Wednesday, 23 February 2011

ACNA priest on Communion-wide body?

Previously, questions were asked about the participation of Mark McIntosh in the work of ARCIC III.

Now, some questions have been raised about the participation of Julian Linnell in this Evangelism and Church Growth Initiative of the Anglican Communion Office.

See the recent news report: More than 60 evangelism resources soon available for the Anglican Communion.

Questions are asked here:

Paul Bagshaw Who is the Anglican Communion Office working for?

Mark Harris Is Julian Linnell an ACNA member on an Anglican Communion group? and later ACNA priest part of Anglican Communion evangelism group

Episcopal Café Jim Naughton Of dubious appointments

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Wednesday, 23 February 2011 at 10:04am GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: ACNA | Anglican Communion
Comments

In answer to the headline: Yes, ACNA priest is on Communion-wide body.

Putting it mildly, the real question is how did that happen?

We're still waiting for an answer from Canon Kearon.

Posted by: John B. Chilton on Wednesday, 23 February 2011 at 11:42am GMT

Who is so dumb as to appoint someone from a schismatic group that has renounced its ties with TEC to an Anglican Commmunion post? Can't they read over there?

Of course, if the woman had any honor or integrity, she would have turned down the appointment, but looking for honor or integrity among those who have follwed Duncan into the wilderness is futile.

Posted by: Cynthia Gilliatt on Wednesday, 23 February 2011 at 1:11pm GMT

Cynthia,
Julian Linnell is a man. Before you question his honor or integrity, why don't you get a little more info?

Posted by: Robert on Wednesday, 23 February 2011 at 2:32pm GMT

Cynthia, it's the Rev. Dr. *Mr.* Linnell, just to give him his due.

As I wrote at "Preludium," Dr. Linnell may well be a scholar of sufficient value that his work may be worth noting. He serves on with Anglican Frontier Mission, which says it is not related to a particular denomination. So, let's say it could be reasonable to bring in an outside expert, if his or her work is of sufficient value.

However, I think full disclosure would require noting not just his position with Anglican Frontier Mission, but also that his ministry is in ACNA. It need not bring about dismissal, but it would give information of the background he brings to the work. We can be open, perhaps; but we need to be fully informed.

Posted by: Marshall Scott on Wednesday, 23 February 2011 at 3:18pm GMT

Question: Is Faith2Share an official CoE organization? The bigger question is: Is it a requirement for the ACO to only use official church organizations in their work?
If so, then the real problem is that AFM was included at all, not who their director is. If it's not a requirement, AFM makes clear on their website they're non-denominational, though founded by an Episcopal priest, and that they include people from any denomination that wants to help. Would the outcry be the same if he (Julian's a man) was Methodist or Presbyterian? AFM's list of where they work make it seem likely AFM was known to other members of the group from those areas, so perhaps he was included for that reason. Dr. Linnell's credentials and AFM's work seem useful to the group and its goals.

Would a Methodist have "any honor or integrity" in accepting if they had been invited? Unless the ACO ONLY allows official denomination-sponsored groups on the team,or until Dr. Linnell starts boasting about sticking it to TEC, let it go. If background checks are to become the norm, make sure they're on everyone. Which side is the Australian on in the mess there? What are all the African members' views on gay marriage, etc.?

Posted by: Chris H. on Wednesday, 23 February 2011 at 4:05pm GMT

Neither the Methodists nor the Presbyterians have attacked TEC and tried to hijack its property.

Posted by: Cynthia Gilliatt on Wednesday, 23 February 2011 at 5:25pm GMT

Since the name that follows the person in question is Captain Judy Douglas – Church Army Australia, it is obvious that not every member is an Anglican. The ire seems to be that the ACO would be so insensitive as to appoint someone who is a resident priest in ACNA over all of the other possibilities in the world. In the area of sensitivity the ABC and the Canon suffer from equal cases of cranial-rectal inversion.

Posted by: Hermano David | Brother Dah•veed on Wednesday, 23 February 2011 at 6:35pm GMT

The honour or integrity of an individual or of that individual's actions are relative, dependent on his/her sex, Robert?

Posted by: Lapinbizarre on Wednesday, 23 February 2011 at 6:51pm GMT

All these quasi-anonymous + fully anon commentators sounding off. It is almost meaningless to me.

Liberals are too liberal for our own good.

Posted by: Laurence Roberts on Wednesday, 23 February 2011 at 10:20pm GMT

What a fuss about nothing, people really do need to get a life!

Posted by: Martin Reynolds on Wednesday, 23 February 2011 at 11:18pm GMT

'Since the name that follows the person in question is Captain Judy Douglas – Church Army Australia, it is obvious that not every member is an Anglican'

Last time I checked Church Army Australia was still an Anglican organisation. See the following link:

http://www.churcharmy.com.au/ourhistory/ourhistory.html

Posted by: Tim Chesterton on Thursday, 24 February 2011 at 1:55am GMT

@Hermano David: Just to correct you, the Church Army is an Anglican mission organisation that operates in many provinces of the communion. Evangelists are licensed by the Bishop of the Diocese in which they operate, and indeed the Chair of the Board of Directors of each provincial Church Army tends to be a Diocesan Bishop. (http://www.churcharmy.org.uk/pub/aboutus/international/CAInternational.aspx)
It would therefore appear that all of the participants in this initiative are licensed Clergy or Lay Ministers in good standing in Churches of the Anglican Communion, except for Dr Linnell.

Posted by: Anon on Thursday, 24 February 2011 at 4:03am GMT

"Since the name that follows the person in question is Captain Judy Douglas – Church Army Australia, it is obvious that not every member is an Anglican."

I'm not sure how that follows - the Church Army is an organization founded to serve a missionary role akin to the Sally Ann within the established Church of England. (In Canada, mind you, they've recently rebranded themselves and dispensed with the military-inspired trappings).

Posted by: Geoff on Thursday, 24 February 2011 at 4:18am GMT

"Since the name that follows the person in question is Captain Judy Douglas – Church Army Australia, it is obvious that not every member is an Anglican."

Church Army not Anglican?

Could have fooled me.

Posted by: TimStewart on Thursday, 24 February 2011 at 6:03am GMT

It would seem that the Anglican origins of each of the participating members of this organisation - purporting to be Anglican - ought be checked out by the ACO.

However, if Julian Linnell really is a member of the schismatic faux-Anglican ACNA, he should be quizzed as to his loyalty to TEC, which is the only traditional Anglican Communion partner in the United States.

Let's hope someone at the ACO asks him as to whether or not he belongs to ACNA. If he does, is that not a tacit acceptance of the membership of ACNA in the Communion - a situation some of us would not like to be party to.

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Thursday, 24 February 2011 at 8:41am GMT

Glad to see that you're still around Fr. Smith. My sympathies and condolences to the tragedy besetting New Zealand in this terrible hour.

Posted by: evensongjunkie on Thursday, 24 February 2011 at 2:18pm GMT

Not only am I around, evensongjunkie - I am now what is known as bionically enhanced, with a new hip and no pain. Deo Gratias. Had my first shower this morning since the quake, and am in good spirits - as is my darling wife Diana, who is at this very moment conducting her usual session of spiritual direction in our undamaged home - just 2 miles from the devastated city centre of Christchurch. Thanks for the prayers of everyone. We just live from day to day, giving thanks to God. My blogging on behalf of Inclusive Church is continuing on my web-site http://kiwianglo.wordpress.com God is Love!

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Thursday, 24 February 2011 at 9:41pm GMT

"Church Army not Anglican?

Could have fooled me."

If you had told most Episcopalians that something called the Church Army exists, they would be surprised. It's only found in a very few places here, and judging from its website plays down any connection it has to Anglicanism; the only "Anglican" group they seem to be working with seems to be +Duncan's outfit. For all intents and purposes they appear to be a smaller, less successful version of the Salvation Army, with whom they would probably be confused (which is what I assumed happened in this case).

Posted by: Bill Dilworth on Thursday, 24 February 2011 at 9:49pm GMT

The Church Army is very well known in the Church of England. See
http://www.churcharmy.org.uk/

Posted by: Simon Sarmiento on Thursday, 24 February 2011 at 10:24pm GMT

That's right Simon. An order of Evangelists within the Church of England. Their President is one Desmond Tutu !

Posted by: Laurence Roberts on Friday, 25 February 2011 at 2:02am GMT

Well, the UK manifestation looks considerably more like something I would recognize as "Anglican" than the generic protestantiness of the some of the CA-US sites I've looked at today. I don't think they'd want to be associated with the likes of Archbishop Tutu, for example.

The link is below. If you click it, you may be surprised to see that you are shunted to the webpage of something called Church Army Branson.This appears to be their flagship operation, although Church Army USA itself is run out of Pittsburgh.

www.churcharmyusa.org

This link will take you to the national organization's site. But if you click on the index, it will take you right back to Branson! The national site uses the word "Anglican" a couple of times, but if it used the word "Episcopal" I must have missed it.


http://www.churcharmyusa.org/whatis-frames.html

Posted by: Bill Dilworth on Friday, 25 February 2011 at 3:01am GMT

I don't see this as a tacit recognition of the ACNA by the Anglican Communion Office. If it were, the ACNA itself would be trumpeting it. If anything, it's an explicit recognition that Dr. Linnell and Anglican Frontier Missions have a valuable contribution to make to evangelism and church growth.

As was discussed recently in another thread, including the ACNA as a Province of the Anglican Communion would require approval from 2/3 of the Primates. The votes aren't there now, and it's going to be along time--if ever--before they are. And the chances are even less of the ACNA being approved as a replacement for TEC and the ACofC. The ACNA is in communion with certain individual Provinces, and it may enter into communion with other Provinces over time. But that won't make the ACNA part of the Anglican Communion any more than the Church of Sweden or the ELCA are.

Posted by: Paul Powers on Friday, 25 February 2011 at 5:41am GMT

I was trained at the training college of the Church Army in Canada 1976 to 1978 and served with CA Canada for 12 years prior to ordination. In those days it was specifically Anglican - admittedly, mainly of the evangelical variety (nothing wrong with that - after all, religious orders can be specifically Anglican though mainly of the Anglo-Catholic variety!).

In recent years it has rebranded itself as an interdenominational order of evangelists in Canada, although a majority of its members are still Anglican. Recently, as noted, it has moved away from the paramilitary imagery and taken the name Threshold Ministries.

Posted by: Tim Chesterton on Friday, 25 February 2011 at 10:52am GMT

Paul said: "I don't see this as a tacit recognition of the ACNA by the Anglican Communion Office. If it were, the ACNA itself would be trumpeting it."

Actually, I'm quite shocked they haven't been trumpeting this - whether it is intended as tacit recognition or not. Heck, when they got defeated three times in less than an hour on the Ashworth resolution last year, they claimed that was tacit recognition.

Posted by: Malcolm French+ on Friday, 25 February 2011 at 9:20pm GMT

I think that proves my point. The ACNA realizes that he was chosen in spite of, not because of, his being in the ACNA. Of course that's assuming he wasnt still in TEC when he was appointed in the first place.

Posted by: Paul Powers on Saturday, 26 February 2011 at 5:09am GMT

The ACNA schismatics also realized that the progress of the Ashworth resolution meant they had been defeated (soundly) three times in one hour - yet they still pretended it was an endorsement.

If they haven't claimed this as an endorsement, it's that they've missed it completely.

You are attributing honesty to a group of people who have never acted honestly before.

Posted by: Malcolm French+ on Saturday, 26 February 2011 at 3:08pm 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.