The Report of the Archbishops is short, and with less clarity than you or I might have desired. But it reflects a particular culture that abhors a “winner-takes-all” outcome, having fought civil and religious wars where such an outcome was only narrowly averted, and with much bloodshed. In that light, here are some important observations about the Archbishops’ report that are, on balance, positive for ACNA:
1. The ACNA as an institution was not rejected, as TEC and its proxies no doubt desired. Our Anglican “bona fides” will be subject to review and discussion while the wounds remain fresh from the realignment here in North America. The Archbishops state that the concept of membership in the Anglican Communion is not straightforward (Paragraph 8). Within that declaration, they discuss the role of both the ACC and the assent of 2/3 of the Primates of the Churches already listed in the current schedule of membership as providing a basis for membership. But in contrast to previous statements by ++Canterbury and the Secretary of the Anglican Communion, there is no insistence here upon the ACNA submitting an application to the ACC or following its “schedule” as necessary steps for recognition. I believe this is a significant concession between the lines to those who have challenged the purported authority of the ACC to make such decisions, especially in light of actual precedent where it was recognition by the Primates that gave membership within the Communion.
Well, the Druid has really done it this time – he has egged on the bishops to lead a revolt against the goverment in the House of Lords. The revolt based on the bishops’ amendment won.
The issue? The coalition seek to cap payments to people on welfare to a fixed sum, and the revolt amendment sought to exclude from that cap payments of child benefit.
It may sound incredible when you realise that the ‘cap’ the government were seeking to bring in is £26,000 [$40,000] a year, an income which puts those welfare recipients into the top 1% of earners in the country. I suppose when you are a nutty left-wing druid living in two palaces, £26,000 must seem like small beer, but it is considerably more than many in the caring professions such as nurses earn and bring up families on. Public opinion [76%] is in favor of the cap. The effect of the bishops’ amendment will be in some cases to double the entitlement of recipients to up to £50,000 [$78,000] a year.
There will be a backlash – it is unlikely that bishops will retain their seats in the reformed House of Lords proposals, and although the Druid will be long gone, the damage he is doing to the church and its mission will remain.
Does ACNA or anyone else for that matter really want to be in Communion with this useless prat? Watch our newspaper front pages tomorrow morning for more reaction.
By the way, £26,000 is equivalent to a pre-tax income of around £35,000 [$54,000]. With rank hypocrisy the bishops pay many of their clergy lower salaries than the benefit cap [£26,000] they have just voted against.
[blockquote] “On Monday I will fly to Washington state to join 26 ACNA clergy and three bishops for our Clergy Leadership Training Institute I am blessed to have Bishops Kevin Allen of Cascadia and Trevor Walters of ANiC co-leading this CLTI on “The Character of the Leader.” Among the topics we will be addressing are “How to get enough oil and not burn yourself up,” “A leader who listens to leadings,” “The well defined leader,” “Inner conflicts in the leader that create conflict,” and “How to stay in the blue zone rather than the red zone of conflict.” We will also provide afternoon times for spiritual direction, confession and coaching.” [/blockquote]
Good to see that the nuts-and-bolts work of building up the dioceses of ACNA continues, despite whatever may emanate from Lambeth Palace or the ACC. Without this important but unspectacular work, it will be irrelevant whether ACNA was offered membership in the Communion or not.
Comes the dawn, comes the hangover, and some of the press and commenter reaction over here:
The Sun – ‘Benefits cap fury‘
The Telegraph – ‘Peers reject ‘unjust ’ £26,000 cap on state benefits: Coalition ministers have insisted they will press ahead with a £26,000-per-household cap on benefits despite defeat inflicted in the Lords last night by Church of England bishops.’
[87% of voters in the Telegraph poll so far said £26,000 is enough for any family to live on]
Express – ‘Lords blow for the benefit cap as angry bishops revolt‘
Daily Mail – ‘‘An insult to every working family:Labour, bishops and Lib Dem peers derail plan to cap benefits at ‘just’ £26,000 a year’ and this: “At long last we might get some commonsense in our bloated welfare system -but no thanks to Ashdown and bishops in big houses.”
Independent – ‘Peers reject universal £26,000 cap on benefits ‘
The pro-labour Daily Mirror and Guardian newspapers are pretty much ignoring the story, perhaps because the majority of labour voters are with the government on this one.
and some of the comments:
[blockquote]the bishops? come on, if there was ever a bunch that was out of touch its those charlatans. if christ was alive now, he would rip those purple robes off their backs in disgust. no wonder they back scroungers on benefits, after all isnt what they do the same, pilfer from the publ;ic purse and for what???[/blockquote]
[blockquote]This is the problem with an unelected 2nd chamber especial when the church is allowed to get into Politics[/blockquote]
[blockquote]This vote demonstrates four things. Firstly the House of Lords needs reforming.
Now totally unelected with the Church given a large representation. Why? We should be a secular country, like France, with the church having no place in Government or come to that education…[/blockquote]
[blockquote]Silly old Farts in Dresses and Pointy hats wielding more power than they merit . Ignore them and get on with it.[/blockquote]
[blockquote]That Bishop is living in cloud cuckoo land if he thinks child benefit is actually spent on the children in the scrounger type families. It’s just treated as more money in the gravy pot for Sky, fags, mobile phones, booze and 50″ tv’s.[/blockquote]
[blockquote]Just outrageous that we have these Bishops sitting as ‘Lords’. They’ve never done a day’s work in their lives & get paid for peddling fairy tales. Who are they to tell working people they’re not paying enough for (mainly) layabouts?
Time for these ancient ‘Lords’ to be swept away & replaced by an elected second chamber.
[/blockquote]
[blockquote]I’m afraid the Bishops and the Church lost touch with the general population long ago.[/blockquote]
[blockquote]The Bishops have no place in politics, as our Christian representatives, they should be vociferous in fighting the threat, and it’s a very real threat people, that is Islam in this country.[/blockquote]
[blockquote]Iv’e an idea. Cap child benefit, and if the church wants more to be paid, then the church pays it . After all, the church is the richest charity in the world, with money stolen over the centuries from the paupers.[/blockquote]
And here is why it matters:
‘UK debt passes £1 trillion for the first time: UK public debt has passed the £1 trillion mark for the first time, as the Government borrowed nearly £14bn last month despite its continued austerity drive.’
Essentially, if we lose our Triple A credit rating, then our borrowing costs go up, and we follow Greece, Italy, France and others into a situation where these decisions will not be made by bishops, or us, and we will launch everyone into poverty, which with this level of debt will probably lead to us ending up like Greece. Fortunately, no thanks to CofE bishops, the government is remaining focused on trying to keep a tight fiscal discipline.
No one understands why any family cannot live on the average income of £35,000 [pre tax] where the cap has been set. I don’t – and the claims of children being launched into poverty by it made by the bishops are just risible.
As we have seen with the Communion, so with the country, there is no prudent leadership from CofE bishops and the Archbishop of Canterbury.
#3 Michael A: I think that people care less what Canterbury [and ACO] says now than when the original vote took place in Synod. People are just marking time until RDW goes – then they may make a decision over whether the Canterbury connection with the Communion matters and is worth resucitating – not a comment on ACNA’s view, but across the board from what appears to be going on.
As I said before on another blog, I’m in no hurry for my Church to officially join the Communion as long as the present archbishop and TEC are involved in leading it. I can wait, and in the meantime, we’ll go about our business of spreading Christ’s gospel.
Pageantmaster, it sounds like you need a British version of a Tea Party. After all, my ancestor who threw tea into the sea in Boston thought of himself as British, too.
#6 Katherine – cast tea into a saline solution? Oh, I don’t think I could do that – the thought makes me shudder. Are you sure your ancestor was British, or perhaps he drank hot chocolate instead?
I think the really sad thing about yesterday’s actions by the bishops and reading the anger and ridicule of them in the papers today as out of touch, arrogant and daft is the message this sends people in Britain about who we are – they think we are a bunch of left wing privileged 60’s has beens with nothing worthwhile to say, and it helps our mission to the Britons not one jot. Quite the opposite. In the short term it will probably also mean losing our voice in the legislature. It will make no difference to the government proposal, for the Bishops’ amendment will just be over-ruled in the Commons.
He was British, but I suppose he drank coffee or hot chocolate after the event. The colonists did get upset, as I’m sure you recall. At a recent ladies’ tea for our church I delighted our British member by serving real tea, putting the milk in the cup first, and using a tea strainer.
As you point out, that’s the really sad part of this. The bishops’ warped political sense is getting in the way of preaching the Gospel to Britons, which ought to be their primary concern.
#8 Katherine – well it was a bit before my time, but I imagine they must have been very upset to put tea in the sea. I am very glad to hear though that people have not turned their back on tea and still enjoy it.
I think you are right – the problem is that when scarsely a week goes by when we [or someone in particular] are held up to ridicule for our words and actions, then when we do have something really important to impart, people just won’t listen. You can see their point – we have no credibility, merely their sneering contempt, as you have read. They think we are out of touch, and they are probably right.