Last Thursday I sent letters to members of the Inter Anglican ecumenical dialogues who are from the Episcopal Church informing them that their membership of these dialogues has been discontinued. In doing so I want to emphasise again as I did in those letters the exceptional service of each and every person to that important work and to acknowledge without exception the enormous contribution each person has made.
I have also written to the person from the Episcopal Church who is a member of the Inter Anglican Standing Commission on Unity Faith and Order (IASCUFO), withdrawing that person’s membership and inviting her to serve as a Consultant to that body.
Read more at The Lead, including Jim Naughton's commentary and the opinions in the comments that follow the post.
UPDATE: See also Marshall Scott's post.
I have come to the conclusion that the Episcopal Church should concentrate on maintaining communion with the Church of England and membership on the Anglican Consultative Council, and if not signing this Covenant results in a “second-tier” membership, so be it. However, having so narrowly applied the consequences of all the actions that have divided the Communion, when so many have participated, can only seriously undermine trust in Canterbury, not only in the Anglican provinces in North America, but throughout the Communion.
UPDATE 2: Also Saintly Ramblings' muscular response.
How does the phrase "I am therefore proposing ..." in the Archbishop's letter get translated into action by Kenneth Kearon. Where the hell does he get the authority to take such a move? He is Secretary General of a federation of churches that are simply bound together by the "three-legged stool" of tradition, scripture and reason. He is not the overseer of a single entity that has a single set of rules, interpretations and practices.
We are relieve of our posts. . . . Others are asked questions. . . Pfauw!
ReplyDeleteAll because we do not hide the fact that _all_ the baptized are worthy!
Susan, as I said at Marshall's blog, the ABC is stepping into a thicket full of thorns. Once again, I expect that few will be pleased with his actions.
ReplyDeleteRead Saintly Ramblings latest!
ReplyDeleteSR's response is muscular, to say the least.
ReplyDeleteHow does someone get rid of the ABC?
ReplyDeleteWe can send letters, too. Shall we organize a letter-writing campaign to Queen Elizabeth II?
ReplyDelete"We can send letters, too."
ReplyDeleteWhy waste our breaths, Mimi? Place a moratorium on all funding to the C of E and hit the sanctimonious prats where it really hurts. xxDuncan and his paymasters ain't going to be making up the shortfall.
With Iker & his "diocese" formally under the wing of the Southern Cone, "asking [PB Venables] for clarification as to the current state of his interventions into other provinces" is grossly insulting - deliberately so, I suspect, the "English Way" in action - to TEC. And trusting that "the person from the Episcopal Church who is a member of the Inter Anglican Standing Commission on Unity Faith and Order" will tell Williams and Kearon where to stick their consultancy. In 240 years, these people have learned Sweet Fanny Adams about dealing with unruly colonists.
Lapin, I wasn't serious about letters to the Queen. I am serious about not funding the travesties. TEC is operating on a greatly reduced budget, and our funds could be better spent than in supporting gatherings of which the ABC has preemptively taken control, gatherings which he has organized in a divisive and punitive manner.
ReplyDeleteIt's not the CofE that needs cutting out! Only his Archeyebrowiness... As someone somewhere said today in not quite these words... Mission to CofE, anyone?
ReplyDeleteThe Episcopal Church must withdraw our financial support for ++Rowan and his sycophants. Let our yes be our yes for the advance of G-d's Kingdom, and this pitiable Anglican Communion is no more. Come the revolution!
ReplyDeleteDid anyone REALLY think he would penalize the African provinces? It was always about keeping their "numbers" in the AC....
ReplyDeleteI *am* surprised that we got the automatic boot and everyone else gets to play Twenty Questions. That really takes some chutzpah on his part.
If Rowan continued to threaten TEC without actually making the threat good, he would lose face with some of his supporters and semi-supporters. For what it's worth, I believe that the plan is to isolate TEC as the only "real" transgressor and give the rest of the provinces a pass. A parallel, but "pure" branch of Anglicanism in the US may be just what Rowan wants.
ReplyDeleteI do wonder what "Brenda" thinks of Rowan Who's adventures...
ReplyDeleteWho is Brenda??? I must be behind.
ReplyDeleteI do have to ask, am I the only one that thinks that maybe the speed with which this letter was sent out was a result of our PB's Pentecostal Answer? She did cut pretty close to the quick. Not that I didn't approve of everything she said.
As I've said elsewhere, consultants are highly paid people with special knowledge who are employed to help guide an organization when new or specific knowledge is required. I propose we attend and bill the CoE/AC for our expertise. After all, nobody else has our experience so our fee should be dear.
ReplyDeleteSusan, I'm puzzled about "Brenda", too. Wade, help!
ReplyDeleteI expect the PB's letter may have sped the response. +Katharine made it clear that we've had enough, that threats won't work, so Rowan, through KK, followed through.
Piskie, your idea is brilliant.
Brenda is "Private Eye" magazine's nickname for Queen Elizabeth.
ReplyDeleteJohn, thanks. Case solved.
ReplyDeleteTEC, and others, have chosen authenticity, which has resulted in "disinvitation;" corporately, we have come out, experiencing at a macro level what glbt of faith have experienced at the micro level. Speaking only for myself, I have to say that my personal "disinvitation" was the best thing that has ever happened to and for me, and I believe that the same will be true for those of an inclusive Gospel, within, and without, TEC.
ReplyDeleteKJ, I agree that TEC's "punishment" is a small price to pay for doing the right thing by our GLTB brothers and sisters.
ReplyDeleteHe has told you, O mortal, what is good;
and what does the Lord require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?
Micah 6:8
That's good enough for me.
I am opposed to cutting the funding as a retaliation. However as I noted elsewhere there is a matter of stewardship.
ReplyDeleteFWIW
jimB
I am opposed to cutting the funding as a retaliation. However as I noted elsewhere there is a matter of stewardship.
ReplyDeleteFWIW
jimB
Jim, of course, we should cut funding as a matter of good stewardship and not retaliation.
ReplyDelete