"Bishop Azad Marshall’s decision to stand down will come as a blow to the Archbishop of Canterbury..."

Yup. His fiat / big lie approach is not going to work. Dr. Williams is intent on acting as though his utterly unsalable covenant is in force. It is a well known technique -- tell the same falsehood often enough and it becomes an established fact. It is not going to work this time.

Conservative or liberal, this "blow" is a good thing.

FWIW
jimB

'..formed by the merger of the Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Standing Committee of the Primates Meeting…'

Williams' attempt to undermine the official ACC and its standing committee by merging / adulterating it with the unofficial primates'meeting standing committee is not going to plan.

I am glad he is not getting it all his way ! This is what democratic-ish protestant-ish bodies are like ~!

Oh well, among other options, maybe RW needs to take better heed. RWs consistent efforts to collapse the global spaces previously occupied by thriving progressive Anglican believers; along with RWs hard work to deflate all the institutional oxygen from those selfsame progressive believers ... is ... still ... yet ... not ... pleasing ... to/among his rightwing Anglican audiences/leaders.

So the mixed middles are disappearing, with RWs bona fide leadership helps. Strange, though, that Anis and Marshall and Orombi are not hanging on while each man whets his theological pocket knives in favor of the near pending covenant bloodbath when - especially - those icky progressives (their queer folks, their women, their friends) look most likely to all be brought up on sharp, hard Anglican Covenant charges.

The whole business looks like a circular firing squad, RW. You're doing a helluva job, then. PS, Keep singling out black women, RW, as trouble, trouble, trouble?

"The Primate of Uganda, Archbishop Henry Orombi, has also absented himself from the meetings of the ACSC for the past year. The African’ primates representative has not resigned his seat, but has stated he has no confidence in the integrity of the organization and will not attend meetings if representatives from the Episcopal Church are seated." - George Conger, C.of E. Newspaper -

Bloggers should note that, in no way does this
newspaper represent the Inclusivity of the Church of England (whose name is has mis-represented for some time now). Similarly, George Conger does not represent the breadth of the Anglican Communion on issues that concern the prophetic ministry of any of the Provinces. Church Times has the true facts.

This statement of his, which speaks of an Iranian Archbishop's resignation from the newly-formed ACSC, reflects only the influence of Mounir Anis, his one-time Primate, who has constantly sided with the destabilising GS faction of the Church.

Conger's further remarks about the ineligibility of Bishop Ian Douglas for election to the ACSC gains its provenance from a recent statement of the oxymoronically-named 'Anglican Communion Institute' in the US - which has no standing in the Episcopal Church there, but which deems to offer unwelcome advice on relationships between TEC and the rest of the Communion. It is important to note that the ACSC is the creation of the Anglican Communion Office (ACO) in the UK, and as such, decisions like this (Bp. Douglas' membership (or not) of the AACSO) is the ACO's prerogative - not that of ACI.

As for Abp. Henry Orombi - he cannot 'have his cake and eat it too'. He is either an attending member of the ACSO, or he is not. If he is not, nor ever intends to attend meetings, he should be retired henceforth. There's nothing like dead wood to rot the rest of the edifice!

And this is the same Bishop who started out by saying:

'The Church needs to show that Christ is for the whole world, and therefore we serve people of all faiths. We cannot restrict Jesus to ourselves. We are there to serve. Out of our service comes relationships. There is no conflict between the desire to have inter-faith dialogue and to retain the integrity of the scripture and the Christian faith. The Christ we follow came for all as I said at the end of the service. Whatever relationships we have flow from that given.'

Indeed, he even noted that:

'There are for instance Muslim countries where women are not even allowed to drive, whereas you can see many women drivers in Tehran. Women are very visible in all walks of life and seventy per cent of the university students are female.'

I'm a little surprised that he does not see the possibility of female priests as an opportunity rather than a problem. I'm fairly sure that the young women so eagerly seeking university education are not going to throw up their hands in horror at the very idea of equality with men in their religious lives...

At least one half-truth in Conger's account - "The Primate of Uganda, Archbishop Henry Orombi has also absented himself from the meetings of the ACSC for the past year". Orombi has not attended a single meeting of the committee, has he? Though he did,of course, attempt to seat Phil Ashey of the schismatic AAC as a Ugandan delegate.

Amusing to see that ACI is still throwing its self-imposed, three man weight around. A few days back C Seitz was posting at T19's thread on A S Haley's analysis of the recent Fort Worth judgment (a storm in a chalice, if ever there was one). Dr Seitz, who has opinions re the Presiding Bishop's financial "shenanigans", states "I cannot believe that families which have given money to DFMS for missionary work would not object strongly to using funds in this way".

I feel sure that Clarice C Bowton, who established Grace Church, Colorado Springs, Bowton Trust for the expressed and restricted purpose of "providing scholarships for single, unmarried seminarians from Colorado", would feel much the same way, Dr Seitz. Still waiting, by the way, Dr Seitz.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOOTF8vu6ps

"I feel sure that Clarice C Bowton, who established Grace Church, Colorado Springs, Bowton Trust for the expressed and restricted purpose of "providing scholarships for single, unmarried seminarians from Colorado", would feel much the same way, Dr Seitz."

Which reminds me - isn't the trial in Colorado soon to begin?

It was good for Labinbizarre to point out the Bowton trust, but, since some may not recall the context, let me add. He is referencing the fact that now defrocked by TEC and CANA's problem, Don Armstrong of Grace St. Stephen's has been indicted for 20 counts of financial mismanagement (fraud, embezzlement what have you) for misuse of funds. The Anglican Communion Institute's finances were managed by the same man. When the scandal broke, the Institute with the gravitas of its pretentious name, quickly became "three guys with a website" as they rapidly separated themselves from Armstrong claiming their innocence and lack of awareness of any of their institute's financial dealings. Armstrong's attorneys, due to their scheduling conflicts, have been able to defer Armstrong's trial until October. Armstrong supporters have decried the actions of TEC in removing Armstrong from its rolls noting that if there was any substance to the rumors and allegations of fraud etc on the part of Armstrong, the civil authorities would have intervened when the Colorado diocese turned over their files on Armstrong to them. The subsequent Thanksgiving document raid on Grace/St. Stephens and indictment of Armstrong by the civil authorities indicate that they and the grand jury have found such substance. It is certainly possible that, with discovery in the case and the upcoming trial, the Institute's financial dealings and its "three quys" Radner, Seitz and (I think Turner?) will receive more attention.

I heartily concur re: Clarice C Bowton. Not sure what your point is. ACI received no monies from this trust and for this and other obvious reasons has never been included in any of the legal proceedings/charges. I do observe that you go on quite a lot about us and our meagerness! Why not give a call into the Diocese of Colorado and ask if any charges were ever brought against ACI? That will put the matter to rest (though somehow I think not, in your case).

Yet to be seen is whether loans used to defray legal expenses drawn from DFMS funds is a proper extension of the term 'missionary' activity. Morever, when one fares so badly in the Texas court, where will the money come from to pay back the 'missionary' loans?

Whoa! Some of you folks need to slow down and go back and check some facts. For although we are in agreement in many things regarding our progressive stand, you folks are in error in regard to the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion.

This committee was not created from whole cloth by either the ABC or the ACO. It has existed for some time and is officially constituted by the by-laws of the ACC. The only thing new is its name.

In the past it was named the Joint Standing Committee... and consisted of the Standing Committee of the ACC and the Primates Standing Committee. There is nothing illegitimate about it.

However, in the Anglican Covenant, it has been given additional responsibilities and was renamed. So the ACC, anticipating that the Anglican Covenant will eventually be adopted, took the step of changing the name of the committee in its by-laws at ACC Meeting 14 in Jamaica last year.

Dear Emily (and Mr Lapinbizarre) -- Wait no longer! Let me encourage you to contact the Bishop of Colorado, Rob O'Neil, and confer with the principals in this matter. No charges have been been brought against ACI. Your intimations are groundless and have always been.

But to the point at issue. I would genuinely welcome your view. Should monies given in bequest to the DFMS be made available for legal expenses in the form of loans? If you happened to have given $1M to fund missionary work, would you believe it proper for church officials to loan that money to dioceses engaged in litigation?

Perhaps the facts in the matter are not as I am stating it, and if so, I would welcome correction. If they are correct, it is difficult to see how spending money to claim that you are the Diocese of Ft Worth is 'missionary activity' -- leaving aside what happens if the litigation fails tout court and the money is lost.

Still on the topic of money, I note that the Huffington Post is reporting a possible change of heart on the part of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Tanzania; 'it had said in April that it would reject the "money" and "support" of those who support the "legitimacy" of same-sex marriage', and that "It's time Africa preached to the rest of the world, and remind them of God's word."

The 4.6 million-member ELCA is the largest contributor to the Tanzanian church, paying them more than $1,000,000 in the 2009 fiscal year.

'Last summer, after years of debate, the ELCA voted to lift its ban on non-celibate gay clergy and also allowed congregations to bless same-sex unions. The (Lutheran) Church of Sweden, the world's largest Lutheran church, has approved similar measures. After meeting with ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson on May 18, Malasusa appeared to back down saying, "Well, I can't say that. I can't really commit to anything."

Unsurprisingly perhaps, 'Rev. Jaynan Clark, president of WordAlone Ministries, a conservative group that assists ELCA congregations that want to leave the ELCA or stay and work for reform.'
warned against taking "blood money."

"But to the point at issue. I would genuinely welcome your view. Should monies given in bequest to the DFMS be made available for legal expenses in the form of loans?" - C. Seitz, on Tuesday -

To perhaps the same degree as that which was given for mission by the dissidents in North America, in order for ex-bishops to pursue litigation against the lawfully established Episcopal Church in the United States (TEC). Who pays for that?

Another thing, Mr Seitz: as a member of the New Zealand Anglican Church, who understands the titles given to many of the official organizations of the Churches of the Anglican Communion, I have wondered about the authenticity of the title of your organization in the US, which calls itself the Anglican Communion Institute. Is this a faux-Anglican organisation like ACNA with no official function within the Communion? Or was the ACI at some time given official approval by the existing 'Instruments of Communion' to operate on behalf of the Anglican Communion? Just curious, that's all.

'The only thing new is its name.'

How very Animal Farm and 1984. This is how obfuscation is practised. Keeping changing the names and acronyms until no-one can any longer follow. Not good practice. Not straight.

Just that one likes to know for sure, Dr Seitz, that those lecturing us on morality do not have egg on their own faces, as happens from time to time. Thank you for your response.

The fact of the matter is that the "Anglican Communion Institute" is a self-named entity that exists of three (formerly four or six) guys who have a website.

It has no particular standing in the Communion and the only credibility it has is whatever credibility a credulous listener wants to give it. It has exactly the same standing, within the Communion, as Simple Massing Priest, Wounded Bird, My Manner of Life, Telling Secrets, Anglicans Online, Thinking Anglicans or any other blog.

Their previous association with the accused fraudster Donald Armstrong, while doubtless embarrassing to the remaining participants, is actually quite irrelevant - except insofar as it may indicate something about the soundness of their judgement.

In the meantime, Christopher Seitz et al are just opinionated hacks - not unlike me and countless others.

Don't be so hard on yourself. You're not an opinionated hack -- you're a Thinking Anglican!

The vast majority of people who post comments online - regardless of the subject area - are opinionated, Christopher. I don't use or take the phrase "opinionated hack" as a particular insult, either when I apply it to myself or when I apply it to you.

But I will note that my opinionated scribblings do not purport to be the voice of anyone but me. Indeed, my blog gives prominence to the following statement:

"Comments here do not represent the official views of my parish, my diocese, my bishop or the Anglican Church of Canada. Neither do they purport to represent the official views of God. They are merely the views of this particular opinionated prairie priest - who hopes that his views on issues are generally consonant with God's views, but claims no certainty on that score."

But then, my blog is entitled "Simple Massing Priest," so it is pretty clear for whom I speak.

The grandly named "Anglican Communion Institute" has no more authority than any other blog, really, despite the grandiosity of it's name and the who's who of names you claim to have on some sort of editorial whatsit.

The name - with all respect, Christopher - is misleading, and serves to suggest that it has some sort of official standing within the Communion. Of course, that is not the case, and you will be quick to point out that there is nothing at http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/ to say that it is. But then, there is absolutely nothing which makes it clear in any way.

And more than a few of us Thinking Anglicans suspect that this oversight is a deliberate attempt to confuse people into believing the very thing you are very careful never explicitly to claim.

(On hackery, I do have to comment on the overwrought and overworked writing style common to your site. The third sentence of your current front page article begins ""It was later explicated by . . ." I mean, really. Using "explicated" instead of "explained" doesn't make your colleague Ephriam sound smart - merely insecure.)

"On hackery, I do have to comment on the overwrought and overworked writing style common to your site. The third sentence of your current front page article begins ""It was later explicated by . . ." I mean, really."

Urk - and unnecessary use of the passive voice! Evidently, mistakes were made (to quote President Nixon).

Thanks for calling attention to our new article at ACI (whose name comes from the "The Anglican Institute" joining with SEAD--formed at Virginia Seminary in the 80s). I am not a Thinking Anglican but if I were, I'd find it decidedly unthinking to be reading an entry on Bishop Azad and seeing almost nothing on the thread about him or the Standing Committee. Instead I'd be learning about someone who calls himself a 'simple massing priest' from rural Canada; someone called lapinbizzare and EmilyH who make serious charges of illegality; and hackery defined as using the passive voice. That's enough Thinking for my taste. I'll leave you to carry on, grace and peace.

I see that Christopher is adept at the Glenn Beck method of debate, misrepresenting what others have said, declaring victory and running away. One half expects to see him standing in a flight suit on the deck of an aircraft carrier.

While it is amusing that he justifies the grandiose name of his wee blog based on the names of previous (and now defunct) grandiose names, he fails to address the point often made that the Anglican Communion Institute likes to imply that it has some official standing when, in fact, it has no more standing than any other gang of bloggers.

And finally, on the matter of hackery, the writing of the articles is simply poor. The typical article reads like a student in an introductory class desperately trying to convince the teaching assistant that he's not a complete fid. The strange use of passive voice and the bizzare choice of "explicated" over "explained" are merely examples.

But Christopher will skulk back to "the place across the street" and pretend that he's given us all "what for."

(Oh, and by the way, Chris, not every place in the prairies is "rural." Perhaps if you could extend your limited imagination beyond Jane and Finch, you might realize that there's more to Canada than you suppose.)