ACNA, Anglican Communion, Archbishop of Canterbury, Church of England, General Synod, TEC

ACNA PMM at CoE General Synod

Those that have been proclaiming victory for ACNA in regard to the PMM at General Synod are, in my estimation, at best too hopeful and at worst misguided. Read it carefully. In true English fashion, it does not state affirmation of ACNA but of ACNA’s desire. Moreover, it does not say that ACNA is an Anglican church, as some have asserted. Rather it simply notes that there have been divisions in the Anglican churches in Canada and US (this does not mean ACNA!). As much as this American priest in the CoE would like it to say something different, it sadly does not. Another wait and see tactic. Matt Kennedy over at Stand Firm puts it succinctly, whom I quote below.

Some requests and notes about the Synod vote
Thursday, February 11, 2010 • 9:13 am
Five quick notes prefaced by some requests:

Requests: Please Read The Resolution. Do exegesis; not isogesis. Please resist the temptation to read your wishes and desires into the text.

1. The motion does not “affirm” the ACNA.

2. The motion does not “affirm” that the ACNA is part of the Anglican Communion.

3. The motion “affirms” a “desire” . Translation: Ohhh, how sweet that you want to be my boyfriend. I “affirm” your desire.

4. The motion does not refer to the ACNA as a whole but to the desire of “those who formed” the ACNA.

5. The motion does not affirm the desire of “those who formed the ACNA” to remain in “the Anglican Communion”, but rather, it affirms their desire to remain a part of the Anglican “family”. Arguably, anyone who prays with a prayerbook and wears a robe of some kind could be considered a member of the “Anglican Family”

Advertisements
Standard
Anglican Communion, Archbishop of Canterbury, Ecclesial issues, General Convention, Lambeth Conference, N.T. Wright, TEC, TEC Conflict, Uncategorized

Bishop of Durham, N.T. Wright, responds to ++Cantuar’s ‘reflection’.

I have just one question for Bishop Wright regarding the following:

and he warns against speaking ‘in apocalyptic terms of schism and excommunication’. He also speaks of the ‘twofold ecclesial reality’ as a ‘possibility’ in the ‘middle distance’. (ii) The Reality: But, as he himself has indicated, key decisions have been made (obviously not yet in terms of voting on the Covenant, but certainly in terms of taking stances which will lead directly to such votes); schism has already happened; and not just a twofold, but a confusing and pluriform ecclesial reality, is not just a middle-distance possibility but an on-the-ground and in-your-face fact. (emphasis mine)

Which of you is right? The ++ABC warns against speaking in terms of schism and excommunication’, but shortly after, you state that “schism has already happened…” It appears that the ++ABC is simply not willing to recognise the facts on the ground, no matter his assent to the destructive actions of GC. This is what some commentators have noted as ++Cantuar’s Hegelian dialectic. If ++Cantuar is unwilling to recognise the schism, in concept or otherwise, the quick action called for by +Durham will not come. Then where does that leave us? I’m afraid we’ll be, yet again, in the developing Anglican purgatory…

Read the whole thing here.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , ,

Standard
Anglican Communion, Archbishop of Canterbury

Is silence complicity?

As I’m sure we’re all aware there is a deafening silence coming from Lambeth at the moment. I’m with Greg Griffith in regard to this. (read his article here.) But what is interesting to me is also the silence from the conservative blogosphere. Yes there have been the usual responses to the actions of GC09. An excellent article by Bishop Wright in the Times. But now, it is silent…eerily silent. I wonder what is going on behind closed doors.

However, this leads me to the (lack of) response by the Archbishop of Canterbury. I am more than aware that there are an extensive amount of complexities at play in the situations. I am also aware that there needs to be a reasoned response, both measured and level. But in the end, the response/statement must come. Or is this our response? If so, (since no one else seems to want to directly say it, I will) is the Archbishop of Canterbury complicit with GC09, TEC and all revisionists who are wanting a ‘fully inclusive’ church? Has he giving his response already?

The longer the silence, the more it appears that way. (Insert well know cliche here) Now this is not earth-shattering news. Some of the more conservative pundits have been alledging this for quite some time. But if this is really the case, then the instrument of Unity that is the Archbishop of Canterbury, is no longer an instrument of Unity or a measure of one’s Anglican identity. If the ABC has given his answer, then where does that leave us?

For all intents and purposes the instruments of Unity only work when we are able to respect and receive the action/statments of said instruments. If we don’t, then how are they unifying? Moreover, to create a fifth instrument of Unity (the Covenant) which allows extreme autonomy to reside in provinces will not provide an unifying effect either. With provincial autonomy being bantered about, I wonder if it is inherent to the Anglican Communion or is a self-serving, cultural infiltration to guard our personal autonomy and thereby celebrate the post-modern/contemporary society’s unwillingness to submit (I use this word in a traditional sense) to any sort of authority at all?

No matter where we end up, it appears that the Anglican landscape has been ultimately altered, more by a wrecking ball than by glacial movement. In the end, we’ll just have to wait. And who said Anglicans don’t believe in purgatory?

Standard
Anglican Communion, Archbishop of Canterbury, TEC, TEC Conflict, Uncategorized

C’est tout…. C’est fini!

To paraphrase Kenneth Wolstenholme, They think it’s all over…. it is now. (I know, I know….. I couldn’t resist.)

I don’t know how anyone could interpret the outcome of GC09 as anything but a decision to walk apart. KJS and Pres. Anderson can write what they want to the ABC (here). I don’t know, call me crazy, but I believe that the Wall Street Journal tends to get things right most of the time. Read their article here.

If you want to get a true sense of what the orthodox in TEC are feeling right now. Check out the press conference on StandFirm here. There’s no question how Bishop Love feels. You’ve got to feel for the guy. You can just see the heartache and sorrow. (You are in our prayers, Bishop Love and all the other orthodox bishops, clergy and laity.)

I don’t know what sort of response is going to come out of Lambeth. But wouldn’t it be refreshing to not have some sort of double-speak? To actually get a statement that means something and means what it says? I don’t know, may be just wishful thinking.

I read something someone said in one of the Houses during debate. They said something along these lines: You can say, ‘I can fly.’ Heck, you can even climb up to the top of your roof, start flapping your arms and jump off. But you’re still going to fall straight to the ground.

I’d add one thing to that… After you fall, don’t turn around to the media and say, See, look. I did fly; all the way from the rooftop to the ground.

No matter what the spin doctors try to do, the proverbial fat lady has sung. C’est tout…..C’est fini.

Keep flapping those arms, TEC. Keep flapping those arms…

Standard