Chris Sugden and Phil Ashey: Report from ACC-14 Day Three

Posted by Kendall Harmon

One cannot help gain the impression of an unfair lack of even handedness while making up the rules as they go along.

The unseating of Rev Ashey is linked with the decision to be made about who can adhere to the Covenant. Those who have consistently defied the Communion for the last five years are in a position to lobby and vote to exclude provisions in the Ridley Draft Covenant whereby other entities ( dioceses in TEC or ACNA) can sign up to the Covenant while TEC itself wants to spend 5 years considering the question. They are also allowed to retake their seats in order to engage in such lobbying while in defiance of requests of the communion about abandoning lawsuits, while those who have defied the request on cross border jurisdiction (soon to become a dead letter when ACNA is formed in six weeks time), are denied the right to exercise their own choice of who their delegate at the meeting is.

We see here what appears to be a lack of fairness, evenhandedness and consistency applied to the advantage of those who have caused the current problems by departing from the teaching and practice of the Communion in faith and morals and to the disadvantage of those who have adhered to the teaching and practice of the Communion in faith and morals. And the former will this week try to prevent the latter from even being able to adhere to the Covenant process.

Read it all.

Filed under: * Anglican - Episcopal • Anglican Consultative Council • Anglican Covenant • Anglican Provinces • Church of Uganda

8 Comments
Posted May 5, 2009 at 6:02 am [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]



1. Br. Michael wrote:

So exactly how is this any surprise?

May 5, 7:10 am | [comment link]
2. tired wrote:

Check out the fruit.

“...a lack of fairness, evenhandedness and consistency…”

May 5, 7:13 am | [comment link]
3. dean wrote:

Perhaps some do not understand Uganda’s “unique polity” and its Baptismal theology.

May 5, 8:19 am | [comment link]
4. AnglicanFirst wrote:

“We see here what appears to be a lack of fairness, evenhandedness and consistency applied to the advantage of those who have caused the current problems by departing from the teaching and practice of the Communion in faith and morals and to the disadvantage of those who have adhered to the teaching and practice of the Communion in faith and morals. And the former will this week try to prevent the latter from even being able to adhere to the Covenant process.”
====================================================================

Welcome to the ‘new political order.’

Discussion of the issues based upon the facts and the merits of the arguments put forth no longer matters.  All debate is over once the revisionists have placed themeselves in any position of significant power/influence.

Any ‘seeming’ or ‘apparent’ debate is merely ‘window dressing’ meant to make any existing revisionist victories irreversible and to ‘pave the way’ for future revisionist incursions.

May 5, 8:43 am | [comment link]
5. dwstroudmd wrote:

More like the ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC “unique polity” (read money) reigns supreme here below - for the present.  A wonderful model of the kingdom intended to brought in by this “episcopal” organization.

May 5, 8:44 am | [comment link]
6. robroy wrote:

Again, I say that a standing committee of a legislative body does not have authority except when that legislative body is NOT in session. The correct protocol would have been to pose the question of “qualifiedness” to the ACC, itself. As it is, we have a Schorian usurpation of power.

We see quite clearly from their heavy handedness that the JSC is NOT the correct entity to determine all things Anglican. The Ridley draft needs to be rejected, but I am not sure how to do this to the advantage of faithful Anglicans.

May 5, 9:19 am | [comment link]
7. Sarah1 wrote:

RobRoy,

At last something that we can agree on from the past 24 hours:
“The Ridley draft needs to be rejected . . . “

All that needs to happen is for the Primates/Provinces of the Global South to ignore it and move on with their own plans, whatever those are, whether ACNA or some other strategy [if not ACNA].

May 5, 11:56 am | [comment link]
8. Fr. Dale wrote:

#6. robroy,

The Ridley draft needs to be rejected, but I am not sure how to do this to the advantage of faithful Anglicans.

I’m not sure what you mean by this statement. Are you looking for more “clarification”?
#7. Sarah,

At last something that we can agree on from the past 24 hours:“The Ridley draft needs to be rejected . . . “

I am not sure what you mean either.  Why would either of you want to see the Covenant draft be rejected? Is it an inadequate document? To me, rejecting the Covenant is like the AC making a vertical incision in the wrist.

May 5, 1:41 pm | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.



Next entry (above): LA Times: Same-sex marriages gradually gain legal ground

Previous entry (below): Statement from the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)