Will the Anglican Communion be joined together or rent asunder? That was the question that the Rev. Dr. Richard Leggett offered to a group gathered at St. Faiths.
The reason for these discussions is that the current solution to global Anglicanisms difficulties is to craft a covenant document which would make room for what many call a two-tiered membership, with some who are full members and some in association but not fully entitled because of differences in their practice of worship or discipleship.
In this model, the Anglican Church of Canada, the Episcopal Church USA, the Anglican Church of New Zealand, the Anglican Church of South Africa, and possibly the Church of England, would be second-tier Anglicans primarily, but not only, because of the blessing of same-sex couples.
Leggett, a professor at Vancouver School of Theology, said that in 1886 questions in the Episcopal Church (USA) led to an agreement on essential elements of Anglican communion, and these were slightly revised (with broader, less restrictive, wording) at the Lambeth Conference (1888), and known afterwards as the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral.
DANGER! Will Robinson! They apparently mean business and we shan’t be able to be members and commit our own errors with impugnity! THEY really believe that faith has moral teaching components! And they are serious!
Well they would say that, wouldn’t they?
Strangely no mention of the Colenso Affair and role Canadian Anglicans played in demanding a forum to ensure common discipline across the Anglican world.
This from a diocesan loyalist in the Diocese of New Westminster, which was very firm in preventing full lay participation in it momentous decisions in the early 2000’s to approve SSB’s. The bishop and diocesan liberals strongly opposed lay proportional representation for diocesan synod, so that the largest parishes were seriously underrepresented at Synod. The bishop and liberals also strongly opposed any sort of canvassing of the laity on this question.
So I do not for a minute, believe liberals when they declare their concern over the potential loss of lay voices in the church. You can bet that if the laity had a voice, and if that voice was conservative, you would hear of the Anglican polity of bishops in contrast to the baptist fundamentalist polity of lay power.
How nice of the wolves to comment on the sheep industry.
I’m quite positive that people are aware of the concerted effort to push the views of Paula Porter Leggett in the wider Anglican Communion, but may I add my plea that we sit up and notice this cry from the Liberal side of our church .. because we are hearing it LOUD AND CLEAR here in New Zealand as well. Even in small Diocesan meetings, negative noises are made about Primates, and positive noises are made about ACC. When I asked the meeting to name their representative on ACC .. they couldn’t, but such a small voice is hardly heard.
If I may, I will point out that here in New Zealand, the ACC representatives are chosen at our General Synod meetings. They are chosen by their Tikanga representatives and the names are put forward and a vote is taken yes or no. There is no ‘choice’ of candidates to vote for. Not I would have thought, a very democratic procedure!!
Whereas Primates went through a selection procedure when they because pastors, then years of training and an ordination where they made certain vows. When chosen to be Bishops, there was a further selection process in which laity took part, a further induction service where more vows were taken to ‘defend the faith.’ Yet another selection procedure took place when they were elevated to Primate.
I’m quite sure that in some people’s eyes [from any side] some ‘rogues’ slip through such a process .. BUT NOT AS MANY AS WE HAVE INFLICTED ON US AT ACC!
Democracy in the councils of the Church? What rubbish!
Leaving aside the question of whether “democracy” as we understand it in the civil political sphere is the right and proper way to govern the Church, I would simply observe that even in The Episcopal Church’s much-vaunted “democratic” polity the decision-making bodies of the Church are only as democratic as the Senate of the United States was before the constitutional amendment allowing for the direct popular election of senators. (For those who do not know, senators – two from each state – were originally chosen by the legislatures of the states, so the senators were understood to represent the states, while the members of the House of Representatives, popularly elected, were understood to represent the people.)
How is this cursus politicum democratic? Parishes (depending on the diocese, this could mean the rector or the vestry, not the parishioners themselves) elect delegates to diocesan conventions; diocesan conventions elect deputies to General Convention; and General Convention elects our slate of members on the Anglican Consultative Council.
You can easily surmise that the correlate in US civil politics would be a situation in which the people only elect (at most) their state legislators, who then elect the senators and representatives to the federal Congress. Would anyone call that democratic?
And not only that, they elect delegates, not representatives. The delegate is free to vote his or her own mind, not that of those who sent him/her.
Todd [#7]: Excellent analogy between indirect election of the House of Deputies and a secular system in which (I may edit it) we voted only for county commissioners who would elect state legislators who would elect members of Congress.
That would still be a form of representative democracy—but one more likely to produce UNREPRESENTATIVE RESULTS.
That’s the problem with ECUSA. A revisionist minority has entrenched itself over the past several decades, controls most of the levers of power, and cannot as a practical matter be dislodged. Nominally representative structures yield unrepresentative results. Except in the relatively few orthodox dioceses, the orthodox can vote only with our wallets and our feet.
Thank you for your comments, I’m sorry I didn’t express myself better.
The point is that what I refer to as Liberals, and you refer to as revisionists, are making the point that the ACC is a more democratic institution than any of the other so called ‘instruments of unity.’ Mainly for two reasons. A], they are represented by all three houses, and B], they are the only ones with a written constitution. This is THEIR argument .. I disagree with it for the reasons I stated. It is NOT democratic.
The point I’m am obviously failing to make is that, having been a parish priest for many years, then a Bishop for many years, before becoming a Primate, laity has had a big say. That is as democratic as anything in our church. I would agree with Mr. Granger, that I’m not at all sure that ‘democracy’ is the correct method when it comes to ‘governing’ our church, and it’s for sure that I’m not the one who should be debating this issue, I couldn’t make myself clear the first time. But .. I’m hoping someone sees the danger. At this moment in time, in Canada and New Zealand at least, our leadership is making anti covenant noises, anti Primates noises, and pro ACC noises. Why?
Well, way back many, many years ago there were a growing and very successful group of embezzelers. Then, some bright young government executive got the brilliant idea to agitate for a law against embezzeling. How did the embezzelers take such a possibility? Well, they all united to make convincing arguement that never before had there been laws against embezzeling and that, while perhaps some went too far to fast, embezzeling was a necessary part of market forces and if their work was removed from society the results would be catastrofic. Further they said that everyone embezzelled to some digree and should a law be passed against embezzelling the jails could not be built large enough to hold all the new lawbreakers. If all of that weren’t bad enough the question was also raised by concerned citizens of that time about who should enforce such a law. Were the police to go into the shops and banks and perhaps people’s bedrooms? How could such a thing be enforced?
But we, today, know that a law against embezzeling was, by the narrowest of margines, passed and many years of prosperity followed.
Laws are made for lawbreakers. We are now hearing all the usual rumblings from the lawbreakers in the Diocese of New Westminster and elsewhere. Will we take the actions that will lead to prosperity or will we listen to those who produce nothing but live off the work of others?
Rosemary [#10]: Here’s another reason to question the democratic and lay-inclusive virtue of the Anglican Consultative Council: The ACC is large, meets rarely, and has often been manipulated by a Lambeth bureaucracy grievously unrepresentative of the Anglican Communion. The primates are small in number, meet considerably more frequently, and have some cohesion and will of their own.
PS #12: Calls to defend the prerogatives of the supposedly-more-representative ACC are often just ploys to perpetuate manipulation by ECUSA-funded, ECUSA-friendly Lambeth functionaries.
“The Dangers of an Anglican Covenant” —Rulers of New Westminster
“The Dangers of Barbed Wire” —Fenris Ulf (cf. #5)
“The Dangers of Metal Windowscreens” —Anopheles
“The Dangers of Reckless Pasteurization” —Sal Monella
#10: Rosemary, I am praying you’ll get an evangelical or at least orthodox bishop in Christchurch, and the matter of the ACC (among others) can be raised properly.
Thanks G ordian!