The Secretary General writes: ‘Many of you will have read the Archbishop of Canterbury’s letter to the Anglican Communion issued at Pentecost last (28 May 2010). Part of that letter addresses the current and ongoing tensions in the Anglican Communion – these tensions cluster around the three moratoria referred to in the Windsor Report.
‘In that letter the Archbishop made the following proposals:“I am therefore proposing that, while these tensions remain unresolved, members of such provinces ”“ provinces that have formally, through their Synod or House of Bishops, adopted policies that breach any of the moratoria requested by the Instruments of Communion and recently reaffirmed by the Standing Committee and the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order (IASCUFO) ”“ should not be participants in the ecumenical dialogues in which the Communion is formally engaged. I am further proposing that members of such provinces serving on IASCUFO should for the time being have the status only of consultants rather than full members”.
‘At that time I wrote to the Primate of the Southern Cone, whose interventions in other provinces are referred to in the Windsor Continuation Group Report asking him for clarification as to the current state of his interventions into other provinces. I have not received a response.‘Consequently, I have written to the person from the Province of the Southern Cone who is a member of the Inter Anglican Standing Commission on Unity Faith and Order (IASCUFO), Bishop Tito Zavala, withdrawing his membership and inviting him to serve as a Consultant to that body.
‘These decisions are not taken easily or lightly, but relate to the gracious restraint requested by successive meetings of the Instruments of Communion and the implications for Communion bodies when these requests are not honoured.’
The Revd Canon Dr. Kenneth Kearon.
VGR … Mary Glasspool …
…
…
(deafening silence)
That is simply outrageous. That Bishop had no direct connection to any “intervention” that I ever heard about.. And Bishop Venables (note not definitely an “Archbishop” most certainly does not report to this Reverend Canon..
THIS man needs a reprimand, sounds more like a CZAR with some undefined powers.
Lord Help Us, and prayers for +Venables.
Grandmother in SC
Whose creature is “The Revd Canon Dr. Kenneth Kearon.”?
Did he decide to do this of his own volition? If not, who instigated this action?
Who is equating the heretical/defiant actions of ECUSA to the protective/sheltering actions of the Southern Cone?
The heretical actions of ECUSA are a matter of theology (Scripture) and the sheltering actions of the Southern Cone are a matter of episcopal order (man-contrived) taken in defense of those being persecuted by the heretics.
The misbehavior of ECUSA is a ‘primary matter’ while the sheltering actions of the Southern Cone are a ‘secondary matter’ that arose from ECUSA’a initial misbehavior.
The histrionics of the right are a bit too predictable. Bottom line: your Province violates Windsor, you’re off those 2 committees. A fair decision by the appropriate group.
Really, Gregory Venables ought to have responded. It’s improper for him not to have done so, even though the request might have seemed absurd. Absent a response, I don’t see that any other decision from the AC Office would have been appropriate.
It annoys me that those on “my” side are so bad at winning by negotiating an inch at a time toward their goal, while revisors get that point so well.
Whose creature is “The Revd Canon Dr. Kenneth Kearon.�
Well, I suppose we are all God’s creatures. But his temporal position is the Secretary General of the Anglican Consultative Council
Did he decide to do this of his own volition?
No.
If not, who instigated this action?
++Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury
Who is equating the heretical/defiant actions of ECUSA to the protective/sheltering actions of the Southern Cone?
No one. In his letter, the Archbishop of Canterbury said the actions were not equal, however, a violation of the conditions of Windsor and the Primates requests requires removal.
Ichabod – the glory of God has so clearly departed from the established leadership institutions of the Communion.
Darin+
I have no problem with it as long as TEC members and Canada are also hereby invited to become consultants only . . .
In a discussion on another blog, it came to light that+Venables might just have been UNABLE to respond to an English numbskull.
I think he is still involved with Ft. Worth.. Did it ever occur to anyone, that his “uninvolvment” might well have some effect on the HUGE lawsuit going on there? It would be like +Akinola denying the folks in VA.
Another sacrifice for God’s people by a Godly Shepherd…
Don’t be so quick to judge.
Grandmother
I am a bit surprised by the reaction to this. I am usually the Little Black Cloud, but there is much good news in this.
1) It’s clear that five Provinces have “intervened” within the geographic realm of TEC in the past. Set aside for a moment whether that was good or bad, right or wrong. [I’m happy that they did, by the way.]
2) Yet only one has been slapped on the hand.
3) Kenya, Nigeria, and Uganda have passed on their parishes to ACNA — no more interference. Rwanda for some reason hasn’t been slapped [maybe that’s coming in the future].
4) Southern Cone has but to withdraw their oversight [just as did Kenya, Nigeria, and Uganda] — at a time and a place of their own choosing of course, perhaps a year or more down the road — and they’re back in.
5) TEC — obviously — cannot withdraw their own actions that have gotten them slapped — because to do that would be to repudiate their particular and eccentric little gospel.
Of course, I’m sorry that the Southern Cone has had their hand slapped. And I’m happy that TEC’s hand has been slapped.
But in the long run, I see tons of good news in all of this. Southern Cone’s position is temporary. TECusa’s is not. And far far worse could have occurred.
Furthermore, I’m not certain why Bishop Venables should have responded. What was there to say? Kearon/ABC would do as they pleased — nothing that Venables could say to stop that. And what was he to say: “no, we’re continuing on, and we consider it to be worth it all — do as you please”?
No, much better to simply be silent.
We’ll see if they start to squawking now, but I think it would be ill-advised. They need but to go serenely onward.
Reply to Brian from T19 (#7.).
Thank you for your answers Brian. My rhetorical questions were aimed at eliciting a revisionist’s point of view on the matter.
#10 Grandmother
[blockquote]In a discussion on another blog, it came to light that+Venables might just have been UNABLE to respond to an English numbskull.[/blockquote]
That would be an Irish numbskull I think. Credit where credit is due.
Sorry #13, my own 14th GreatGrandUncle, was the Bishop of Bath and Wales.. Most certainly not a deliberate error.
Grandmother
Sarah writes, “I’m not certain why Bishop Venables should have responded…much better to simply be silent.”
Exactly. There’s no reason to respond. Simply ignore it, for it signifies nothing since Southern Cone is merely carrying out a ministry of protection in the face of outright heresy and episcopal malevolence in parts of the US. Kearon’s action makes him and his office lose face (even more) in the eyes of conservatives. It also demonstrates to the US courts how much of a division there is in Anglicanism.
Thanks grandmother #13
I’m not surprised — back in June, when the ABC’s Pentecost letter came out, I predicted that a GS province would be chosen to join TEC in the doghouse in order to appear equitable.
Its actually a punishment that does not fit the crime.
Nobody outside the AC really knows or cares about “border-crossings”. At any rate, its not a doctrinal issue in an ecumenical sense.
SSBs, homosexual bishops and clergy are doctrinal issues that everyone involved in ecumenical discussions actually understand.
15. “It also demonstrates to US courts how much of a division there is in Anglicanism.” Exactly…..and it could serve to work against TEC.
Bishop Zavala at one time provided episcopal ministry to the Church of the Resurrection, a new congregation some of whose members had formerly been members of St. John’s Church, Western Run Parish, in the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland. That parish endorsed my call to ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church in 1961-66. When the ACNA was formed he transferred them to the Anglican District of Virginia.
As I said over at SF:
[url=http://geoconger.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/us-bishops-call-for-open-borders-the-church-of-england-newspaper-oct-15-2010-p-6/. ]We have picture[/url] of Ms Schori and other purple shirted self-fool makers marching for open borders…of the U.S. not the TEClub.
I wonder if the Southern Cone might have a few things to say now.
I’d feel better about this fiasco if TEC and the ACofC were to be given no alternative but to be reduced to the status of ‘consultant,’ but frankly, given the history of their recent relations with ++Rowan Williams, I don’t think that’s going to happen.
The “offense” is not simply in North America but also in Brazil where Recife is under the Southern Cone umbrella. I am also glad for the intervention and proud to be part of the Southern Cone myself. The status of Recife is special as they are alone on this continent and need the protection. Thus it is not quite so simple as SC ceding to ACNA its oversight. Though perhaps Recife could be part of ACNA somehow. That would certainly let Southern Cone off the hook.
BTW I do expect Rwanda will get the same treatment. Count it a badge of honor.
IMHO, given the context of interference and violation of the rules of order in various instruments, I find the process to be rather ridiculous – in all of its execution.
The symbolic head of the AC writes a pastoral letter with a few proposals (“I am therefore proposing that…”) To whom is he making the proposal, and how would such a proposal be approved? Is he making a proposal to himself that he may someday approve? How would anyone know?
But in the absence of any process – an unelected functionary views the proposals as formal directives, and acts to withdraw membership from a minor committee, using a procedure of his own devising. As authority for his actions, he refers to the proposals.
What happens if the ABC starts jotting down his musings on post-it notes, and leaving them about the palace? What if he sends a greeting card to St Andrew’s House? If he tweets a proposal, is that a directive too? Facebook status?
No serious organization functions in this manner. I guess this is what fills the vacuum when integrity of procedure and respect for the rules of order are lost.
😉