A conservative province in the Anglican church faces “punishment” this week for offering a safe haven to conservatives.
Senior bishops and laity meeting in London are to consider suspending the Anglican church in South America for taking rebel US dioceses under its wing.
The move will bring the Anglican Communion closer to a formal split. Early next month, rebel conservatives are expected to finalise plans for a new Anglican province in the US, to sit as a parallel jurisdiction alongside the existing Episcopal Church.
Unless this new province is recognised as part of the Anglican family by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams and the other 38 primates, it will in effect become a new Anglican church.
Thanks for adding the cautionary remark, Kendall. This appears to be a bit of sensationalistic reporting to me. It’s unclear if the JSC will go along with such a proposal to “punish” ++Venables. Time will tell. But Ruth Glednill has been wrong with her predictions before. It may well tell us more about her and her bias than about the JSC itself. Anyway, it sure sounds like wishful thinking to me.
But Kendall, can you post a link to the associated picture of the gathering, as Matt Kennedy has done over st Stand Firm? It’s very, very revealing. It shows ++KJS sitting beside the ABoC on his left, and ++Aspinall of Australia on his right, with ++Barry Morgan of Wales also seated at the table. All the Global South representatives on the JSC are standing in the back. How “colonial” can you get?
David Handy+
The Anglican Consultive Council has permitted itself to become an institution dominated by revisionists and has shown clear bias against orthodox Anglicans over the past twenty years.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, by tolerating and seemingly aiding and abetting the ACC’s behavior, has clearly chosen sides and will bear central responsibility for any schism in the Anglican Communion.
Some may argue that he hasn’t chosen sides, but he has done so, through highly devious and effective passive-aggressive moves made by him against the orthodox Anglicans.
The orthodox Anglicans can no longer consider the Archbishop to be an ‘honest broker.’
“The penalty being considered against the Southern Cone … includes the removal of voting rights at the forthcoming meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council, the central governing body of the Anglican Communion, in Jamaica next May.”
It would seem to me that this is a preemptive strike towards one of the votes in favor of the formation of a new province – a vote to be taken at the Jamaica meeting. Never underestimate the moves of your chess opponent.
As always, follow the money.
Note that Rowan is at least getting a better price than 30 Shekels .
I had the privilege of meeting Archbishop Gregory a while ago. What a great Christian leader and his and his church’s reaching out to help Anglicans in trouble has been an inspiration and a model to us all.
Prayers for him and his wonderful church.
And a model more of us should learn from as an example of how to look after the flock.
The picture the David+ refers to is [url=http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6SVzaxaHvV8/SSxffnlClyI/AAAAAAAADCU/SPxmq4mzZ3U/s1600-h/Joint+Standing+Committee.jpg ]here[/url].
What a revealing photograph! The Ecclesiastical UPSTAIRS, DOWNSTAIRS with all the servants eager to wait on the Masters and Mistress.
Very important [url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/18143/#306574]post from Chancellor over at SF[/url]:
[blockquote]
Take a deep breath, folks. This story is way overblown. No one is going to be able to deprive the Southern Cone of a voice and vote at the next ACC meeting.
1. First, as to membership. The ACC Constitution provides that the PSC is a member, and Art. 3 requires, as we know by now, a two-thirds vote of all the Primates “to alter or add to the schedule†of membership. No matter how much TEC and its allies might wish it, they are not going to be able to kick the PSC off the membership schedule.
2. Next, as to vote. Section 6.1 of the ACC Guidelines states: “Only members of the council shall be entitled to vote on business before the council.†Section 7.2 provides: “The Council may at any time with the consent of the Standing Committee revoke, amend, or supplement these guidelines or any part of them for the better conduct of the business of the council.†I doubt whether the power to “revoke, amend or supplement†would include the power to deprive a duly constituted member of its right to vote—remember that at Nottingham in 2005, the Primates had made only a request of TEC and ACoC that they “voluntarily withdraw†their representatives from the Council.
So the most that will happen is that a majority of the Primates might make such a request, and ++Venables can politely decline to do as they request.
I think what happened is that TEC and ACoC were just asking ++Rowan to let ++Venables have a little of the medicine they were handed in 2005, and the request was leaked by someone who wanted it leaked to hit the news cycle before the meeting in Wheaton next week.
[/blockquote]
robroy, thanks for posting both #7 (the revealing picutre I mentioned) and #9.
David Handy+
So proud of the NRAFC cabinet
I am not, Hopper! Let me explain something to you in terms that you can understand. Do you recall what Franklin Roosevelt said to his critics in Congress concerning the Lend Lease Bill? As I recall reading about it, he said something to the effect that “when your neighbor’s house is on fire, wouldn’t you lend him your garden hose to put the fire out?” Well, that’s what Archbishop Venables did: he “loaned us his garden hose” when WE went to HIM to ask for his protection. He didn’t “cross any borders uninvited;” our bishops ASKED for his help, and he gave it!
Chancellor is of course correct. The Joint Standing Committee can’t unilaterally revoke provincial membership or voting rights at the ACC.
However, by any rational accounting TEC is still grossly in violation of the dead “Windsor Report” and Jefferts Schori shouldn’t even be at this meeting, in the front row or the back. The Report, remember, called for a suspension of same-sex blessings, and that hasn’t happened; quite the reverse.
Who put Ms Schori on the JSC? The ditherer in the middle.
I’m not clear on whether he’s a ditherer or whether he is following a deliberate strategy to defeat the conservatives by attrition and exhaustion. Same results either way, except that the official Communion, those parts of it which survive, will not be the witness for Christ it should be.
Oohhh Kaaayyyy…
TEC and the Canadian Church *voluntarily* *out of forbearance* lay out for the Nottingham meeting of the ACC, only showing up to answer questions and to present their reports, and to be reproached widely (in certain circles) for even daring to show up.
Surely nobody believes El Cono Sur will be “suspended?” All this is just a rhetorical gambit to diminish the ACC.
+KJS is on the Primates’ Council because TEC pays the bills, if nothing else.
I find it difficult to grasp how the tendency within the Anglican/esque stream of Christianity which has given us GAFCON/FOCA/the continuum can be a witness for Christ *at all.*
I also think it is wrong of ++ Mouneer and ++ Orombi not to attend. It makes no sense to maintain that one is in the Anglican Communion, and then boycott all of the official organs of the communion. It simply plays into the hand of the revisionists who say, “See, they’re not really anglicans after all.).
If this is true, it’s beyond bad: it’s retching bad.
As though Lambeth Palace were taking lessons from BeerKat’s playbook.
Ms Gledhill states that ABp Anis had a consecration and could not attend.
Bishop Mouneer did have a long-scheduled consecration in Tunis. Ministry in his own Province is important.
She who has the gold makes the rules. He who takes her gold is made her sock puppet.
The difference between the Archbishop of Canterbury and Jesus Christ is when He was temped in the desert by Satan, Jesus Christ clearly, soundly and firmly rejected Satan’s offer. +Rowan sits smiling next to ….
But the PB says Ruth Gledhill is wrong. The problem is now who is more credible. Who has deliberately prevaricated the most in the past, as opposed to merely been in error of facts.
Given the duration of Ruth’s reporting, I’m going with her as the least among prevaricator options. Given the number of prevarications from Dar es Salaam to alleged canon violations in the USA, my nominee on the basis described is …. the PB.