Comments: ECUSA Exec Council: Saturday reports

My memory dims.

Does anyone remember the total number of NAAC, CANA, and AMiA congregations in the USA?

Is it 200 as reported by Mr. Beavan in his article in "Religious Intelligence"?

Posted by Tim Stewart at Saturday, 16 June 2007 at 9:34pm BST

First of all, all 3 of these reports are sensationalistic: I almost thought that the ExecCounc had actually responded to "gay consecrations", when this is just about the days-old reports of the rejection of the (artificial deadline-imposed) Primatial Vicar scheme (but ONLY because only GC can make such a decision!)

But I want to specifically reply to this (in the RI report):

"Responding to the announcement, the Rev Dr Chris Sugden . . . said: “When the authority of the Primates was introduced at the Lambeth Conference in 1998 to deal with the issues in Rwanda, everybody agreed.

“But now something that was regarded as acceptable when dealing with Africans is not acceptable to the Americans. It sniffs of racism.

“They are saying the Primates are not representative of them, but the Primates do represent each of their provinces, yet the Americans are forcing their polity on others.”

What a load of execrable POPPYCOCK. TEC isn't "forcing their polity" on anyone---not even our own boo-hooing dissidents!

Comparing TEC's polite decline of the authoritarian move by the Primates, to RWANDAN GENOCIDE??? (And then playing the race card on top of that?)

Rev Dr Sugden: at long last, sir, at long last---have you NO DECENCY? :-(

Lord have mercy!

Posted by JCF at Saturday, 16 June 2007 at 10:09pm BST

Yes. it's rather odd, Chris Sugden's comment. It is a bit like saying this man is imposing his skin on me when I keep hitting him.

Rowan Williams in the recent Time audio release of part of the interview said:

"To me it's very important that this language of the Body of Christ is at the heart of our thinking. Now some people are vary wary of the application of this to Church politics as if it prescribes a kind of top-down or organic or impersonal model. I don't see that myself."

Given the way things are intended, but hopefully will never arrive, it's as if whilst the Roman Catholics have their Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Anglicans could end up with a Congregation for the Process of the Faith. It is top down.

Posted by Pluralist at Sunday, 17 June 2007 at 1:38am BST

I agree that some iterations of the realignment campaign hype come perilously close to bearing false witness. The way I read the replies to the Primates Communique so far involve a good deal of trying to be clear, measured, and faithful occupants of the traditional Anglican legacies which realignment is so actively denying, all the traditional Anglican big tent parameters.

One cannot guess in advance just how far Canterbury will let the realignment folks trash talk everybody else - including these red herring mentions of racism as if objections to Nigeria were about skin color instead of the discovery of the innate competence of Nigerian queer folks and those related to them.

Nor can we easily guess to what extent the critical inquiries into the homophobic and heteronormative errors of the negative relgious legacy witness will continue to be deflected in the name of pledging gospel values, especially holiness defined by categorical and presuppositional puritannical belief systems.

The continuing moments in which we reluctantly find ways to resist this realignment grow apace, reaching out to embrace collateral frameworks, issues, and hot button differences newly set afire by the wedge queer folks' dilemmas.

I hope Canada makes it through, and that conversation inside the HoB with Rowan Williams helps him to see the realignment traps and cul de sacs laid for him and for all of us, especially insofar as realignment shifts try to lay claim to all the Anglican oxygen there is, in favor of a narrower and narrower Anglican tent.

Bravo so far, to both PB KJS and to HoD BA. Their leadership comes just right at the right time. Now the rest of us need to keep stepping up, all around the planet.

Posted by drdanfee at Sunday, 17 June 2007 at 4:58am BST

I imagine the macho leaders of the Global South growling about "the monstrous regiment of women"!

Posted by Fr Joseph O'Leary at Sunday, 17 June 2007 at 5:33am BST

“When the authority of the Primates was introduced at the Lambeth Conference in 1998 to deal with the issues in Rwanda, everybody agreed."

Nothing came out of this. The paragraph remains a dead letter.

Also, I don't think "schism" is coming closer - I think it recedes into the background the closer it gets.

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Sunday, 17 June 2007 at 7:11am BST

Elsewhere on TA there has been recent mention of Goodwin's Law ("As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one"). In reality, the nuclear option of 21st century polemics is the charge of racism. On no basis whatever, Sugden tars TEC with this brush, stating that the rejection of the Dar es Salaam primatial oversight model without the approval of General Convention "sniffs [suppose he means "stinks", but what price literacy?] of racism". In a bizarre take on moral equivalence, he equates TEC's putting the oversight scheme on the back burner with the Rwandan Genocide - as JCF quotes, "at long last, have you no decency".

Re. Sugden's statement "When the authority of the Primates was introduced at the Lambeth Conference in 1998 to deal with the issues in Rwanda, everybody agreed", would appreciate an explanation of how Lambeth 1.7, presumably the motion that Sugden refers to, relates to primatial authority.

On a pretty-well unrelated topic, but perhaps of interest to some, Mark Harris notes that Gregory Venables is not in fact "archbishop" of the Southern Cone - the correct title is "presiding bishop".

Posted by Lapinbizarre at Sunday, 17 June 2007 at 3:41pm BST

I hope that I am wrong, but will Sugden's "racism" charge be the first shot of an attack on TEC, framing its rejection of and litigations against the incursions of AMiA, CANA, and the new Kenya-based "plant" as racist, on the grounds that all three are subsidiary franchises of African provinces.

Posted by Lapinbizarre at Sunday, 17 June 2007 at 5:15pm BST

"Also, I don't think "schism" is coming closer - I think it recedes into the background the closer it gets."
Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne

That, dear Goran, is exactly what I have been sensing and noticing's a "house of cards"...I think built by a few overly zealous sorta religious and frantic political grandstanders who will do "anything"--especiially promote fear and hate--for empty prestige, silver and gold!

Many are "readjusting" their mitres and putting on fresher smelling robes as we speak/write...scrub away fellas because you are still welcome at THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH because the EPISCOPAL CHURCH welcomes EVERYONE!

Posted by Leonardo Ricardo at Sunday, 17 June 2007 at 8:00pm BST

Hmmm - I wonder how good your antenna are, Leonardo since you seem to think TEC may be able to dupe the AC into accepting its innovations and doublespeak.

Have you head of Jeffrey John, TWR, Dromantine, the Tanzania Communique? Remember what the ABC calls "the mind of the Communion" is, he says, very firmly behind Lambeth 1.10 and not persuaded by TEC's innovations.

What evidence do you have to support your wishful thinking that TEC will be allowed to stay in the AC but deliberately defy the accepted stance of the AC?

Posted by NP at Monday, 18 June 2007 at 7:30am BST

Remember though. When NP and the rest of them point to Lambeth 1.10 and to the Windsor Report, they are only pointing to certain bits with which they disagree. Other bits (like that silly "listening" stuff in Lambeth 1.10 or that call to end ecclesiastical encroachments in Windsor) are to be ignored.

Posted by Malcolm French+ at Monday, 18 June 2007 at 6:42pm BST

That's hardly surprising, Malcolm, since they read scripture the very same way.

Posted by JPM at Monday, 18 June 2007 at 10:57pm BST

How many times, Malcolm?
- people have been listening for decades, ad nauseam....and are not convinced!

It may suit some agenda-groups for the AC to listen forever and never make a decision ....but the price for this is the AC blowing up and anyway, it just does not make sense never to make a decision because a small minority wants to make its case forever or until everyone else gets sick of the disruption and leaves.

Rowan Williams even wrote some of the "listening" stuff that he is now NOT pushing on everyone else because he sees that the AC is not persuaded......

Posted by NP at Tuesday, 19 June 2007 at 9:38am BST

But Nigeria has refused to listen at all.

Posted by Malcolm French+ at Tuesday, 19 June 2007 at 8:41pm BST

"people have been listening for decades,"

Yet again, NP, I ask, how did the listening process play out in your parish? Lambeth asked that you listen to gay people. Since you have been listening "for decades" I assume you have had a large number of gay people come to your parish to explain what their lives have been, how your message is not, in their ears, a call to holiness as you think it to be, but rather a denial of their very humanity. I assume you are quite familiar with the way the propaganda of the extreme right hurts them and drives them from the Church. I assume you know what it is to grow up knowing that even God hates you. I assume you have in Christian charity searched for ways to preach your message that do not close the ears of the gay people you wish to reach. If you have not listened to gay people, but rather to the cries of prelates, then how have you been compliant with Lambeth? Might as well answer now, 'cuz I'm like a crackie with a bone, I ain't letting this one go. If you haven't listened, that's fine, but stop claiming you have, and stop accusing others of the same lack of compliance with Lambeth of which you are guilty.

Posted by Ford Elms at Wednesday, 20 June 2007 at 12:00am BST
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.