From Religious Intelligence:
Responding to the announcement, the Rev Dr Chris Sugden, Executive Secretary of the Anglican Mainstream group, criticised the Episcopal Church for rejecting the Primates’ authority.
He said: “When the authority of the Primates was introduced at the Lambeth Conference in 1998 to deal with the issues in Rwanda, everybody agreed.
“But now something that was regarded as acceptable when dealing with Africans is not acceptable to the Americans. It sniffs of racism.
“They are saying the Primates are not representative of them, but the Primates do represent each of their provinces, yet the Americans are forcing their polity on others.”
Relations between the Episcopal Church and the rest of the Communion were further strained earlier this week when the Church of Kenya announced it is to consecrate the Rev Canon Bill Atwood as a missionary Bishop for the United States, following the Episcopal Church’s rejection of the Pastoral Council.
This is the response we have come expect–neither “yes” nor “no”. I know most you will say that they have clearly said “no”. But this type of response encapsulates TEC leadership’s internalized values. It is like arguing with mist. Now, all we need to do is wait for the sunrise.
“[S]niffs of racism”?
No one worthy of being taken seriously could fail to grasp the difference between Rwanda and New Hampshire.
Playing the racism card comes across as an act of desperation.
I’ve missed most of the conversation on this, so I may be repeating things here, but I must say: Who cares what Executive Council says? Their opinions are advisory (much like Windsor, Lambeth, the Primates). Plus, the Primates asked the HoB, not the Executive Council. The whole thing seems a bit contrived.
I’m beginning to think that TEC’s HOB and Advisory Council are the best thing that’s ever happened….to Rome, that is.
KTF!…mrb
Well, the HOB specifically asked the EC to respond to the Dar Communique. So, I’m guessing at least the HOB cares what they say.
True, but the HOB appears to be incapable of making a response, at least officially. That’s why they passed the buck to the EC.
For the record, the schismatic HOB resolved back in March to reject Canterbury-based Anglicanism in favor of American-based Protestantism. Now the EC of the TEC has reaffirmed that resolution very clearly. Will the primates take notice. Silence so far…
Canonically, the Executive Council acts for the church between GCs. For example, the Exec joined the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice in the name of the whole church. And so it was. Their actions here should be taken very seriously and not blown off as advisory only.
There was a quote at the end of this piece from KJS that I had not noticed in earlier reports. She said, “…but added she would not cede her canonical authority.” The provisions of the alternate primatial vicar scheme depended on the PB to “cede authority.” Some have called for the continuation without the HoB’s consent and argued that the PB could go forward without it as well. Please, can we now say that the APV is D*E*A*D? The communique depended on the cooperation of at least the PB, which will not be forthcoming. The primates outlined the APV scheme. Now, conservatives need to ask them of a new scheme, preferably an orthodox anglican province in communion with the rest of the provinces.
BTW, there was an interesting report on church attendance growth in London that was referenced on the same page. It can be found here. In particular, we have this tidbit:
See the interesting article for other morsels.
True, but the HOB appears to be incapable of making a response, at least officially. That’s why they passed the buck to the EC.
But that was just a political ploy. They will still have to make the decision. The HoB was trying to convince the world that the 2 Houses have identical authority in matters of doctrine-which they don’t. So in order to prove their point, they had the EC play into their hands. I’m a died-in-the-wool reappraiser and I see it for what it is. How can the rest of the world (and even TEC liberals) be so blind?
The communique depended on the cooperation of at least the PB, which will not be forthcoming.
Actually, that is not what was asked of the HoB. That part of the Communique (APV) was a concession to TEC so that TEC could get rid of the inaders. Rejecting APV only eliminates that particular method of removing invading Bishops, but does not address the 2 things asked of TEC.
If the Primate Meeting is rendered ineffectual, by virtue of a splitting amongst them over new federal stategies, which are not embraced by more than six, there will be two winners: The Anglican Consultative Council, and TEC.
People can criticise ACI’s view, but at issue is the efficacy of this crucial Instrument (Primates). I am sure the ACC would love to move in if/when the Primates falter.
ANYTHING that removes them from a position of strength is a threat, whether it is announcements that Dar is dead because of TEC; or strategies they all–especially conservatives like Chew, Gomez, but also ten or so more at least–do not embrace; or confusion about how recent is there annual gathering and enhanced responsibility.
Sorry, read ‘their annual gathering’.
D.C., at the grievous risk of not being taken seriously by you, I agree with you. The Singapore consecrations to which you refer did arguably violate Anglican tradition, but only arguably. If indeed your church is now apostate and led by heretics, there is Anglican precedent for the consecration of missionary Bishops, is there not?
In any case taking the long (eternal) view, when traditions do not serve the Gospel, they must be cast aside.
I wasn’t saying that “Dar is dead.” The communique asked three (or four, depending on how you count) things of the HoB. One has been resoundingly turned down by the HoB, seconded by the Exec council, and also the PB individually. If all or just this one question is answered in the negative, DeS will live if the primates allow it to live by following up with consequences. That the APV is dead is best shown by the deafening silence of the ABC and primates in their appointing tasks.
The sniffs of racism refers to the acknowledgment of the authority of the primates with regards to the Rwandan civil war and the hypocritical denial of their authority when it comes to asking not to ordain non-celibate homosexuals as bishops.
Robroy [#13], please explain — and cite your sources — how the authority of the primates was “acknowledged” with respect to the Rwandan civil war.
William#2 [#11], my reference to Rwanda in #2 had to do with the Rwandan civil war, not with +Kolini’s involvement with AMiA. Apologies if I should have been more clear.
D.C. here is the reference you requested. Apparently, certain bishops who were directly involved with the genocide in Rwanda and they then vacated their positions and, in order to replace them, it required “interventions into the internal affairs of a province” There is an essay by Father Ephraim that talks about it here. In particular, we have the following excerpt:
Admittedly, I don’t understand the details, but Rwanda was obviously an “exceptional emergency” but I would argue that the current mess in America is too with all the millions going to the lawyers. Of course, we have 815 trying to delude the masses that “all is well.” So it might come as a shock to the average pew sitters that the current situation is, all of a sudden, being declared an exceptional emergency when they have been lulled into comatose states till now.
If by
D.C. is asserting that Anglican Mainstream is introducing “the racism card,” I would humbly point out the number of racist statements made over the past few months aimed clearly at several of the primates from Africa by any number of spokespersons within TEC, not the least of which is the PB herself.
The comment in the linked source
is a prime candidate for understatement of the year. I should think a more fitting characterization of the attitude expressed by a number of personages within TEC toward their African brothers would be more along the lines of “reeks of racial condescension!”