GOOD NEWS FOR GENERAL SYNOD OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

From Simon Sarmiento at Thinking Anglicans:

Readers may recall this General Synod motion (See below) which is being debated next Wednesday. And there is this amendment (See below).

A paper rebutting the claims made about the Episcopal Church, compiled by me, has been issued to General Synod members.

That paper can now be read in full here.

The motion proposed to General Synod by Lorna Ashworth reads:

“That this Synod express the desire that the Church of England be in communion with the Anglican Church in North America”.

The ACNA motion amendment reads:

The Bishop of Bristol (the Rt Revd Mike Hill) to move as an amendment:

Leave out everything after “That this Synod” and insert:

“(a) recognise and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family;

(b) acknowledge that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and

(c) invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011”.

My heart beat faster when I read the list of persons whom Simon consulted in writing his paper.

In compiling this note I have consulted David Booth Beers, Chancellor to the Presiding Bishop and Mary E. Kostel, Special Counsel to the Presiding Bishop for property litigation and discipline. I have also been assisted by: the Revd Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG, the Revd Scott Gunn, and Ms Susan Erdey of the Church Pension Group.

Simon's paper is a clear and concise refutation of erroneous claims and charges now circulating amongst the members of General Synod of the Church of England against the Episcopal Church, which demonstrate misunderstanding or ignorance of the polity of the Episcopal Church. Thanks be to God that one Englishman understands the governance of the Episcopal Church! (I'm joking, of course, because other Englishmen besides Simon understand the polity of TEC.)

Of course, all of the leaders of the Church of England could have consulted with the same persons. I wonder how many took the trouble.

Simon's final paragraph in his paper reads:

Natural justice requires that people take responsibility for their actions. No one has forced individual clergy or laity to leave the Episcopal Church — and they do have the right to do so if their consciences are wounded by the decisions of that church. It is, however, a matter of both church and civil law — and natural justice — that they do not have any right to retain property given in support of the church when they choose to leave it.

Do I hear an "Amen!"?