Good!

Now we just need 12 more provinces to defend traditional Anglicanism and shoot down this outrageous primatial power grab.

The Bishop of Abuja hath no jurisdiction.

Malcolm - you are still obsessed with ++Akinola! Get over it! You are wasting a lot of energy and missing the point.

You can pretend all you like that it is just a few Africans and a few US neocons who oppose the hijacking of the AC by a small special-interest group, but you will be deluding yourself.

The Windsor Report and The Tanzania Communique were issues by ALL the Primates.....not just ++Akinola......bizarrely the doublespeaking TEC PBs even put their names to these disciplinary actions of the AC on their own provinces! So, get over it, it is not ++Akinola who is against you but the whole AC which is not willing to change its 2000 year old understanding of scriptures to suit a few people with a tragic record of church decline

NP: it clearly isn't the 'whole Communion', unless you are now suggesting that the so-called Global South has become 'the whole communion'.....

Which of course is likely to be the case when the inevitable split happens.

++Katherine signed documents that were issued by the primates because she is a primate, not because she felt that the documents were going to become praxis for the communion. Even a cursory reading of Windsor, Tanzania, and, for heaven's sake, the Lambeth resolutions show that they are representations of the mind of the communion, NOT mandates for practice for each of the national churches. The spirit of the Elizabethan Compromise is the ability to navigate within the same waters, though there may be affinities to cling to one shore or another (or in to even boldly navigate uncharted routes and seas that others are not willing to navigate). For those that want an actively controlling ecclesiastical hierarchy, there are several already in place. For those who want the via media, the Anglican way, welcome!

NP,

From what I have heard, ++KJS did not sign the Tanzanian communique' as has been widely reported. If she did, could you or someone else please point me to a place where I can actually see her signature on a copy of the document. I also doubt the AC is the monolith you claim it to be on the subject of scripture. You sound like one of those fundamentalists who believe scripture is dictation directly from God and everything stated therein is true. Do you suppopse God put contradictions in the text to see if we were really listening?

NP,
Why are you, a lover of the Reformation, so keen to see us set up a Roman style authority structure? If the Bishop of Rome hath no authority, why should the Bishop of Abuja? Or any other foreign bishop? Why is force, not Christian charity, the only way you can see to make unity? Is your desire to see everyone conform to your beliefs so great you would actually betray those beliefs? Because it is a betrayal of the Reformation, NP, make no mistake about it. 500 years ago, we Anglicans, following in the steps of our Orthodox siblings 500 years before, told a foreign bishop he had no right to dictate anything in the diocese of another bishop. Why are you so eager to betray that basic principle? You are like George Bush, destroying your principles in trying to defend them, and all so you can feel somehow pure.

Fr Shawn+, a minor correction of a widespread potential misconception: As I understand it, it's not clear that +Katharine (not Katherine) signed anything. What I've read is that at Tanzania she simply said she'd take the Communiqué back to the House of Bishops. (Your comment is otherwise a compelling metaphor.)

NP has correctly identified one problem. When the Primates get together for a knees-up, they seem to lose sight of reality and start to imagine that they wield power that is not theirs. They imagine that they can act globally in ways that they cannot do even within their own churches. For example, it would be impossible for the AofC to issue an ultimatum to a diocesan bishop in the arbitrary way that the Primates have issued one to TEC.

Concisely and clearly stated, Fr. Shawn. Thank you.

Fr.Shawn+ said,
"++Katherine signed documents that were issued by the primates because she is a primate, not because she felt that the documents were going to become praxis for the communion."

Then why allow her name to appear on the document? Obviously if your name appears on the document and the document is a joint statement by the primates people will get the idea that ++Schori agrees with the statement.

She allowed her name to appear on the document and any reasonable person would take that as a sign that she agrees with he statement. This is the exact same standard people have applied to ++Akinola's name appearing on legislation in Nigeria.

By your logic a death row inmate may sign a court document that leads to their execution... but only because they are a party to the case.

Gee, I thought the realignment pundits here and elsewhere were pointing to the waffly balancing act GS resolution so recently passed on SSB's as a categorical signal that Canada was going to role over and play dead in the face of the red-faced Primates Meeting?

Bravo, Canada, yet again. We are all finding our way, and one imagines that Brazil, South Africa, New Zealand, and maybe others might eventually reject the proposal, too, along with parts of the GN and Europe?

Bravo, NP, too. Very reliable. There is hardly a better demo of the Elizabethan Settlement's intellectual-theological Via Media that these rather constant juxtapositions of open vs. closed preachments. That, in fact, is pretty much what the motion to pack the ACC with Primate members is mainly about, closing someting down, rather than opening something up - among us.

Just to clarify Fr.Shawn's point. It is my understanding that ++Katharine did not sign the Tanzania Communiqué, but, like all the other Primates, orally agreed to its final form as something she felt she could carry back to her province for consideration.

Shawn - I hope your mortgage company knows that you think signing something means so little!! Nonsense - in the real world - to suggest that giving your support to something is consistent (with honour) with opposing it immediately.

Merseymike - you are right, it is not the "whole" communion because there are some liberals everywhere even if only TEC and Canada are are dominated by liberals.....but it is the whole of the AC and all its Primates (including the doublespeaking TEC PBs) who called for VGR not to be put in place and issues the Tanzania Communique.

You want the split....do you realise what a small group will stay with TEC?
And do you realise that it will not survive long given rates of decline in the liberal churches that within TEC and sympathetic to it?

You want a split to make a point about your rights etc...not because you give a damn about about the Anglican Communion (as you have said)...but a split delivers to you something very unattractive, if you look at the facts.....it is not as if TEC sees 10m people every week and growing because of its lovely, warm and fuzzy "inclusiveness" is it???

NP, despite your overheated (and frankly dishonest) rhetoric, nothing the Americans and Canadains have done or are likely to do compels Nigeria to tolerate homosexuals, let alone ordain them or bless their unions.

It isn't North America forcing an extremist agenda on the whole Communion.

Pose as the traditionalist all you want, NP. It is the "conservatives" who are forcing an extremist agenda and forcing a radical overthrow of traditional Anglicanism. Like their curial covenant, this asinine proposal to add all the Primates to the ACC is just part of the agenda to destroy traditional Anglicanism and to replace it with an intolerant and bigotted imposter communion.

If I might quiblle slightly with Merseymike, it isn't the Global South that will be the whole Communion if NP and Abuja get their way. It will be a extremist segment of the Global South as we are already seeing GS bishops rejecting the powermad plottings of over-reaching Abuja.

Where did this proposal come from? Is it part of the Windsor/Dromatine/Dar es Salaam process or has it come from some other Lambeth/AC proposals?

Anyone got any links showing its provenance?

I only ask because I don't recall it coming before the Scottish General Synod, unless, of course, the SEC debated it at a past Synod since the Canadian church meets every 3 years.

Kennedy

What Fr.Shawn+ said (besides the fact that no signatures were actually put on any pieces of paper -- so they say).

FWIW, the two Canadian bishops who switched votes have come out -- David Torraville of the diocese of Central Newfoundland and James Cowan of the Vancouver Island diocese -- apologies to +Victoria who caught a lot of flak!

The only proposed change that was defeated - almost unanimously (Canadians of all theological persuasions were against this) - was the proposal to add the Primates. The other proposed changes in the ACC resolution were passed.

"Shawn - I hope your mortgage company knows that you think signing something means so little!! Nonsense - in the real world - to suggest that giving your support to something is consistent (with honour) with opposing it immediately."

NP, you're *still* not getting it. The Dar Es Salaam Communique is NOT like a "mortgage": it is NOT a contract!

At the (figurative) 11th hour of the conference (when some primates had already left, and EVERYONE was eager to go), a final draft was presented to all the remaining primates. They were ONLY asked "Would you be willing to take this document back to your province?" That is ALL ++Katharine agreed to---she SIGNED nothing! (I do not believe that ANY primate signed the document, as such)

Well, she kept her (oral) word, and took it back to TEC: neither the House of Bishops, nor the Executive Council, have been impressed (least of all, because it demands---of TEC *specifically*---changes that, constitutionally, ONLY GC is established to decide).

Would you PLEASE stop bearing false witness against TEC (and ++Katharine in particular), NP? For the love of Christ?

In unrelated but certainly relevant news, a California appeals court has delivered a definite setback to a group of secessionist parishes attempting to abscond with church property:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/G036096.DOC

That makes three states in which courts have ruled against the secessionists in just the past couple of months.

Malcolm French+ said,
"It isn't North America forcing an extremist agenda on the whole Communion."

Huh?

Extreme positions are usually held by a small number of people while traditional positions are often held my large majorities over long periods of time.

But w/ most of the presenting issues in the AC today we have the vast majority of Anglicans over the past ~500 years and today, along with the vast majority of Christians over the past 2000 years and today, holding the "extreme" position. Over against that we have a much smaller number of people, backing ideas dating to the late 1960's years old holding the "traditional" position.

Wow.

Kennedy Fraser - Where did this proposal come from? Is it part of the Windsor/Dromatine/Dar es Salaam process or has it come from some other Lambeth/AC proposals?

It came from the ACC meeting in Nottingham (2005 I think), which Canada and the US were asked to attend but not participate.

NP continues his/her attempt, time and time again, to employ "newspeak" to twist the truth until NP can bend it around corners, when he/she writes "You want the split....do you realise what a small group will stay with TEC? And do you realise that it will not survive long given rates of decline in the liberal churches that within TEC and sympathetic to it?"

First, NP, it is already not a small group of those provinces publicly proclaiming their rejection of the Abuja (and allies) crowd of those who seek to redefine Anglicanism into a Calvinist church. Besides Canada, and USA, and Mexico, and Brasil, and South Africa, we recently witnessed Scotland rejecting the redefinition of the Anglican Communion. More will undoubtedly follow.

Secondly, it is only your hope that, to use your words (but not true words), "liberal churches" are somehow failing through what you perceive as declines. As has been noted on this site
over the past several months, neither the wealth of some provinces, nor the sheer numbers of parishioners of other provinces, really matter in the sight of heaven.

Doing justice, and loving mercy, and walking humbly with God, are the things that really matter.

But, go ahead and play your power games, NP; at least you are consistent in that.

Charles Nurse --

IIRC, the "modest proposal" came from the primates themselves -- thus giving them de facto control of two of the Four Instruments of Communion

Well, Chris, I'll try to be a bit clearer.

While I don't agree with your assessment of the North American "agenda," I won't quibble with your assessment that it is "extreme."

However, my point had to do with who was "forcing" their agenda on others.

Nothing the North Americans has done has forced any of the so-called Global South bishops to do a damned thing. North America's actions do not force Uganda to ordain any homosexuals. Nor do they force Rwanda to bless same sex unions. Nor do they force Kenya even to treat homosexuals with simple human dignity. They don't even force Nigeria to step back from their plan to make tolerance a criminal offence. The Global South bishops are free to do as they see fit.

However, the various aspects of the primatial power grab - the coup d'eglise in the Anglican Consultative Council and the curial Covenant - are all about forcing other provinces to conform to the rulings of the so-called Global South.

Thus, the only people "forcing" anything are the advocates of primatial usurpation - that is to say, the so-called Global South.

Given that their scheme clearly and unambiguously overthrows 500 years of established Anglican principles - like the idea that foreign prelates should mind their own business - I don't think it is at all out of line to call Akinola, Kolini, Orombi et al extreme.

Jerry - you seem to be "revising" history to suit your case!

If there is such a strong "libeal" mood in the AC, how do you explain what has happened since TEC's unilateral, divisive actions in 2003?

How do you explain TWR, Tanzania and now the push for a covenant.....from people like the ABC!!!

Forget all the emotional nonsense about "power games" - look at what is happening!

And look at TEC and the CofE and see in the last 50 years which churches have grown and multiplied - sorry, it ain't those saying "let it all hang out" but it is those who consistently stick to the scriptures......"facts is facts", Jerry

Richard - you are misinformed.....no Primate had to sign the Tanzania Communique.Each Primate had to stand and say they support it....which KJS did
But then Griswold called on TEC not to go ahead with VGR.....and the he went ahead with it himself - the AC is tired of this kind of "logic" and "honour"

Ford - I don't want a pope but I do want some common sense i.e. not a situation which perpetuates a house divided because we know such a house will not stand....so, I see the need for a covenant and an AC which does not pay and house people who actively work to subver the teaching of the church despite their vows

There will always be a market for conservative religion - in the UK its actually quite consistent.But it says absolutely nothing to those outside the church who do not want those sort of simplicities.

The future - if there is one - will be an organisation which doesn't rely on people turning up to a big, draughty building on Sunday morning, but can engage people in terms of their spirituality. I see no evidence that liberals within the CofE have grasped this, but at least they are free of the primitive prejudices of the conservatives, which will appear ever more archaic as time moves on.

Prior Aelred -

True the Primates made the proposal, but the Anglican Consultative Council in Nottingham passed it and sent it out to the Provinces to endorse (or not) - requiring 2/3 of the Provinces to endorse it.

"Ford - I don't want a pope but I do want some common sense i.e. not a situation which perpetuates a house divided because we know such a house will not stand..."

Why is the divided house of Anglicanism in danger of falling now, NP? It's no more adivided house now than it ever was, and it stood for 500 years. I'd suggest it can't stand now because you Evos want to pull it down. I asked you before and you didn't seem to understand the question, so I'll ask again. You are an Evangelical, I am an Anglo-catholic. Each group has been seen by the wider Church as being in error on some point or another. We have managed for nearly two centuries to tolerate each other's errors. Make no mistake, NP, just because people haven't tried to get rid of the Evos doesn't mean they think the Evos are right. Thus, the Church has tolerated the errors of Evangelicalism. Why can you Evos not now tolerate what you see as the errors of others in exactly the same way your errors have been tolerated in the past? Why is it now a matter of, "Well, thaks awfully for being so tolerant of us though you thought we were wrong. Sorry, but we just can't tolerate you, though, you'll have to either agree with us or leave." Why are you so intolerant now to those who were tolerant of you in the past? Ought we have kicked you out 150 years ago?

Ford - very simple, because it is a matter of integrity. We cannot tolerate false teaching. There are commandments to this effect of which I am sure you are aware.

The mere fact that others may have been tolerant in the past (although I see little of that in people like your Canadian Ingham) is no reason for people now to tolerate false teachers....is it??

We are told clearly in the scriptures not to tolerate false teaching....for good reasons, as you know.

The ACC did pass the proposal. It was passed, I understand, by a very narrow margin at a meeting where two Provinces refrained from voting.

The decision of the Canadian and American churches to accede to the uncanonical and ultra vires requests of the Primates was a serious tactical error, of course.

But even with Canada and the US abstaining, the Primates were scarce able to get this fatuous proposal through.

I am moved to wonder, though - From time to time, the Canadian and American churches have been represented on the ACC by individuals who were not entirely aligned with the (perceived) liberal consensus of those churches. What do you suppose the chances are of a Nigerian Anglican getting elected to the ACC if s/he did not conform entirely to the views of my lord of Abuja?