The Church Times has a lengthy report, Revealed: conservative plans to set up global network of ‘authentic’ Anglicans. This report says in part:
It is hard to see how the Anglican Global Initiative could exist within the existing Anglican Communion, even though the articles state that members should be “respectful of the historical role and authority entrusted to the Archbishop of Canterbury; the Primates’ Meeting, and the Lambeth Conference”. No mention is made anywhere of the other instrument of unity, the ACC.
The document proposes affiliating with other traditionalist organisations in North America and the United Kingdom, “as an authentic expression of the worldwide Anglican Communion”.
None of these others is named, but the document does refer to the Anglican Relief and Development Fund, which was established last autumn to channel aid from traditionalist parishes in the US ( News, 1 October). The Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes and the Anglican Communion Network were involved in its setting up.
The Church Times also republishes the full text of the AGI document here, and the Global South draft of the press release here.
The Church Times editorial is also about this, see Planning for a band of the like-minded. An extract from this:
Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Friday, 17 June 2005 at 8:01am BSTWe are disturbed, however, by the upsurge of organisations that define themselves as representing the only true spirit of Anglicanism, or, for that matter, of Christianity. We are relieved that the proposed Anglican Global Initiative is quiescent for the present; but the implications of a body of this kind are grave. It is, of course, laudable that its promoters wish to “hold to the centrality and authority of holy scripture”, to “propagate the historic faith and order”, and to “pursue the apostolic mission of the Church to a troubled and fallen world”. We concur with their desire to “alleviate human need and to provide an effective means to spread the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, while promoting unity through common action within the Anglican Communion”.
The problem is that, while everyone else in the Anglican Communion would also concur with these statements, it is clear that the framers of the articles have only a select band of parishes and dioceses in mind. The rest of the Church, by implication, has “schismatically separated itself from the fellowship of most members of the Anglican Communion”. Where and how the numbers divide is anyone’s guess. Moreover, there is always a good chance that if you are accusing others of schism, you may be schismatic yourself.
The Church Times analysis is helpful. The conservatives have spent altogether too much time and effort examining other peoples' consciences and deciding who belongs to their narrowly defined
band of the Orthodox. It is dangerous for their own spiritual health and disastrous for the mission of the Communion.
Dmitri: How would you describe "the mission of the Communion"?
Posted by: DGus on Friday, 17 June 2005 at 3:25pm BSTDGus
Good Question. Without meaning anything polemical I would say the mission of the Communion (the church in general) is to:
Celebrate the mass together; pray together; preach the good news that the Kingdom of heaven has drawn very near; heal the sick; feed the hungry; clothe the naked; shelter the homeless;
visit those in prison; bury the dead; educate the ignorant; Be instruments of peace; love one another as God has loved us.
How would you define it?
Posted by: dmitri on Saturday, 18 June 2005 at 3:58am BSTI liked this quote from Bishop Michael Ingham of New Westminster: “The existence of this constitution is scandalous. It suggests there is no willingness to engage in the conversations or the listening process called for by the primates of the Northern Ireland meeting.”
Shome Mishtake shurely! Mr Ingham has actually gone directly against the resolutions of the Lambeth Conference 1998, and the ABoC and Primates, by instigating "blessings" of homosexual partnerships. And is attacking dissenting churches and priests in his diocese.
Yet he calls "scandalous" something that was at most a proposal, maybe only a discussion document, and may in fact be a fabrication to create political smoke..
Posted by: Dave on Sunday, 19 June 2005 at 4:52pm BSTSo if you don'twish to engage in any sort of listening process, Dave, do you wish there to be an immediate split?
I really wish there could be a bit more straightforwardness and honesty sometimes. On both sides. The 'stay together at all costs' tendency still appears to have something of an upper hand , though.
Posted by: Merseymike on Sunday, 19 June 2005 at 10:30pm BSTDmitri: Your description leaves out something very important, and I think the omission illuminates your complaint against the "conservatives".
No one could quarrel with any of the wholesome items on your list, but they seem to be a selective grab-bag of good things Christians should do, rather than a mission statement. I would have thought that you'd say that the "mission" of the Church is Jesus' "Great Commission", rendered in Matthew 28:19-20 as "make disciples ... baptizing them ... teaching them to observe all that I commanded you", and more tersely in Mark 16:15 as "preach the gospel to all creation".
Perhaps this "Great Commission" is comprehended within your phrase "preach the good news that the Kingdom of heaven has drawn very near". Your phrase does indeed resonate with numerous passages in the Gospels and elsewhere in the New Testament. However, those passages feature something that is not featured in your post and that might explain your differences with the "conservatives":
Jesus said, "the kingdom of God is at hand: REPENT YE and believe the Gospel"; He came in order to "call ... sinners to REPENTANCE". Luke's version of the Great Commission (at 24:47) renders it: "REPENTANCE and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations". Consequently, the Apostolic preaching (e.g., in Acts) is "repent and be baptized"; "repent and be converted"; "God commands all men everywhere to repent"; etc. For Peter (2 Pet 3:9), the alternative to perishing is to "come to repentance".
If the Church's mission involves preaching repentance, then the Church must talk about sin, explain that God is against it, and invite sinners (i.e., me, you, everyone) to agree with God, turn away from our sins, and find forgiveness. Anyone who preaches this way (however lovingly, patiently, and self-critically) can be gibly accused of "examining other peoples' consciences". That's not fair, is it? --David
Posted by: DGus on Monday, 20 June 2005 at 5:54pm BSTOf course we are called to repentance, but why is it that only Liberals are judged, by Conservatives, to need repentance? Some would argue that by promoting an abstinence only policy with regard to sex in places like Uganda, the Church there is guilty of innumerable deaths and should repent. Where are the calls for repentance from Peter Akinola for his hate filled words against gay people? Where is the call for repentance from Peter Jensen in Sydney for his attempts to deny the validity of the sacrament of orders? (if lay presidency is not an abandonment of the sacrament of orders, then what is it?) Where are the calls for repentance from those who on the Right have nurtured this impending schism just as much as the "liberals", with thier demonization of their opponents ("revisionists")?
Lambeth '88 called for discussion, prayer, amd meditation on the sexuailty issues. The Americans and Canadians did this, and have reached their current position because of it. Which of the Conservatives did the same, and why are those who didn't not being called to repentance for disobeying the voice of the Church in 1988 when they call for ECUSA and the ACC to repent of disobedience to Lambeth 1998? The fact is that there are sins on both sides in this, Liberals and Conservatives alike are guilty of arrogance, of power-lust, of self-importance. Why is it that the Right seems to think that they are not in need of repentance as well?
Posted by: Ford Elms on Monday, 27 June 2005 at 1:40pm BST