ENS: Standing Committee members celebrate commitment to transparency

Posted by Kendall Harmon

Read it all.

Filed under: * Anglican - EpiscopalAnglican Consultative CouncilEpiscopal Church (TEC)

40 Comments
Posted July 27, 2010 at 7:15 pm [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]



1. Pageantmaster ن [Repent Justin Welby] wrote:

I suppose we are all supposed to welcome the Covenant with this Standing Committee exercising authority under it?  This has shot that idea completely out of the air.

The machinations of Williams, Kearon and Rees surrounding this meeting and the gerrymandering of Trisk and Douglas onto it have been anything but transparent, but exactly what we have come to expect from the artless dodger after Dar, and during New Orleans, Lambeth, and Jamaica.  The shenanigans over the Articles, outrage not only those like me at the disregard for the rule of law, but also those such as Lionel Deimel who as ever has some thoughtful and perceptive analysis.  Williams really has plumbed the depths this time - is he incapable of dealing with anything in a straightforward, principled and law abiding manner?  Does he in his arrogance, believe that he and the Welsh mafia are above the law?    I hope he is taken to task by the Primates for his abuse, and they dictate both the program and timing of the next meeting they have, with or without the agreement of Williams, the ACO or the “Standing Committee”.  Williams is the biggest problem the Anglican Communion has in resolving its current problems, and governance needs to be put on a firmer footing than his mercurial and authoritarian whim and flip-flopping.

Anyone with any respect for the rule of law will have been repulsed with what has gone on this week with the “Standing Committee”.

I hope someone does a really thorough job analysing these events.  That will indeed offer “transparency”.

July 27, 8:29 pm | [comment link]
2. David Wilson wrote:

PM - Repulsed is too weak a word, the headline was bad enough but the content was even worse.  I used to have a lot of respect for Ian Douglas—now I have none.  Does he not have any decency, any remorse or does the TEC agenda trump everything?

July 27, 8:53 pm | [comment link]
3. Sarah wrote:

RE: “I hope he is taken to task by the Primates for his abuse, and they dictate both the program and timing of the next meeting they have, with or without the agreement of Williams, the ACO or the “Standing Committee”.”

I, on the other hand, hope very much that those Primates of principle and integrity will not attend the Primates meeting, refusing to play Williams’s game.  History shows—in spades—that Williams holds all the cards at his own meetings and his own turf.  It’s playing his game, on his home court, with his referees, his rules, his locker rooms, his fans . . . it’s all his.

Enough.  They should not play his game.  They should refuse to show up at his “table” and refuse to help him try to act as if “all is well” in the Anglican Communion.

July 27, 9:23 pm | [comment link]
4. paradoxymoron wrote:

“No question now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
- George Orwell, Animal Farm

July 27, 10:17 pm | [comment link]
5. William Witt wrote:

Sarah,

I respectfully disagree.  If I read the article correctly, it is the Primates who decide who serves on the Standing Committee.  I would hope that the Primates would meet, would depose those on the Standing Committee who represent churches that have violated the requests of Windsor and Dar Es Salaam, and replace them with representatives committed to biblical and catholic faith.  I would hope that, under these conditions, they would ask Archbishops Anis and Orombi to return.

Do I think it is likely?  Not very. But life is full of surprises.

July 27, 10:18 pm | [comment link]
6. francis wrote:

Transparency, as in overhead projector use?

July 27, 10:40 pm | [comment link]
7. Ed McNeill wrote:

Well this is more forthcoming than I expected, but then it is released ahead of the daily reports that are to follow.  You can only spin so much even when you do get ahead of the news.  I found this quote from Bp. Douglas to be most interesting.

“There was a sense that we didn’t want to participate in the diminishing of our voices any further and we realized that it was not within our authority to make decisions about who can and cannot participate in which discussion,” Douglas said, noting that it was the responsibility of the ACC and the Primates Meeting, which elected the committee members, to respond to such questions.

Unexpected hubris or did TEC leadership get an earful?

July 28, 12:47 am | [comment link]
8. Martin Reynolds wrote:

Pageantmater must note that the “Welsh Mafia” which has demonstrably been (mis)managing Anglican affairs for the last seven years has been severely incapacitated by the absence of my friend Gregory Cameron.

Now we have to rely on just Rowan (my former neighbour)- Barry (my old mate) and John Rees (from my old parish) and as you might imagine we have a hard time making sure EVERYTHING we decide here in Welsh secret conclave actually happens. Though I do think we have a better record of influence than, well, shall we say poor old Chris Sugden - bless him!

July 28, 6:53 am | [comment link]
9. Pageantmaster ن [Repent Justin Welby] wrote:

#8 Many thanks Rev Reynolds - I had wondered what had happened to Gregory Cameron.  What have you done with him - locked him up in St Asaph and taken away his passport?

Anyway as you say, Williams and Rees have managed to make a fine old pigs ear of things on their own without him on this occasion.  There is nothing anyone else could do more damaging than the laughing stock they have managed to reduce their wretched Standing Committee to.  Kearon, well supposedly he is Irish, but the Irish church just seem to want to have nothing to do with him.

Bless you - let us know if you sight Gregory Cameron in your travels.

July 28, 7:08 am | [comment link]
10. Pageantmaster ن [Repent Justin Welby] wrote:

#3 Sarah
“I, on the other hand, hope very much that those Primates of principle and integrity will not attend the Primates meeting, refusing to play Williams’s game.”
I agree that the Primates should not play Williams’ game, but not turning up?  We have seen from TEC how successful that strategy has been.  It is the lack of engagement of people in TEC over the years that has enabled the take over by the heretics with their denial of the trinity, divinity of Christ, and all the rest.

However, the Anglican Communion is different.  The heretics comprise a small number, mostly from white liberal provinces.  I agree the Standing Committee is beyond redemption with its built in bias to the liberal white provinces.  Anyone else turning up merely gives credence to them as being somehow ‘representative’ and after this fiasco no one should turn up.

However the Communion has a right to control over its meetings and order.  The vast majority must engage and take things back to the pre-Williams era, where the churches collected together, took decisions democratically and in a conciliar fashion, and expected their appointed representatives and bureacracy to carry that through.

That means dismantling all that Williams has put in place - the useless Standing Committee, with its bogus articles, Indaba, scheming in Lambeth Palace and St Andrews House to subvert the other Instruments, the promotion of the Standing Committee to controlling all the other Instruments, calling their meetings, setting their agendas and Indabaing the results of such meetings as they are permitted.

There is a need for the Communion to return to proper process and the rule of law and for its provinces to take back their rightful say in where it goes.

Leaving the field at the Primates Meeting is not the way to achieve this.  At the Primates Meeting it is also essential that Williams’ wings are clipped and he is returned to be first, among EQUALS.  Kearon and the ACO should be replaced, but again that will require involvement and financial commitment by other provinces which won’t happen while Kearon and his staff are in place.  Out need to go Kearon, Butter-fingers and all the rest.

In the meantime no one should finance Kearon and the ACO, and under no circumstances should the Primates let go their connection with ACNA congregations in the US and Canada.    That is indeed to play Williams’ game.

July 28, 7:28 am | [comment link]
11. Sarah wrote:

Hi William Witt—I have not discovered that the Primates determine who is on the Standing Committee at all!

Can you share where you are reading that?

I do understand that the Primates elect ones of the Primates—but as that is by region anyway, it won’t matter.  Obviously there’s no way that Brazil, Canada, et al won’t elect Schori. 

So it really doesn’t matter at the end of the day.  The Primates meet, elect one another to the Standing Committee, Schori attends—flagrantly heretical that she is, and Orombi doesn’t.

The orthodox Primates really really really really need to cease running at the football, which RW will always snatch away.  It was clear from the invitations to Lambeth onward through the DAR manipulations—if not far earlier—that RW was never going to allow the identity of the members in the Anglican Communion to change or establish Communion discipline, and in fact that he would do all in his power to inhibit such a thing.  Further, there is no majority of orthodox Primates anyway—at least, orthodox Primates that actually believe that Communion discipline should occur.  So all that Orombi, et al, do when they show up for the game played on Rowan’s turf and by Rowan’s rules is supply some further legitimacy to what he is doing and the game of “let’s all gather together, proving that we are not divided” that he plays.

Further, as has also been demonstrated in spades in the aftermath of DAR, it matters not what the Primates decide anyway, even were they to all gather together and enact discipline.  RW and his various apparatchiks will thwart it.

They really need to pull back from further involvement in this tedious and laughably obvious charade.  Let RW preside over his Primates—the revisionists and the weak moderates who are unable to not show up at Rowan’s game.

July 28, 7:52 am | [comment link]
12. Connecticutian wrote:

This is admittedly a rabbit trail, but it bugs me:

The committee also heard about the progress towards establishing an alliance intended to develop a more coordinated and collaborative approach to relief, development and advocacy work in the Anglican Communion.

Good heavens, passive hearing about vague progress in maybe creating some unnamed alliance that intends - if it materializes - to develop an approach.  Without regard to what the goal is, doesn’t this precisely illustrate what’s wrong with governments and committees everywhere, and with the AC in particular?  My goodness, you’re leaders… DO something.

And again:

Through the alliance, Douglas said, “there is great hope and possibility for more effective and united service on behalf of the poor and marginalized of the world.”

I’m sure the poor and marginalized are dancing in the streets with hope over the possibility that the unnamed alliance has heard about somebody thinking about maybe doing something to find a better way to do something about their plight.

July 28, 8:53 am | [comment link]
13. Philip Snyder wrote:

I believe that the tactic that the Global South should take is one of proportional representation.  Ask for a more “democratic” polity to the ACC and the Standing Committee.  Indicate that you do not want to exclude voices from the table, but that you want to be sure that the voices are heard.  So, the ACC membership schedule should be reformed to have the Primate of each province, plus one member for every X thousand ASA.  Then the ACC selects the Standing Committee based on votes from the ACC and not based on continental assignment.  The primates can appoint their SC members by a vote within the primates meeting.

No one ever won a battle by leaving the field of battle and we are in a battle - one that we must use the wisdom of serpents and the innocence of doves to win.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

July 28, 8:53 am | [comment link]
14. Milton wrote:

Real transparency would be for Rowan the Archdruid to admit that he has tacitly sheltered ECUSA, stymied reasserters, subverted communion discipline and in every way possible furthered the revisionist and same-sex blessings/marriage agenda all along, and that henceforth he will continue to do so, but openly and unashamedly.

It is transparent to anyone outside Lambeth and 815 2nd Ave. NY that the emperor has no clothes at all.

July 28, 9:34 am | [comment link]
15. pendennis88 wrote:

Yes, now that the Standing Committee has ceased to have any legitimacy, what next?  Williams is presumably going to try to pull off another primates’ meeting.  Will the global south even bother to attend?  For the reason that they may not wish to cede the field to TEC, they might do so.  On the other hand, given the prior duplicity of the ABC, will they write it off as a lost cause at best or a trap at worst, and go about their business?  Do the resignations of such as Anis and Orombi simply indicate that there is no general agreement that any of the instruments of the communion is even functioning any more?  Will they simply start creating their own de facto instruments, and participate only in them?

The thing is, I wonder if the global south primates even want to be in a battle with the Archbishop of Canterbury as he persists on his course in opposition to the larger orthodox majority.  If they do not, if they percieve the effort as fruitless or they doubt the Archbishop will act honourably in his dealings with based on past behaviour, it is difficult to see any consequence other than that they will cease to pay attention to him and instead functionally split into a separate communion.

July 28, 9:41 am | [comment link]
16. Robert Lundy wrote:

I believe that the Primates elect who will represent them on the Standing Comimttee. The ACC elects who will represent them on the Standing Committee. Of course, the rules are made up as we go along but this is what the referees say the rules currently are.

July 28, 9:52 am | [comment link]
17. Sarah wrote:

Pageantmaster—I see all the things that you think *should* happen.  But again—those things have *not* happened, nor *can* they happen, since RW is in charge.  All of the sturm und drang about Trask and Ian Douglas—and of course, precisely what was to be expected .. . happened.  The bodies in question do not play by anyone’s rules but their leaders.

RE: “I agree that the Primates should not play Williams’ game, but not turning up?”

Yup—not turning up.  The bluff needs to be called—RW has *plenty of power* to not invite Schori.  Let him not invite Schori, then, and then they can show up.

Invitation to Schori = orthodox Primates not showing up

Of course, this was the cry back 6 months ago . . . but as I expected, those still desperately clinging to the idea that the institution will right itself are now backing off of that idea.  Why?  Because RW is calling *their* bluff.

No more bluffing needs to occur.  You’re a business man.  You know and I know that if one does not have the power and the ability to walk away from the game, one will never get anywhere.  The Primates need to be willing to walk away from the game.

RE: “It is the lack of engagement of people in TEC over the years that has enabled the take over by the heretics with their denial of the trinity, divinity of Christ, and all the rest.”

True—the revisionists acquired the levers of power with the traditionalists’ willing compliance and passivity and cowardice and disinvolvement.

And the precise same thing has happened to the Communion Instruments as well.

The ACC—long long gone—just like TEC—and irreformable since obviously it’s never ever going to revise its rules to make representation even

The Primates Meeting—led by RW—the revisionist.  He holds the lever of power and his willing allies in the revisionists and the moderates make up a clear majority.

Lambeth—led by RW [exhibit A, the pathetic and ridiculous Lambeth Meeting of 2008]—the revisionist.  He holds the lever of power in invitation and in agenda setting.  Period.  That was well and thoroughly demonstrated by the ghastly spectacle last time.

Canterbury—ditto.  Led by RW, the revisionist.

RE: “The heretics comprise a small number, mostly from white liberal provinces.”

Oh—that’s actually the same for TEC as well.  The heretics do comprise a minority.

But they hold the levers of power.

End of story.  End of game.

The same, PM, is true for the Communion as well.  No matter how large the Global South is, the GS does not hold the levers of power.  The revisionists do—with Rowan, the ACC, the Primates Meeting, etc.

And that will be proven—YET ONCE MORE—at this next Primates Meeting.

RW will invite Schori.

Some Primates will—rightly—fulfill their pledge not to show.

Others will attend and the Primates Meeting will be completed as we all know it will be completed.

Why?  Because RW is a revisionist and he WILL NOT ALLOW the Communion to discipline TEC or delete it from the halls of power.

July 28, 10:05 am | [comment link]
18. Pageantmaster ن [Repent Justin Welby] wrote:

Hello Sarah
The only thing which interests Rowan Williams and Lambeth Palace is their own position and pre-eminence.  I have long said that the only time you will see the ABC move and do the right thing is when his own position is on the line.

If he would but know it, in Singapore the Global South provinces threw him a lifeline and a mandate to bring things back into order.  They required the restoration of the authority of the Primates Meeting of the Provinces, and the control of the Covenant process to be restored to the Primates rather than the flawed Standing Committee.

Instead, in a panic Rees registered the ACC a few days before the Standing Committee meeting and then used their articles to advise that having ‘fixed’ the issue, the illegal attendance of Trisk and Douglas could now go through.

He only maintains his control by dividing the orthodox provinces, and instead of taking the advice of the Singapore meeting, the united meeting mind you, Williams has blown them a raspberry and carried on in his old manipulative and dishonest ways.    This will continue as long as people like +John Chew and +Tengatenga continue to provide him with cover and prop him up.

There is no magic to the Primates reestablishing their control.  Rather than pay money to the ACO, they use the funds to organise their next meeting, haveing made sure they have the backing of their own bishops and synods, and then make arrangements for a proper democratic constitution.  Williams and the ACO should not be included in this process although Williams should be invited.

Quite simple - when there is taxation without representation, that is what happens - proper democratic process replaces despotism - after all Sarah, isn’t that how your own country was formed?  And if Americans can do it, so can anyone else.

But at core that relies on the Global South speaking with one voice and not being deflected by the trouble making and mischief from Lambeth Palace and the ACO.    They will hear a lot of rubbish about how central Williams is, what a focus of unity he is , how you can’t be an Anglican without him.  They should ignore it all and bring him to heel.    Organised meetings electing their own standing committees with pre-agreed future meetings and which set their own agenda, rather than having them manipulated by Williams and his Standing Committee are the way forward.    Five years of Williams’ crap is enough - it is time for the Anglican Communion to grow up and take charge in a grown up fashion rather than driven up the wall by Williams’ infantalising efforts.

July 28, 11:25 am | [comment link]
19. evan miller wrote:

Sarah,
I don’t see how you can argue for the Primates to in effect cede the Communion to the revisionists while at the same time electing yourself to remain in TEC.  It’s the same thing.  Does one remain in an apostate institution and try to remain faithful, or does one bale out and leave the field, ceding the brand to those who use it to advance evil?

July 28, 11:59 am | [comment link]
20. Ross wrote:

#13 Philip Snyder says:

I believe that the tactic that the Global South should take is one of proportional representation.  Ask for a more “democratic” polity to the ACC and the Standing Committee.  Indicate that you do not want to exclude voices from the table, but that you want to be sure that the voices are heard.  So, the ACC membership schedule should be reformed to have the Primate of each province, plus one member for every X thousand ASA.  Then the ACC selects the Standing Committee based on votes from the ACC and not based on continental assignment.  The primates can appoint their SC members by a vote within the primates meeting.

In theory, the one of the Instruments that would most naturally reflect true proportional membership would be Lambeth… or at least it would if it were the case that all provinces carried roughly the same proportion of bishops to membership, which it is not.  In any event, Lambeth meets too infrequently to be much more than a talking shop.

I think your proposal would make the ACC unwieldly large.  You could instead do it something like the U.S. House of Representatives—fix the number of members at some convenient number N, and then periodically adjust the number of representatives each province gets to be as proportional to their membership as possible, given that everyone has to have at least one rep and the total adds to N.  Alternatively, you could just say, “If your membership is 0 to X, you get one rep; X to Y, two reps; greater than Y, three”; which would be simpler, but would mute the difference between the large provinces and the really large provinces.

The Primates’ Meeting, of course, would be like the U.S. Senate; each province gets one member regardless of size.  The next step would be to balance the powers of these two bodies, much as the U.S. Constitution does.

None of which is likely to happen, of course.  Rather than rebuilding the ACC and/or the Standing Committee, the reasserting GS provinces seem to be concentrating on their own structures (GAFCON, the South-to-South meetings, etc.) and increasingly ignoring the existing institutions of the Communion as irrelevant to them.

July 28, 12:14 pm | [comment link]
21. Sarah wrote:

RE: “I don’t see how you can argue for the Primates to in effect cede the Communion to the revisionists while at the same time electing yourself to remain in TEC.”

I don’t follow anything of what you wrote.

How is refusing to be a part of RW’s games—on his field and with his referees and his rules—ceding the Communion to the revisionists?

I don’t advocate for people to go to GC either—the TEC revisionist activists have won at the GC level.  Nor will TEC be saved—until it is a smoldering pile of rubble, which it is fast hurtling towards.

So none of your above statements make any sense at all.  The Primates should *not* leave the AC—they should remain.  I hope that people will *not* leave TEC—they should remain.

The best chance for *saving* the Anglican Communion—as I’ve pointed out for YEARS now—is to recognize that RW only does something when he feels *shrieking pain*.

Shrieking pain only will occur for RW when the Communion literally falls apart.  Continuing to attend his little meetings and sit at his table where he can placidly survey the parties and comment about how wonderful it is that we are still united in the midst of our turmoil because look—everybody is still gathering together for dialogue—falls right into his entire ethos and philosophy of life, for heaven’s sakes!

It gives him what he wants. 

PM, re: “I have long said that the only time you will see the ABC move and do the right thing is when his own position is on the line.”

Right—and so giving him what he wants and showing up to his little meetings is shoring up his position.  That’s a bad thing, not a good thing.

RE: “Rather than pay money to the ACO, they use the funds to organise their next meeting, haveing made sure they have the backing of their own bishops and synods, and then make arrangements for a proper democratic constitution.  Williams and the ACO should not be included in this process although Williams should be invited.”

I think that’s a marvelous idea—what does it have to do with the Primates attending the RW-called “Primates Meeting”?  The two are separate things.

Once you’re on his fields with his referees and his rules you surrender being able to control and organize, PM.  I wholeheartedly agree that they should call their own Primates Meeting rather than attend his little meeting.  Perhaps a dozen or so will attend—but that’s a start.

July 28, 12:16 pm | [comment link]
22. Pageantmaster ن [Repent Justin Welby] wrote:

The best chance for *saving* the Anglican Communion—as I’ve pointed out for YEARS now—is to recognize that RW only does something when he feels *shrieking pain*.

Shrieking pain only will occur for RW when the Communion literally falls apart.  Continuing to attend his little meetings and sit at his table where he can placidly survey the parties and comment about how wonderful it is that we are still united in the midst of our turmoil because look—everybody is still gathering together for dialogue—falls right into his entire ethos and philosophy of life, for heaven’s sakes!

I agree about Williams only reacting to ‘shrieking pain’ but disagree about what its definition is as far as he is concerned.    He will be upset about the Communion falling apart, but that is not enough to make him respond - after all the evidence is that it has been falling apart since 2003.  He has alienated the vast majority who do not attend ANY of his meetings, whether Lambeth, ACC or let alone Standing Committee.    This includes the largest provinces in the Communion.    No this is not enough.

I maintain that the ONLY thing which constitutes “shrieking pain” for the Archbishop is much more personal.  It is when he is at imminent risk of being sidelined and replaced.  It is all about power, and the ability to control things - and in particular to push the Communion in a liberal direction.    The indications are that he has decided to go for broke with his Standing Committee, and to push the Indaba Listening Process funded by the TEC lady as hard as he can, to reach an inclusive conclusion as soon as possible.  He can only do this if he is in charge, and that is the key.

He will ONLY act when his position is threatened.  That is the key, and the only thing he and the English HOB really care about, their own pre-eminence.

But the Communion needs to grow up, and replace arbitrary and patronising manipulation with proper democratic representation and decision-making - as used to happen before Indabamania and the Delphi Technique were instituted by Williams.

As for the Primates having their own meeting and setting their own agenda.    It is only in the mad world of Anglicanism, where a majority of members of a body could not call a meeting of themselves and decide what is on the agenda, discuss it, and make decisions without the sociopathic interference of the ‘first among equals’.    It is time for us all to grow up.  If you want a model of what this could look like, the Global South Encounter in Singapore is a pretty good example to take.

July 28, 12:42 pm | [comment link]
23. New Reformation Advocate wrote:

I’m actually quite sympathetic to Sarah’s argument.  It’s futile to play along with ++RW’s games.  He has, once again, shown himself to be either powerless to oppose the heretical ilk in high places in the AC, or spineless, or downright duplicitous and treacherous.  Or all the above on alternate days.  Or all at the same time, but to different degrees.

But I have to agree with David Wilson above, except not only with regard to +Ian Douglas (since I never had very much respect for him, I’ve had less to lose).  More importantly, these sorts of utterly shameless shenanigans have turned my initial resecpt for ++RW as an academic theologian into outright loathing for him as either a wimp, or a traitor, or more likely as simply a learned fool who’s utterly deceived by our Enemy Below as to what’s best (or again, as all the above on alternate days). 

Allowing the nefarious PB and +Douglas to participate in the Standing Committee, not to mention other anti-Covenant jerks like Canon Trisk who were obviously disqualified, is a sign of greater transparency alright.  As was his unilateral decision to void the Primates’ deadline agreed upon in Tanzania in 2005, or his unilateral decision to invite Robinson’s consecrators to Lambeth in 2008.  No one else can be blamed for those disastrous debacles. 

This SC meeting is merely the latest sign of where Cantaur’s loyalties and priorities really lie.  Isn’t it clear by now that only fools pay attention to his words?  All that matters is his actions.  And alas, they plainly show that the man who sits on the great stone cathedra in Canterbury simply can’t and shouldn’t be trusted. 

Has this SC spectacle (as well as the even worse ENS report) been repulsive?  Yes. 

Disgusting?  Yes. 

But is it really surprising?  Not at all, unless you still entertain delusional fantasies about the man at the hub of the AC.

Of course, I agree with Deacon Phil’s idea (#13) about the desperate need for totally overhauling both the ACC and its SC in order to make them properly representative of worldwide Anglicanism.  That is, it’s imperative that international representation on these bodies now mirror the actual number of Anglicans being represented (i.e., people, not provinces or continents).  I’ve called for that myself, repeatedly, here at T19. 

But what are the practical chances for achieving that highly desirable reform??

Probably about the same as the chance that it will snow today in Richmond.  Somewhere between nil and none.

But that means that the GS primates have to get their act together and ACT forcefully, together.  Which means, for all practical purposes, TAKING OVER the reins from Cantaur and pushing him aside as the worthless, untrustworthy man that he’s become.

IOW, a New Reformation.  Which like the original 16th century Reformation, has become, as Jaroslav Pelikan famously said, “a tragic necessity.”

David Handy+

July 28, 12:46 pm | [comment link]
24. tired wrote:

I guess I could see using the word transparency if they are referring to the transparent manipulation and the patent stacking of the committee.  In that respect, I would also suggest they do appear rather committed.  And it is no wonder that they would celebrate such commitment. 

rolleyes

“I have known a vast quantity of nonsense talked about bad men not looking you in the face. Don’t trust that conventional idea. Dishonesty will stare honesty out of countenance any day in the week, if there is anything to be got by it.”


-Charles Dickens

July 28, 12:51 pm | [comment link]
25. New Reformation Advocate wrote:

And by that I mean the orthodox primates simply act on their own and blithely ignore Cantaur, and refuse to grant him any power whatsoever.  If he’s merely “the first among equals,” then treat as no more than that, i.e., merely as another liberal primate with unbiblical views from a small, relatively insignificant western province.  Even if historically Canterbury (and the mother CoE) has been far more.

It’s time to start thinking the unthinkable.  Or just stay away and let the AC (at least as reflected in its formal international structures) proceed to self-destruct.

David Handy+

July 28, 12:56 pm | [comment link]
26. Pageantmaster ن [Repent Justin Welby] wrote:

#25 Rev Handy
“just stay away and let the AC (at least as reflected in its formal international structures) proceed to self-destruct.”

A pity in my view to just give up on it - the Anglican Communion, perhaps even a Covenanted Communion is worth much more than that in my view, for reasons to long to go into here.

But there is a crisis of governance.    A crisis of disobedience initiated by TEC and ACoC has been used to create a crisis of governance, as Williams has on the one hand sought to subvert and marginalise the existing structures and on the other to centralise control in himself and the Vichy structures he has had a hand in creating such as the overbearing and awful ‘Standing Committee’.

No - what is needed is not for people to stay away, except for any of Rowan’s Vichy constructions.  Instead the Communion structures need to be rebuilt and restored from the ground up, and a starting point for that will be a meeting of the Primates, organised among themselves, in the same way that Singapore was.    This is the only way we are going to restore democratic control and move out of the liberal hegemony of Williams and into a grown up Communion of Anglican believers.    And I do believe that Anglicanism continues to offer the world something very precious and worthwhile in service of Jesus Christ.

July 28, 1:06 pm | [comment link]
27. Katherine wrote:

IMO the Primates should refuse to attend any Primates’ Meeting unless they are guaranteed that Shori will not be in attendance.

July 28, 1:48 pm | [comment link]
28. Pageantmaster ن [Repent Justin Welby] wrote:

The problem is, Katherine, that even if the PB is not there, the fundamental issue of the usurpation of power by this liberal unrepresentative Standing Committee remains - that is something both Rowan and Schori might be willing to accept so long as nothing happens to TEC!    The problem is the manipulative way Rowan runs everything, as Sarah says, and not all this can be laid at the door of the PB.

July 28, 1:54 pm | [comment link]
29. Katherine wrote:

Oh, Pageantmaster, I don’t think Shori pulls Williams’ strings.  He is doing this of his own volition.  Unfortunately the situation is that the GS people are going to need to stop participating in any tainted proceedings, which includes just about everything organized from or by Lambeth, Williams, ACC, ACO.  The old core of the Communion is in the process of amputating itself from the vibrant growth.

July 28, 2:08 pm | [comment link]
30. pendennis88 wrote:

IF the primates’ meeting comes together - no certain thing - one wonders if Dato Isaacs will have lit a long fuse that comes back in the form of a call from some primates for a similar vote at their conclave.  Of course, I would expect Williams to consider not calling the meeting if he knew that to be the case.

Probably much behind the scenes to-ing and fro-ing at the moment.  Though to a great degree, it looks like the part of the communion that Williams influences is shrinking rapidly.  Indeed, the whole communion looks like a sand castle on the beach dissolving with each closer wave.

July 28, 2:09 pm | [comment link]
31. Pageantmaster ن [Repent Justin Welby] wrote:

I think that any organisation which operates with rules which are not mutually agreed and transparent, and whose members to not feel they ‘own’ it and its processes is in trouble.  When the largest and most numerous of its members feel that they are not listened to and they are marginalised in voting then decay and perhaps rebellion will not be far away.

This charade of a meeting of the ‘Standing Committee’ brings this clearly into focus.    The only way to deal with it is for the members to take charge and put something more representative in place.

Frankly the Communion deserves better than what Rowan Williams and his cohorts offer - marginalisation, manipulation, and a patronising arrogance.

As for transparency - for me when any body trumpets: “look how transparent we are” it rings all the alarm bells for me, and it needs close inspection.  Much as if a person tells you “I am the most honest person you have ever met” - it would not occur to a truly honest person to tell you that would it?

July 28, 2:37 pm | [comment link]
32. palagious wrote:

...an “organisation which operates with rules which are not mutually agreed and transparent”, in the military we would refer to such an organization as “ROGUE”.

July 28, 3:44 pm | [comment link]
33. Karen B. wrote:

I’m all for a separately organized Primates’ meeting, and think we’ll probably see something along those lines quite soon.  But I don’t see a separate Primates’ meeting necessarily as a panacea.  We’ve already had GAFCON and the Global South encounters.  I don’t have the numbers handy (it’s been quite awhile since my days of trying to track various Primates’ every statement and try to figure out what camp they’re in), but my GUESS is that you’ve got maybe 10-12 “GAFCON” Primates and around 20 “Global South primates”.

If you read Martyn Minn’s pastoral address to the CANA council, he describes in quite vivid detail the lack of theological coherence and unity when it came time to draft the Singapore communique.  So… the problem is what group of Primates could reasonably be expected to show up for an alternate Primates meeting?  I’m guessing it would only be the GAFCON Primates.  But that would risk pushing some of the more moderate Global South Primates into the arms of the revisionists.  There is no obvious easy answer here.

July 28, 4:39 pm | [comment link]
34. Karen B. wrote:

More directly on topic to the headline and the main focus of the ENS article, Frank Lockwood at BibleBelt Blogger has a wonderful post about this!!

Can anybody spot the irony in this story???

The Episcopal News Service just moved a story titled

  Standing Committee members celebrate commitment to transparency

It’s a story about a five-day long, closed-door meeting of the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion which met in London.

When they weren’t celebrating their commitment to transparency, members of the Standing Committee held an election to fill an open seat. Last time I checked, the committee had not revealed the name of the person who was elected or the vote totals. The winner’s name will be revealed when and if he accepts the post, it was explained.

You won’t find many independent news accounts about the Standing Committee members celebrating their commitment to transparency during their five-day-long meeting in London because the meeting was closed to the public and to the press.

here:
http://biblebeltblogger.com/index.php/religion/can-anybody-spot-the-irony-in-this-story

July 28, 4:51 pm | [comment link]
35. Katherine wrote:

#34 Karen B, excellent link.  “Transparency” is pretty nearly the opposite of what’s been going on.

July 28, 8:38 pm | [comment link]
36. miserable sinner wrote:

“Throughout the five days of closed sessions, the 14 committee members heard about efforts to improve communication . . .”

Their commitment to ‘transparency’ rivals TEC’s commitment to ‘listening’.

Peace,
-ms

July 28, 9:55 pm | [comment link]
37. Larry Morse wrote:

#26 There is indeed a crisis of governance. Your suggestion has merit, but how do you propose to set it in motion? Who has the drive and the will to organize such a grass roots restructuring? I can see no one anyh where who is up to this task. Do you?  Larry

July 29, 8:26 am | [comment link]
38. Pageantmaster ن [Repent Justin Welby] wrote:

#37 I believe the majority of the Global South has the ability, knowledge, and faithful will to do this LM.  However the key, as it always has been, is its unity.  So far Lambeth Palace has been able to keep the Global South elements divided, strangely enough by their attitude to Lambeth Palace.  However we are seeing the different elements, GAFCON provinces and the moderate Global South provinces, ACNA/FCA and Communion Partners/institutional Anglicans coming to a similar conclusion about Lambeth Palace.    There is universal unhappiness about Lambeth Palace’s actions, which the latest power grab in the ACC Articles and gerrymandering in the Standing Committee bring into focus.

I think the impetus for this will come, if from anywhere, from those who attended the Global South Encounter in Singapore.  They will experience a huge effort to deflect them coming on one side from the Lambeth Palace friends [the few that are left] and on the other side from the TEC client provinces.  However even these pro-Lambeth friends and TEC client provinces have been getting restive with their Western linkages recently - witness the criticism of the Presiding Bishop by the Primate of Southern Africa in the UK recently, and the action taken by Mexico to sign up to the Covenant.  Listening to the efforts of SE Asia in the Standing Committee this week, it sound as if elements there are most unhappy with the way things are being handled by Rowan Williams and the Standing Committee.    Moreover, like me, I suspect many are unhappy by the implicit targetting by Lambeth Palace of the GAFCON provinces with ACNA linkages, something beyond the remit of the Archbishop, and put into focus by his manifest failure to provide for faithful Anglicans in America, both inside and outside TEC.  Indeed at times his hand behind the scenes working to frustrate them has been more than evident.    If people play Williams’ game by his rules, he will always let them down, always disappoint, and always undermine them.

Hope, if there is such, lies with our dear friends and colleagues in the Global South, although it is hard to ask them to do more as there has been an enormous cost to them of all the wonderful work they have done in the last few years; all of them.

July 29, 9:06 am | [comment link]
39. pendennis88 wrote:

The illegitimacy of the ACC and the Standing Committee may claim some of the legitimacy of the Archbishop’s own role in the future as things are heading.  Astonishing that it could be mismanaged to such a point, when one looks back at it.

July 29, 12:33 pm | [comment link]
40. New Reformation Advocate wrote:

Pageantmaster (#26),

We’re probably not as far apart as it might seem at first sight.  I fully agree that classical Anglicanism is a very precious thing, and I don’t think God is finished with it yet.  But I guess I’d make a clearer distinction between Anglicanism, as an ism, and the AC (in its political, international aspect) as its current main embodiment, i.e., as a motley collection of provinces with no coherence in terms of Doctrine or Discipline. 

For example, as a priest in the ACNA, I’m currently outside the formal structures of the AC.  And yet my diocese, under +John Guernsey, is actually FAR more Anglican, more truly Anglican in all the ways that really count, than most dioceses in TEC.

What I sense, and I could be wrong of course, is that you are loathe to acknowledge that the Anglican Communion, AS WE HAVE KNOWN IT, may have to go through a virtual death and resurrection experience in order to become all it’s meant to be.  As I’ve argued elsewhere on other threads, we need to make a fundamental distinction between the classical Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship of the Anglican tradition and its present, fatally flawed institutional manifestations.  The former is the precious kernel that must be kept at all costs.  The latter is the disposable husk that’s actually quite expendable (IMHO).

Please don’t misunderstand me.  I’m not predicting the demise of the provinces or dioceses or healthy churches within the AC (at least not the orthodox ones).  Rather, I’m talking about the death of the international structures that presently characterize the AC, which is actually a very peripheral, minor aspect of Anglicanism.  I’m saying that those quite minor, lately contrived international expressions of how Anglican provinces relate to each other are what must perhaps die, in order to be reborn.

I know things probably look a lot different to a Brit across the Pond.  Evangelical Anglicanism is far, far stronger over on your shores than it is here.  But my point is simply to affirm that I’m no more interested in giving up on Anglicanism than you are.  However, I may be much more open to the idea that the current institutional structures of the AC at the international level are hopelessly compromised and will have to be either replaced, or radically overhauled.

In any case, thanks for a typically thoughtful and charitable critique.

Amicably,
David Handy+

July 30, 12:10 pm | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.




Next entry (above): From the Morning Scripture Readings

Previous entry (below): Momentum for Federal Internet Privacy Rules Builds

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)