The Rev. Canon Kenneth Kearon, secretary general of the Anglican Communion, has written to those Episcopalians serving on the communion’s ecumenical dialogues informing them that their memberships have been discontinued.
The decision is likely to affect five Episcopal Church members serving on Anglican dialogues with the Lutheran, Methodist and Orthodox churches, as well as one member of the Inter-Anglican Standing Committee on Unity, Faith and Order, who has been invited to serve as a consultant.
One wonders how totally unimportant the Episcopal Church must consider ecumenical relations as it goes its merry way heaping contempt on the Christian moral tradition and on core orthodox Christian doctrine which is held in the highest regard by not only the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches, but also by most of the churches in the Anglican Communion.
Why wouldn’t Rowan Williams’s decision, which has resulted in this removal of TEC members, prompt–by virtue of logic, ethics, spiritual need, etc.–Rowan Williams himself to recognize the need in the USA of an Anglican body that American Anglicans/Episcopalians could join which WOULD be fully qualified to represent the Anglican Communion in the communion’s ecumenical dialogues? An awfully long sentence, but I hope my point comes through.
Interesting comments.
I have lately been thinking that the ABC is aiming at a “redeeming value” standard within TEC. Hey, he says, there is one or two congregations within TEC that we can be in communion with! Therefore we must be in communion with TEC!
David,
I think Don actually has a partial on that thought of yours. Would Rowan be willing to handle the guilt-criticism of leaving the faithful in TECUSA behind? And – another thought along that line – wouldn’t that be interesting to see which same-sex-blessing bishops would not allow a priest and/or a congregation to be identified as “faithful Anglicans” (or perhaps top echelon Anglicans), or else?
In any case, it certainly is not a black or white situation, is it?
Oh those five might be dis-invited, but that might not stop them from going to the meetings, like a certain [edit] bishop.
Even if RW was to cease recognizing TEC as an AC member church, what’s to stop TEC from not recognizing his un-recognition?
[Edited by Elf]
re #5, I thought it was the Anglican Consultative Council, not the ABC, that determines who is or is not a member of the Communion.
This amounts to even less than a slap on the wrist, since TEC has made it clear by their actions (which even they admit ignore the opinions of and consequences to fellow members of the AC) that their focus is strictly internal. They didn’t have much of a reaction to Rome’s outreach to traditionalists; their interest in ARCIC is minimal, at best; and the only active “ecumenical” talks I’m aware of have been with the likes of ELCA, which was basically like talking to a mirror. (IIRC, several Eastern Orthodox leaders have publicly stated that they don’t consider ++Schori to be a bishop or priest, so they see no point in having talks which are going to be a failure from the onset.)
And the observation that TEC has been “disinvited” but may well still attend is certainly germaine; I seem to recall that +Robinson was very publicly present at the last Lambeth, even though he wasn’t invited…………..
The problem is that ++Rowan is trying to mediate between two groups who have so little in common it’s simply not possible to arrive at a middle ground. When group “A” says that 2+2=4, and group “B” says that 2+2=44, it’s not possible to settle on an average (like 2+2=22). Each is so firmly convinced of the logic and merits of its position that there’s just no way they can allow that the other guy might be right.
Am I saying that I think the situation is hopeless? Well – yes. I believe that the only reasonable course of action is for there to be two AC’s – one reasserter, and one reappraiser. But I won’t be holding my breath waiting for it to come about ….. 😉
It is only right that those who do not uphold the Communion’s teaching should not represent it. Punto e basta. But what I said to myself when I saw the headline is, OH YEAH!!
Now that the ABofC is comfortable dishing out punishment … perhaps we no longer have need of a Covenant.
I wish someone would send a similar letter to the Orthodox delegation.
This may or may [/i]not[/i] mean something, so for whatever ever its worth: I’ve read a number of articles written by KJS, as well as the transcripts of interviews she’s given. As with her previous articles and intervviews, what struck me the most in [i] this[/i] article (aside from her recalcitrant defiance of the rest of the Commuion) was her multiple references to the ‘Spirit – never the [i]Holy[/i] Spirit.
Again, it may not mean anything at all, but I DO find it somewhat, well…curious