The Lead

Following up on a story first posted by Mark Harris, and reported on the Café here, The Church of England Newspaper reports that the Anglican Consultative Council does not intend any sort of tacit recognition of the Anglican Church in North America by the appointment of an ACNA priest to an ACC committee.

"The presence of a member of the Anglican Church of North American (ACNA) on the Anglican Consultative Council’s Evangelism and Church Growth Initiative (ECGI) is not a stalking horse for the ‘back door’ recognition of the breakaway group, a spokesman for the Anglican Consultative Council tells The Church of England Newspaper.
[...]A spokesman for the ACC told CEN the charges that the ACNA was somehow being given formal status through Dr. Linnell’s appointment were unfounded.

While membership on Communion initiatives like the ECGI comes through proposals made by provinces, Dr. Linnell was ‘one of four people who were co-opted to the ECGI group for their expertise in a particular area. In his case it is his role as leader of the Anglican Frontier Mission and his significant experience of evangelism to unreached peoples,’ said ACC spokesman Jan Butter."

Read the full article here.

Mark Harris though argues that's not the real issue:

But back to the issue. I previously wrote, "For a Church that often exemplifies the niceties of formal relationships and for an Archbishop who is so concerned not to have members of a church that is unrepentant of Windsor demands part of its ecumenical work, there seems to be no parallel concern about having members of churches not in communion with Canterbury and schismatic part of a working group of the Anglican Communion."
That still stands.

And let the reader understand that my question has not been about Dr. Linnell's work with Anglican Frontier Missions. The question is about inclusion of a priest member of a church that views the evangelical activities of The Episcopal Church to be a misappropriation of the Good News under the guise of greater inclusion. I have no notion if Dr. Linnell shares the condemnatory opinion of his Archbishop. Since he does not "represent any ecclesial body" that may not matter.

What matters is that the Evangelism and Church Growth Initiative has co-opted Dr. Linnell for his expertese, and the press release on this made no note of that fact. We might well wonder if the Anglican Communion Office overlooked this oddity and forgot to mention that some members of ECGI were co-opted from mission organizations. Or perhaps the ACO simply does not understand that, having been excused from participation in various Anglican Communion bodies, we in The Episcopal Church might be somewhat sensitive to the idea of co-opting members of a church whose existence is based on the premise that The Episcopal Church has departed from the Gospel.

Comments (4)

Mark gets to the heart: "What matters is that the Evangelism and Church Growth Initiative has co-opted Dr. Linnell for his expertese, and the press release on this made no note of that fact. We might well wonder if the Anglican Communion Office overlooked this oddity and forgot to mention that some members of ECGI were co-opted from mission organizations."

ACO or CYA?

Can the ACO simply say we had no idea he was ACNA? Or that if did co-opting certainly looks like an endorsement of ACNA?

Or does ACO want to say they co-opted him as an individual? And if so, why are other individuals demoted from communion committees because of their affiliation with an organization known as The Episcopal Church?

The ACO is the people's office, but operates behind a veil of stonewalling and incoherence.

Posted by John B. Chilton | March 5, 2011 1:07 PM

I still don't get what all the fuss is about. I serve on an Anglican body with a Baptist member, who is there because of his expertise. No fuss is made about it because it is obvious why he is there, which is not because he is a Baptist but in spite of it.

Posted by tobias haller | March 5, 2011 2:16 PM

Tobias, I respect your wisdom as always. The difference I see is that the Baptist church may be in friendly competition for converts, but his church isn't taking property that belongs to another church, nor is it claiming the identity as the Anglican Communion in the United States.

Given those circumstances it is appropriate to ask the ACO how it makes any sense from a member of ACNA to be on a Communion committee. Or how it is consistent with its own policy towards TEC.

Posted by John B. Chilton | March 5, 2011 3:04 PM

John, I also respect your work. What policy towards TEC are you referring to? As I see it, TEC members serve on many AC committees and functions, the only limits being on those which purportedly represent the "Anglican" view to those outside of Anglicanism. I think this is apples and oranges, unless you are referring to something else.

Posted by tobias haller | March 5, 2011 4:50 PM

Add your comments

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)

CATEGORIES

Organizations