Tuesday, February 16, 2010

LORNA ASHWORTH'S MOTION ABOUT ACNA

Colin Coward at The Changing Attitude Blog out of England, has an excellent post about the reasserters mistaken conclusions about what really happened with the Ashworth motion, which reads as follows:

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

Colin was at the "fringe meeting organized by Anglican Mainstream" at which representatives of ACNA made their case for passing the Ashworth motion:

I was present at the meeting, illicitly because the Bishop of Winchester who chaired said at the beginning (looking directly at me, I thought), this meeting is open only to members of General Synod, asking anyone else present to leave. I remained in my seat, waiting to be named. I’m sorry, bishop, for having ignored your request.

Colin doesn't sound all that sorry to me, and I'm pleased that he stayed in his chair to give us his report on the meeting.

The four speakers at the meeting representing the Anglican Church in North America were Bishop Donald Harvey, Mrs. Cynthia Brust, Dr. Michael Howell, and the Rev. Dr. Tory Baucum. They were confident and convincing in their presentations and any one not knowing better would have been convinced by what they said. Speakers from The Episcopal Church would have been equally passionate and convincing. That’s what North Americans are like.

Yesterday I met one of the BBC reporters covering Synod. What they said isn’t true, he commented, having visited both TEC and ACNA parishes. ACNA distorts statistics to their advantage and are riven with tensions and disagreements. ACNA is an unstable network. This is very different from the idealised picture presented on Tuesday of a network which is modelling Anglican breadth and inclusiveness with far more success than we in the Church of England have ever been able to achieve.

Amazing! The BBC reporter did his homework in a way that few reporters in the US would trouble themselves to do. Imagine a reporter from the US doing that sort of extensive backgroud work on a story about TEC and ACNA.

Visit Changing Attitude to read the rest of the post, because Colin has much more to say about the mistaken interpretations of the supporters of ACNA.

Colin's final paragraph rings true to me.

It isn’t difficult for Changing Attitude to stand firm with those who want women and gay people fully included in our Communion. It’s much more difficult to work and pray for an outcome in which present divisions are reconciled and all are united in one Communion. It is a dream which we have to try and turn into reality. We must refuse to be corrupted by the distortions of reality which characterise conservative campaign strategy.

Amen.

7 comments:

  1. Yes, quite.

    It's always the right stuff that is hard.

    Rats!

    But here we go into Lent and Good Friday so that makes sense.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Susankay, yes. It's Lent, or soon to be.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Colin Coward is a complete hero in my book.

    ReplyDelete
  4. ACNA is a movement without a future. It is organized around a negative, a common hatred for the Episcopal Church and for women clerics and gays. They stand for nothing positive or original.
    I'm not surprised that they are faction-ridden. The ueber-pure and doctrinally correct usually don't like each others' company. They will come apart in a succession of Nights of the Long Knives.

    I predict a similar end in politics for the Teabaggers for the same reasons.

    Both movements will not last, but they can do a lot of damage in the meantime.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Colin, Bishop Gene, and Louie Crew are all heroes of the "Love them anyway!" school, truly self-sacrificial, and they're not the only examples of spat-upon people who strive to live out the Gospel.

    ReplyDelete
  6. ...but they can do a lot of damage in the meantime.

    Counterlight, sadly that is true, but I think you're right that the groups will implode before very long.

    ReplyDelete

Anonymous commenters, please sign a name, any name, to distinguish one anonymous commenter from another. Thank you.