The Lead

Update - The standing committee revisited the question of moratoria and, the separation proposal in particular, today [Wednesday]. See the next post above. [3:30PM 7/28/2010]

News that the Anglican Consultative Council Standing Committee voted on whether to separate The Episcopal Church from the Anglican Communion created a stir in the comments here at The Lead, and elsewhere in the Anglican blogosphere.

The proposal was rejected, but there are concerns about why the proposal was not ruled out of order, and since it was not whether this indicates the Standing Committee is taking on powers it does not have. Others say the proposal was made by a lone outgoing member of the SC and it was soundly defeated -- these folks are encouraged by the vote.

One reaction that has come up rather quickly is a call to cut off funding of the Standing Committee. The Rev. Tom Sramek, Jr. argues The Episcopal Church should continue its financial support of the Anglican Communion. The Rev. Mark Harris, a member of Executive Council, argues for turning off the flow of funds.

Tom Sramek, Jr.

I know that this comment won't be popular, but I'm going to make it anyway: Why exactly do we so quickly advocate cutting off funds to the Anglican Communion offices when we wouldn't tolerate dioceses withholding funds from TEC, parishes withholding funds from dioceses, and people withholding funds from parishes as an expression of protest? Do we really want to set an example that if you are upset with what your parish/diocese/TEC is doing you can simply withhold funds? Isn't that what the now-ACNA parishes were doing? I'm just thinking that we need to think this through before we establish the precedent that we vote with our wallets in the church.

If we do end up somehow separated from the Anglican Communion, then it makes sense that we don't financially support an organization of which we are no longer a part, but as long as we are still in the Communion, we need to do our part, IMHO.

Mark Harris

So a closed meeting of the Standing Committee can consider a proposal to separate The Episcopal Church from the Anglican Communion, supposedly with the understanding that such a proposal was in order. It failed not because the power of the Standing Committee was challenged, but because it was felt to be premature and the Standing Committee awaited further input.

Given this, why in the world would TEC, or any other church in the Anglican Communion, believe the Standing Committee to be a servant of unity in the Anglican Communion. It has only met under the new Constitution of the ACC once and already it has usurped powers supposedly those of the ACC itself. The proposed change in the number of primates on the Standing Committee will bring further imbalance away from the ACC and towards the Primates, from any sort of representative governance to princely governance.

Before we know it the damn thing will be a college of Cardinals with a minority of minions in tow.

Financial implications? You bet. Not one thin dime in support.

Your comments are invited. Also, consider participating in our unscientific poll below. Results will be added as an update to this post.

The poll remains open (below). Results as of Saturday midday are here. Summary of these results below:
chart2%2C1pm073010.png

Mark Harris linked to this post yesterday at 5:00 PM, in a further-thoughts post based on the ACNS Day 4 report. For comparison here is the summary pie chart up to the time he posted:

Comments (6)

If we cut funding to a body because it's made a decision we disagree with, I don't see how that body can subsequently change course in our direction without it appearing that we've bought the victory. We're in a communion that's supposed to be an expression of our bonds of affection and mutual faith -- our funding should be based on our commitment to that communion until such time as we give up on it altogether and withdraw. As Tom says, not unlike the commitment we as of a parishioner to his or her parish.

Posted by Mark Preece | July 28, 2010 4:27 PM

As I wrote in the comment section of the poll, Tom is wrong; the difference is that TEC is an ecclesial body in which parishes and dioceses are inherently and by definition part of the larger whole. The AC is a voluntary loose federation of juridicially independent but related churches bound in fellowship. Thus, Mark is right: Not one thin dime.

Posted by John Wirenius | July 28, 2010 6:18 PM

Oh dear, I'm ambivalent. My gut says w/ Mark (and I don't like Tom's equalizing TEC relation to the AC, to parish's to diocese/diocese to TEC. One's canonical, the other's---altogether now!---consultative).

But I think it may be premature to cut off funding just now. I think Executive Council/HofB meeting should officially condemn the lack of an "out-of-order ruling", and just watch the Standing Committee (of the AC) like a hawk, for now.

JC Fisher

Posted by tgflux | July 28, 2010 6:31 PM

If you follow the conservative Anglican websites you will observe that they are very unhappy that the proposal was so soundly defeated, and based on the Day 4 ACNS report, the SC said the proposal is not in the bailiwick.

Granted, that the vote occurred at all is disturbing, but on the whole we should be gratified the conservatives are very sore things aren't going their way. Things aren't going their way, and that's the main message to be communicated to the folks in our pews, and to the media.

Posted by John B. Chilton | July 29, 2010 11:33 AM

This isn't abstract "funding" we're talking about, it's dollars and cents from real parishioners in real churches and dioceses, including annual appropriations for the useless and insulting Lambeth Conference.

Multiply $10,000 (the cost of the conference) times 109 dioceses and we're talking a million bucks for one tea party in London - while TEC can't even afford an evangelism officer.

The Archbishop of Canterbury hath no jurisdiction in this republic. Let Bonnie Anderson send Rowan a postcard: Not one thin dime.

Posted by Josh Thomas | July 30, 2010 3:42 PM

Amen, Josh. I want my hard-earned and joyfully-given money to go to mission, not Lambeth and the pitiable ++Rowan, with his army of perseverating English "compromisers."

John Donnelly

Posted by John D | July 30, 2010 8:24 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