Tuesday, 18 November 2008

more about the proposed new province

Updated again Tuesday evening

Three reports that relate to the announcement made yesterday:

Living Church Primates Hold Key to New Province’s Recognition

Anglican Journal Anglican Network in Canada pushes for creation of North American province

Stand Firm Archbishops Anis, Nzimbi, Akrofi: We Will Recognize the New North American Province

Tuesday evening updates

Three more reports on this:

Covenant A New “Province” in North America: Neither the Only Nor the Right Answer for the Communion by Ephraim Radner

Washington Times Breakaway Episcopalians to unveil constitution by Julia Duin

Episcopal Café A new province: who makes the call? by Jim Naughton

Late Tuesday evening update

Anglican Journal Plans to create a conservative province ‘disturbing,’ says primate

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Tuesday, 18 November 2008 at 9:17am GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Anglican Communion
Comments

Membership is up to the ACC and then needs two thirds of Primates:

3. Membership

1. The Council shall be constituted with a membership according to the schedule hereto. With the assent of two-thirds of the Primates of the Anglican Communion, the council may alter or add to the schedule...

So the ACC *may* do something and such *needs* primates. The ACC does the walking, the primates are the mountain to climb.

Mark Harris is surely right about this.

Posted by: Pluralist on Tuesday, 18 November 2008 at 1:38pm GMT

Just one more indication that there will be a split on a global level within Anglicanism.

The CofE simply can't be part of a hardline evangelical church whilst it retains is national place, and there is certainly no majority for the loss of those privileges.

Ultimately, the CofE has to protect itself, not a 'Communion' which barely exists as a united entity.

Posted by: Merseymike on Tuesday, 18 November 2008 at 2:54pm GMT

merseymike speaks the truth. what is so bothersome is that Rowan Williams does not seem to recognize that the same is true of canada and the united states.

Posted by: thomas bushnell, bsg on Tuesday, 18 November 2008 at 4:18pm GMT

Like Pluralist, I am skeptical of the Living Church's interpretation of the ACC's constitution.
http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/primates/a_new_province_who_makes_the_c.html

Posted by: Jim Naughton on Tuesday, 18 November 2008 at 4:59pm GMT

So, Bishop Anis of the Middle East is signing on to those who would try to split and supplant the Episcopal Church? If so, I know to whom I AM NOT contributing funds this coming Good Friday!

Posted by: Kurt on Tuesday, 18 November 2008 at 6:33pm GMT

"So, Bishop Anis of the Middle East is signing on to those who would try to split and supplant the Episcopal Church? If so, I know to whom I AM NOT contributing funds this coming Good Friday!
- Kurt, on Tuesday. -

Yes, the very same bishop who avoided agreement to the ACC's determination to accept TEC's desire to remain within the Anglican Communion after ther Dar es Salaam Primates' Meeting. With prelates like this championing the GAFCON cause one needs to be watchful about future elections to the Episcopate.

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Tuesday, 18 November 2008 at 8:19pm GMT

"As a member of the Covenant Design Group, committed to a particular work of providing a new framework for faithful communion life in Christ among Anglicans, I want to be clear about how the pressing forward of this new grouping within its stated terms poses some serious problems:"
- Ephraim Radner -

Avid web-watchers will be aware that the author of this article on the newly-established site of 'Covenant', Dr. Ephraim Radnor, now a member of the Covenant Design Group, once withdrew from the 'Global South' web-site because of its rabid antipathy towards the leadership of Canterbury in the world-wide Communion.

Dr. Radner is known to be one of the more eirenic scholars of the American Church, whose stance has always been to preserve the integrity of the Communion by thoughtful discourse - rather than the combative tactics of the Global South/GAFCON fraternity. His advice on this thorny subject of a 'shadow Province' in North America should warn the schismatics of the dangerous nature of their activities for the ongoing work of the Gospel.

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Tuesday, 18 November 2008 at 8:32pm GMT

"If so, I know to whom I AM NOT contributing funds this coming Good Friday!"

So, just because you don't like what a bishop does, you'll deprive this diocese of funds to help the poor and destitute? That's GAFCON behaviour! The work of the Church is not the work of one man, and the poor are no less poor because their bishop doesn't like gay people or liberals.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Tuesday, 18 November 2008 at 10:29pm GMT

The creation of a new province requires the assent of the Anglican Consultative Council (presumably by a simple majority) and of a two-thirds majority of the Primates.

There are 38 provinces. Effectively, this means 13 "no" votes puts the kaibosh to the schismatics' scheme.

- Aotearoa, New Zealand & Polynesia
- Australia
- Brasil
- Canada
- Central America
- Ireland
- Japan
- Mexico
- Scotland
- Southern Africa
- TEC
- Wales

That's 12. One more puts an end to it.

Of the list that follows, I'm not as sure - but I would be very surprised if all of the following Primates were to assent - one more no is sufficient:

- England
- South India
- North India
- Sudan
- Bangladesh
- Ceylon
- Hong kong
- Korea
- Melanesia
- Myanmar
- Papua New Guinea
- Philippines

Ephraim Radner doesn't seem to think the schismatics will be able to carry a simple majority of the Primates, let alone a two thirds majority.

Posted by: Malcolm+ on Tuesday, 18 November 2008 at 10:33pm GMT

Whatever this "New North American Province" will be, it WON'T be *Anglican*.

Those hierarchs who recognize it, will putting themselves on the same moving-sidewalk marked "OUT".

Lord have mercy!

Posted by: JCF on Wednesday, 19 November 2008 at 12:05am GMT

Ford
"The work of the Church is not the work of one man, and the poor are no less poor because their bishop doesn't like gay people or liberals"

That's true, but "the poor" aren't just helped by the church. There are many other organisations you can give the same money to. Some of those don't use it for anti gay propaganda either, or for financing world tours of hate-spouting bishops.

When this church accepts me as a full and equal member, I shall finance it again. Until then, the same money goes to charities.

Posted by: Erika Baker on Wednesday, 19 November 2008 at 10:30am GMT

“Ford
‘”The work of the Church is not the work of one man, and the poor are no less poor because their bishop doesn't like gay people or liberals’"

“That's true, but "the poor" aren't just helped by the church. There are many other organisations you can give the same money to. Some of those don't use it for anti gay propaganda either, or for financing world tours of hate-spouting bishops.

“When this church accepts me as a full and equal member, I shall finance it again. Until then, the same money goes to charities.”--Erika Baker

Well said, Erika!

Posted by: Kurt on Wednesday, 19 November 2008 at 1:42pm GMT

""the poor" aren't just helped by the church."

True, secular organizations tend to do better social work than the Church as whole, likely because there aren't as many segments of secular social justice organizations that are obsessed with whether or not the recipients of their help are actually worthy of that help. But, our diocese is now partnered with the Diocese of Belize, which is under the omophorion of Drexel Gomez. (If they're going to claim to be 'orthodox', we can at least use orthodox terminoloy, no?) Our CLB battalion is preparing now for a trip to that diocese to help build a school. They've raised a heck of a lot of money. Anybody want a bird feeder, ten bucks a pop? :-)Their bishop was here recently, and they have little money, few clergy, and need our help. Do we refuse to give it to them because their primate's fear of change has led him to hate fags and liberals?

Posted by: Ford Elms on Wednesday, 19 November 2008 at 2:04pm GMT

Ford
"Do we refuse to give it to them because their primate's fear of change has led him to hate fags and liberals? "

Oh no, if you can be sure that all the money raised goes towards the project, then that's an excellent way of giving.

But if it's likely that some ends up financing the Primate's next jaunt to a GAFCON follow up, then count me out.

Posted by: Erika Baker on Wednesday, 19 November 2008 at 4:18pm GMT

Central Africa will not vote for it..for the Church of England in South Africa has churches in its territory...and if the Anglican Church of North America is recognised, they are next on the list.

Posted by: Robert Ian Williams on Wednesday, 19 November 2008 at 6:11pm GMT

I don't know what all the fuss is about? It's just another North American breakaway church. That part of the world is full small churches all claiming exclusive truth - it's how the culture works.

I'll give it 18 months before it breaks up into warring sub groups and 24 before they run out of money to pay their supporting African Provinces.

Posted by: penwatch on Wednesday, 19 November 2008 at 11:56pm GMT

Just a reminder: the Church is bigger than any of the funding politics people engage in. Especially those who treat stewardship as a consumer choice rather than a Christian obligation. The attitudes I'm reading here are as petty and petulant as those of the other camp.

The Diocese in Jerusalem is partnered with one of the California dioceses in the ECUSA, the Diocese of Los Angeles. Now after the vocal support given to the anti-Prop 8 forces by the Episcopal bishops in California, do you think that partnership will be dissolved?

Posted by: Ren Aguila on Thursday, 20 November 2008 at 1:08am GMT

With the present mess in Central Africa, with no Primate and no capacity to elect one, it may not be possible for Central Africa to express an opinion one way or the other.

Of course, in assembling the necessary 2/3 (26 Primates) support, a non vote is the same as a no vote.

Posted by: Malcolm+ on Thursday, 20 November 2008 at 3:48am GMT

Interesting aside.....Reformed Episcopal orders are not recognised by the Church of England and were dismissed at lambeth 1880...so will the new province re-ordain this grouping?

Posted by: Robert Ian Williams on Thursday, 20 November 2008 at 6:36am GMT

"so will the new province re-ordain this grouping?"

As long as they are not "Librulls", I'm sure their orders are valid, Nag's Head or no.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Thursday, 20 November 2008 at 1:58pm GMT

@Robert Ian Williams:

If not, then it would be further evidence of the complete absurdity of the whole exercise. The FOCA people would forfeit any claim to catholicity, even the most tenuous -- and all the more perplexing why +Iker and company are even remotely involved in this.

Posted by: Walsingham on Thursday, 20 November 2008 at 2:44pm GMT

“The Diocese in Jerusalem is partnered with one of the California dioceses in the ECUSA, the Diocese of Los Angeles. Now after the vocal support given to the anti-Prop 8 forces by the Episcopal bishops in California, do you think that partnership will be dissolved?”--Ren Aguila

I doubt it will be dissolved; unless it is dissolved by the bigots in Jerusalem.

Posted by: Kurt on Thursday, 20 November 2008 at 3:15pm GMT

"all the more perplexing why +Iker and company are even remotely involved in this."

Well, their much touted "orthodoxy" is not based on any traditional definition of the word, but rather seems based on hatred of liberals and gays, and possibly women. Nothing, not even Christology, is more important in defining their "orthodoxy" than these. All that remains is to rub their noses in this hypocrisy at every opportunity. Not that it'll make a difference. I really can't help but think that thier "catholicity" is based on nothing more than a love of smells, bells, and funky brocade dresses. Is it that they are closet drag queens who satisfy that part of their nature by playing dressup every Sunday? As the drag queen said to the priest as he censed the altar "Nice dress, Mary, but your purse is on fire!"

Posted by: Ford Elms on Thursday, 20 November 2008 at 6:23pm GMT

Let's be careful how we characterize the Church in Jerusalem? While the homophobe Anis is its Primate, its bishop, Suweil Dawani, I understand exercises considerable autonomy (and NOT in lockstep w/ Anis---hence his objection GAFCON meeting there!).

I, for one, will not withhold my Good Friday offering to the Church in Jerusalem, unless I hear evidence that it's actually the church *there*, and not just the bigoted primate, who has been denying and denouncing my LGBT people.

Posted by: JCF on Thursday, 20 November 2008 at 8:02pm GMT

Dr. Radner is simply amazing, though I confess I find little about his remarks that is genuinely eirenic. He likes to sound big tent, but Radner is clearly not really big tent.

He is as entangled in new Anglican policing and punishment as anybody else, but he wants the full weight of a conservatively realigned global communion, not much left but rightwing top down stuff, to be thrown behind such policing and punishment. His presence on the covenant commission is as neocon daft as is Gomez chairing it. Neither one of them has any heart at all for human family-based equalities - even secular ones of citizenship outside church life - when it comes to queer folks, say, or non-conservative believers or non-believers who keep asking too many questions.

Then rather nice, ironically, to see Dr. Radner already leading the critical charges against the new virtual conprov, even before it has been officially birthed. I suppose that he just cannot bring himself to fully grasp that the new covenant will fail, just to the extent that it needs policing and punishment to do by force what our historic big tent ethos and comprehensiveness are allegedly failing to do through common prayer and the global inter-relationships at so many different levels.

Realignment is not over till it's over.

Posted by: drdanfee on Friday, 21 November 2008 at 7:57am GMT

I, for one, will not withhold my Good Friday offering to the Church in Jerusalem,

In the link to Giles Fraser's article on the thread "Church Times on NEAC", he refers to Evangelical parioshes witholding their parish share to the diocese as bully boy tactics, and he's right. How many Church projects are acceptable to everybody? "We" think "They" are wrong for something, and have good Gospel based objections, by God, and we're not going to give our money to that, thank you very much. "We" are doing The Right Thing. "They" think "We" are wrong for something, and have good Gospel based objections, by God, and they're not going to give their money to that, thank you very much. "They" are doing The Right Thing. What's the difference, and why is one side a bully when it does it, while the other side is justified? Because "We" think "Our" Gospel based reasons for "Our" opposition to what "They" are doing are so much more valid than "Their" Gospel based reasons for opposing "Us"? I don't know, but, for all I've said about conservatives, hypocrisy, and all, I can't see my way clear to putting restrictions on how the Church spends the money I give, or of refusing to give because I don't like something the Church is doing. Perhaps it's just because I have been so scathing about conservatives who do this, and I agree that it is a bullying tactic, that I can't now take part in it.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Friday, 21 November 2008 at 1:23pm GMT

“I, for one, will not withhold my Good Friday offering to the Church in Jerusalem, unless I hear evidence that it's actually the church *there*, and not just the bigoted primate, who has been denying and denouncing my LGBT people.”--JCF

That call is up to your conscience, JCF. But don’t you think that Bishop Anis conforms to local intolerance just as liberals like Bishop Bruno conform to local tolerance? If Anis’ diocese were not bigoted, I doubt that he would be so, yes?

Posted by: Kurt on Friday, 21 November 2008 at 1:29pm GMT

“...I can't see my way clear to putting restrictions on how the Church spends the money I give, or of refusing to give because I don't like something the Church is doing. Perhaps it's just because I have been so scathing about conservatives who do this, and I agree that it is a bullying tactic, that I can't now take part in it.”--Ford Elms

Fine, Ford, if that’s the way you feel about it. For me, however, it’s a lot of silliness to expect conservatives to fund liberal projects and groups with whom they disagree. It’s even more absurd, in my opinion, for theological liberals to fund right-wing bigots in any way. Let the bigots fund the bigots and let the liberals fund the liberals.

Posted by: Kurt on Friday, 21 November 2008 at 2:29pm GMT

"my LGBT people."

I just caught this. I don't consider LGBT people "my people". I cannot see my sexuality as in any way an ethnicity. I'm quite confident and happy with my ethnic identity, and I have often felt quite alienated in gay contexts as a result of that, actually, since what I consider my ethnic identity isn't all that well respected by the local gay community. So, oddly, I have been in a position where I have felt like I am excluded in some sense by the gay community because of what I would call my ethnicity. Maybe this sheds some light on our differences. I don't even think there is such a thing as "gay culture" actually, at best it seems to me to be "urban north American gay culture" that has only attained any sort of international status because, being a part of American mass market consumer culture, it is being carried around the world as as that culture steadily destroys every other smaller less powerful culture on the face of the Earth. As such, I consider "gay culture" to be part of what is destroying our local culture here, something I have spent a considerable amount of my life fighting against. There are gay people among "my people", but many of us are straight as well.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Friday, 21 November 2008 at 2:32pm GMT

Please note that Anis is the primate, and he is in Egypt, not Jerusalem. Bishop Dawani of Jerusalem is a good friend to the Episcopal Church. The Good Friday Offering is used for medical, educational and relief outreach programs, not support for the bishops. This is one of the most efficient fund-raising efforts in the Episcopal Church, and there is almost no overhead in cost related to its gathering and distribution, so it is well worth supporting.

Posted by: Tobias Haller on Friday, 21 November 2008 at 6:59pm GMT

Robert Ian Williams wrote: "Reformed Episcopal orders are not recognised by the Church of England and were dismissed at Lambeth 1880..."

This is a right decision. But why does the Church of Nigeria recognize them?

http://rechurch.org/recus/recus/nigeria.html

Posted by: PeterK on Friday, 21 November 2008 at 10:23pm GMT

"since what I consider my ethnic identity isn't all that well respected by the local gay community."

Help me out here, Ford. Are you Nigerian or Torontonian? Or maybe from Fogo? (Another NF placename came to mind, but the ensuing humour would inevitably have been too crude.)

"why does the Church of Nigeria recognize them?"

Because the validity of orders is purely and only a function of how much the person in orders despises LGBTQs.

Posted by: Malcolm+ on Saturday, 22 November 2008 at 6:15am GMT

“Bishop Dawani of Jerusalem is a good friend to the Episcopal Church. The Good Friday Offering is used for medical, educational and relief outreach programs, not support for the bishops.”--Tobias Haller

Well, if that’s the case, Fr. Tobias, maybe I will give them a nice Good Friday offering after all. I just don’t want to fund bigots because of some kinda liberal guilt trip. Others may be comfortable with liberal guilt but that’s just not me.

Posted by: Kurt on Saturday, 22 November 2008 at 3:58pm GMT

"Are you Nigerian or Torontonian? Or maybe from Fogo?"

Neither, a French Shoreman, actually. There's been a quiet cultural revolution in these parts, my generation, the first born post Confederation, grew up being told we ought to be ashamed of our culture, our language, and where we came from. We refused to do so. The result is that we have gone from a time when the only people who cared about our traditional culture were labelled as freaks to a time when young people no longer feel any shame about being from here. A good thing, and I'm immensely proud to have played a small part in that transformation. So, I'm a Newfoundlander, no hyphen, not Irish, not English, not French, not aboriginal, though in my case a bit of all of them, no nod to Europe, and no shame at my roots. Think Quebec, only in English and without any drive to separate from Canada, despite the rather shady way we ended up a part of it.

Posted by: Ford ELms on Monday, 24 November 2008 at 2:10pm GMT
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.