BEHIND THE SMOKE AND MIRRORS

Bosco Peters at Liturgy:

Recently all clergy received instructions from our diocesan office to read a letter aloud in every church building. This is a very rare event in our diocesan life. In this case the letter was doubly unusual. It is a letter from The Revd Canon Dr Kenneth Kearon, Secretary General of the Anglican Communion, asking for input into the process of seeking the next Archbishop of Canterbury, a process led by the Crown Nominations Commission of the Church of England.

Now I’m all for consultation, and I think this is kind of sweet (but please pewsitter number 3 out of 5 at Waikikamukau, don’t be naive enough to spend energy on preparing a submission thinking that this will influence the decision-making processes in the rooms and lavatories where the Crown Nominations Commission meets). But the real reason I was surprised was best articulated by an insightful friend of mine.

The subliminal message of “international consultation” for the Archbishop of Canterbury is an attempt to shift ecclesiology towards Anglicanism being a worldwide church. This is the ecclesiology undergirding the “Anglican Covenant”.

The title of the post is "The Archbishop of Canterbury hath no jurisdiction in this realm".  Bosco is spot on.  The archbishop hath no jurisdiction beyond his realm of the Church of England.  What the Secretary General of the ACO seems to be attempting is the putting-the-facts-on-the-ground strategy.  We are all one church, and all the provinces in the communion will have the opportunity to weigh in and offer opinions on who should be chosen as the next Archbishop of Canterbury.  Say it often enough, and it will be so.  Balderdash!

The post at Liturgy is well worth reading in it's entirety, as Bosco reveals the scene behind the smoke and mirrors.

IF WE PAY, WHY CAN'T WE PLAY?

As I understand, the Anglican Communion Office and the Anglican Communion News Service are funded by all of the churches of the communion. The churches have been tasked with deciding whether or not to adopt the proposed Anglican Covenant. One presumes a choice here, whether to adopt or not. Why then do the ACO and ACNS provide only pro-covenant material? It seems to me that the proper and fair thing to do would be to provide both pro and con information, so that the dioceses and the various churches in the communion are better able to make informed decisions.

It's not as though well-reasoned statements against adopting the covenant are non-existent. The No Anglican Covenant Coalition website offers such material from voices of members of different churches throughout the communion, and, in addition, offers pro-covenant material, including a blatantly anti-American paper by Peter Doll, Canon Librarian of Norwich Cathedral, which was sent out to all Church of England bishops by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams. Why can't those of us who have serious doubts that the covenant is the solution to the present troubles and disagreements in the communion have our voices heard through the ACO and ACNS? Publicizing only pro-covenant material prejudices the vote in favor of the covenant, and the actions of the ACO and ACNS are not right and not fair.

IS THE ANGLICAN COVENANT THE BEST WAY FORWARD? REALLY?

Mark Harris at Preludium directs our attention to the three videos from the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity Faith and Order (IASCUFO) in defense of the Anglican Covenant. The first video is here. Links to the other two may be found at Preludium.

Below is the commentary that accompanies the video:

In this video, members of the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity Faith and Order (IASCUFO http://bit.ly/wIPVqK) reflect on the Sections of the Anglican Communion Covenant. The members include:
- The Revd Canon Dr Sarah Rowland Jones, Anglican Church of Southern Africa
- The Rt Revd Kumara Ilangasinghe, recently retired Bishop of Kurunagala, Church of Ceylon
- The Rt Revd William Mchombo, The Church of the Province of Central Africa
- The Rt Revd Dr Howard Gregory, Bishop of Jamaica & The Cayman Islands, The Church in the Province of the West Indies
- The Revd Dr Katherine Grieb, The Episcopal Church

Mark points out the irony of Dr Katherine Grieb's presence in the video.

Professor Grieb is herself now a consultant to IASCUFO rather than a full member precisely because of the "consequences" of The Episcopal Church's actions, and was done in ways similar to that provided for in Section Four.It is quite interesting, perhaps ironic, that she is in this video at all, what with her relation to a church so questionable that she is reduced to consultant status simply because she belongs to that church.

So. Because of the naughtiness of the Episcopal Church in ordaining gay bishops, Dr Grieb is already sidelined in the committee by some authority or other in the Anglican Communion, and yet she tells us not to worry. The covenant will apply to the church 'just as we are'. But, as Mark says further:

The real question IS about the future. If we sign or not, "where do we go from here?" If we sign, we will surely be disciplined and / or politically pressured and we will fight against that and be called divisive. If we do not, we will surely be called divisive for not signing.

To me, adopting or not adopting the proposed Anglican Covenant looks more and more like a Catch-22 situation for the Episcopal Church.

A further irony is that the videos were produced by (IASCUFO), a committee which is under the authority of the Anglican Communion Office, which is funded by all of the provinces in the Communion. Why then are the reflections in the videos entirely pro-covenant? If each province must decide whether to adopt the covenant or not, there is the possibility that not all will decide to adopt. Wouldn't it be fairer to present both pro and con material on whether the proposed covenant is the proper solution to the present disagreements in the Anglican Communion? Is no one at all on the committee entertaining doubts about whether the best way forward is to draw provinces of the communion together by exclusion or reduction to a lower status of certain present member provinces?

Have I mentioned that the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity Faith and Order reminds me of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of the Roman Catholic Church, which began life as the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition? I'm sure the resemblance is purely coincidental.

MARK ASKS A QUESTION

Mark Harris at Preludium asks:

Is Julian Linnell an ACNA member on an Anglican Communion group?

The AC group is the Evangelism and Church Growth Initiative (ECGI).

Read Mark's entire post and the comments.

Paul Powers says in the comments:

He's on a list of clergy in Pittsburgh who have been released from licensed ministry in the Episcopal Church.

http://www.episcopalpgh.org/wp-content/uploads/file/2010DioConv/2010PreconventionPacket09162010v2.pdf

(go to page D-14).

I said in the comments to Mark's post:

On the one hand, I have the sense that someone or more than one in the ACO may be trying to sneak something by us in TEC that will be the first step in having parallel churches recognized as part of the AC here in the US.

On the other hand, I wonder if the folks in the ACO even know to which church the Rev Dr Linnell belongs.

Some might say, I'm a tad suspicious, and I would not quarrel with them.

UPDATE: Mark has more information at Preludium.

Following up on my earlier post in which I asked "Is Julian Linnell an ACNA member of an Anglican Communion group?" the answer appears to be "yes." Thanks to several readers who found additional information on this.

Read the rest.