of the orthodox parts of the Communion, and the only reason it doesn’t have recognition from the liberal parts is because they are, well, liberal (and for that reason, their lack of recognition of any orthodox group is not going to cause the orthodox to lose sleep).
[blockquote] But I can’t help but note that the ACNA folks who think this is a vision of successful resolution-making and parliamentary work not three years ago would have decried a similar resolution, say, about TEC or the Windsor Report or “DEPO†or the need for alternative Primatial oversight, or pretty much any other topic at all as the most unadulterated and useless pap possible, with much castigations of the ABC, Bishop Hill, Synod, etc, etc, etc. [/blockquote]
If you analyse something completely devoid of context, of course you will find things difficult to understand.
If, for instance, this same motion had been passed by the General Synod of the Diocese of Sydney, then I agree there would be grave cause for concern. But it wasn’t, so that is irrelevant.
All this chatter over the C of E’s General Synod vote confirms for me that Anglicans (Western Anglicans at least), remain a breed to themselves. What other group is capable of passing a resolution, so clearly and overwhelmingly, that purposely says nothing. The follow-up in the form of all the varying and confused opinions about the resolution and its voting results is proof that this strategy still works in its power to unite.
Matthew Davies acknowledges that “groups” have left TEC:
“The ACNA is made up of individuals and groups that have left the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada, as well as those that have never been members of those two provinces.”
This seems significant – previously it was always alleged that only “individuals” had left, and that the entities the Church would acknowledge as “groups” – parishes and dioceses – did not leave.
“Church of England says no to full communion with breakaway entity”
Ah yes, the spin from the new ‘talking points’ sent out to Matthew Davies – Lorna Ashworth’s motion was not rejected, it was amended and it is supportive and recognising of ACNA. Further it recognises the ‘divisions’ in the churches of North America and asks the Archbishops to report next year on progress with formal recognition procedures for ACNA, which it encourages.
However keep spinning – no one believes you.
RE: “However keep spinning – no one believes you.”
I do.
I mean — the passed resolution certainly “recognizes” ACNA — it says its name. What a standard for “recognition.”
Ashworth’s motion didn’t get a chance to be rejected. She *knew* it would be rejected and then substituted for the original the pap amendment that originally gutted her resolution.
The headline as it is written is precisely true. What the story leaves out is that *even the original Ashworth resolution* did not offer “full communion” anyway.
But the original Ashworth resolution didn’t pass.
At this point, though, the fact that the five or six ACNA lobbyists for the original Ashworth resolution were not ridden out of town on a rail is now counted as a “success” so it doesn’t matter anyway.
If the standard of success is “many in the COE had warm feelings towards us” then so be it. It was “successful” then.
Sometimes it is more than a common language that divides America from England. Sarah, you are correct that this isn’t recognition, but it is a goad to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to start the process. I share other’s exasperation over the process since that’s not how we in America tend to do things. But, it serves as a good example of British “muddling through.”
#3
I see it rather as a perfect example of kicking the can on down the road.
While we have been suffering through many years of our “common language” in the various Anglican ‘troubles,’ the difference in this situation is that this is the very first salvo in the relationship between CoE and ACNA. At the end of the day, a relationship came into existence, and it was not one of antagonism or even indifference, but one of sympathy.
Well, BlueOntario, I think the cultivated image of the British “muddling through” is a convenient image but not very accurate for what happens. This wasn’t a “muddling through” — the end result was calculated and utterly predictable. As I said when the resolution was first introduced, there was no way that the establishment [ie, those with the power] interested in protecting their institution was going to allow such a thing to pass. If that can happen, and the image of “muddling through” can be preserved, then all the better. Certainly Rowan also would far rather be seen as muddled and confused rather than a deliberate saboteur and I don’t see those made in the same mold as any different. And besides — the British are nice people even if they do reject you.
; > ) Much better to do it and make the subject of the rejection feel good about it, then leave the subject angry and distressed.
Here’s my fuller take, cross-posted from elsewhere:
Interesting to read the reactions.
Here’s what I see as the timeline.
— Ashworth puts forward a resolution that is quite moderate and is merely another province — albeit the COE — stating that it is in communion with ACNA [like it’s in communion with the Church of Sweden]
— Mike Hill guts the resolution with an amendment saying this:
— we all rightly decry it on these very pages as the obvious punt and self-protective [of the institutionalists in the COE] that it is — it guts the resolution entirely
— a debate occurs at General Synod
— TEC supporters try to move on or adjourn or end the debate — this is not successful
— Many express warm feelings towards the ACNA
— It transpires that much of the “challenge” with the COE being in communion with ACNA is that it puts the Communion Partners into a “hard place” — because . . . oh . . . the Communion Partners is still stuck permanently in an undisciplined TEC and with no options to be accepted as part of the Communion through dioceses signing the Covenant [and even more importantly, in a nutshell, the COE being in communion with ACNA makes CP bishops fear that laypeople will perceive ACNA as a valid alternative to their Communion Partner diocese and more likely to leave — ACNA would be perceived as more of a competitor to steal laypeople away from the ridiculous situation that CP dioceses and parishes are in, since the Communion has not only hung out to dry ACNA but also the CP folks too]
— Ashworth, recognizing that the resolution will not pass, inserts the following as an amendment:
The only difference between this amendment and the Mike Hill gutting resolution is the addition of “aware of the distress caused by recent divisions within the Anglican churches of the United States of America and Canada.”
The Mike Hill amendment + additional line of distress awareness passes overwhelmingly.
The positives are 1) none of the ACNA lobbyists were ridden out of town on a rail, 2) the word “ACNA” was said in a resolution, 3) the debate was not adjourned or ended by TEC supporters, 4) many had warm feelings towards ACNA folks and 5) good publicity about the nastiness of TEC was gotten out to Synod folks.
With that as the standard of success than I suppose it was “successful.” Really bad bad bad things did not happen, friends were made, TEC is nastier, and friends were made, and friends were made, and nobody was injured or beheaded in any way.
But I can’t help but note that the ACNA folks who think this is a vision of successful resolution-making and parliamentary work not three years ago would have decried a similar resolution, say, about TEC or the Windsor Report or “DEPO” or the need for alternative Primatial oversight, or pretty much any other topic at all as the most unadulterated and useless pap possible, with much castigations of the ABC, Bishop Hill, Synod, etc, etc, etc.
So either the standard of success has been quite radically altered over the past three years [in which case ya’ll all need to apologize to the ABC, etc for all the harsh things you said] or this particular topic — ACNA — gets special rules of “success” applied to it.
Consider such a resolution passed about the need for Primatial Oversight or the need for discipline: “That this Synod
(a) aware of the distress caused by recent divisions within the Anglican churches of the United States of America and Canada;
(b) recognise and affirm the desire of those who have [stated their need for Alternative Primatial Oversight] to remain within the Anglican family;
(c) acknowledge that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and
(d) invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011.”
Over on my own blog, my comment was that this is a win for ACNA; it’s just a very small one.
It’s too soon to know how this will all turn out in the end. As Br_er Rabbit rightly noted above (#5), this was only the first salvo in what may be a very protracted battle.
Personally, as a member of the ACNA, I’m neither excited nor disheartened by this initial action of General Synod. The outcome is pretty much what I would’ve expected as an outsider not privy to any deep knowledge of the CoE. After all, it’s not how a race begins that counts, but how it ends. The issue isn’t going to go away.
I’d say that time is on our side, as the ACNA continues to grow and become more familiar to other Anglicans around the world, even in the insular CoE. And as TEC continues to implode and self-destruct. Just look at how today’s news coming out of SC shows that the PB and her infamous henchman David Booth Beers are continuing to make the leadership of TEC at 815 look very, very bad indeed.
David Handy+
“Breakaway [b]entity?”[/b] Umm, no, that’s not true, my Episcopalian friends. We are the [b]Anglican Church in North America,[/b] and not some amorphous will-o-the-wisp that will blow away with the wind. We’re here to stay, and we’re growing. You, however, are shrinking. Does that concern you? It should!
Sarah at #6,
[blockquote] Really bad bad bad things did not happen, friends were made, TEC is nastier, and friends were made, and friends were made, and nobody was injured or beheaded in any way. [/blockquote]
I really don’t understand your reasoning. What “really bad bad bad things” could have happened? I suppose the motion could have been completely defeated, e.g. if liberal influence in the CofE was very strong – how would that have been bad for ACNA, let alone “really bad bad bad”?
ACNA already has the recognition of the orthodox parts of the Communion, and the only reason it doesn’t have recognition from the liberal parts is because they are, well, liberal (and for that reason, their lack of recognition of any orthodox group is not going to cause the orthodox to lose sleep).
[blockquote] But I can’t help but note that the ACNA folks who think this is a vision of successful resolution-making and parliamentary work not three years ago would have decried a similar resolution, say, about TEC or the Windsor Report or “DEPO†or the need for alternative Primatial oversight, or pretty much any other topic at all as the most unadulterated and useless pap possible, with much castigations of the ABC, Bishop Hill, Synod, etc, etc, etc. [/blockquote]
If you analyse something completely devoid of context, of course you will find things difficult to understand.
If, for instance, this same motion had been passed by the General Synod of the Diocese of Sydney, then I agree there would be grave cause for concern. But it wasn’t, so that is irrelevant.
All this chatter over the C of E’s General Synod vote confirms for me that Anglicans (Western Anglicans at least), remain a breed to themselves. What other group is capable of passing a resolution, so clearly and overwhelmingly, that purposely says nothing. The follow-up in the form of all the varying and confused opinions about the resolution and its voting results is proof that this strategy still works in its power to unite.
Matthew Davies acknowledges that “groups” have left TEC:
“The ACNA is made up of individuals and groups that have left the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada, as well as those that have never been members of those two provinces.”
This seems significant – previously it was always alleged that only “individuals” had left, and that the entities the Church would acknowledge as “groups” – parishes and dioceses – did not leave.