The Church Times covers the story of ACI emails
Pat Ashworth of the Church Times writes:
Fourteen conservative bishops in the United States have declared that the Episcopal Church consists of autonomous but interdependent dioceses, “not subject to any metropolitical power or hierarchical control”.The national Church has no power to speak for them, says a statement expected to be published later this week. The document lays the ground for individual dioceses to sign the Anglican Covenant.
It is written largely by a retired lawyer, Mark McCall, and is endorsed by conservative theologians from the three-member Anglican Communion Institute (ACI). They include the Revd Dr Ephraim Radner, a member of the Covenant Design Group.
The story is here, but you have to scroll down.
At that same address, the CT also has a story that includes comments by the spectacularly uninformed George Carey, former Archbishop of Canterbury.
Today's essay on Daily Episcopalian asks whether, in light of the leaked emails, the proposed Angilcan Covenant is properly viewed as an attempt to impose conditions of the rejected Dar es Salaam settlement through other means.
It's pretty obvious that the General Convention exercises legitimate authority through its power to adopt binding canons. There are also procedures for disciplining clergy, including bishops, who fail to abide by these canons.
We don't have a metropolitan in the classic sense of an Archbishop, but metropolitical authority is vested in General Convention, the Executive Council, and (in some very limited ways) in the office of the Presiding Bishop. Other interim bodies may exercise some functions that would be exercised by the metropolitan in other polities.
Because we don't have the form of metropolitical authority that they fantasize about, they assume we have no doctrine, discipline, and worship. Just what do they think they were promising to conform to???
I'm more than happy to have authority exercised collegially among bishops, with a house of clerical and lay deputies as part of the process, thank you very much.
George Carey will be remembered in history as Margaret Thatcher's revenge on Anglicanism. He has done vast amounts of harm, intentionally and through sheer ignorance. His lack of leadership laid the groundwork for the schismatics.
Posted by Bill Carroll![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 24, 2009 9:26 AM
I would would be interested to hear Dr. Radner's thoughts on this--specifically, how this statement from ACI interacts with the Ridley draft, and what effect he imagines this statement having on General Convention's eventual decision to adopt or reject the covenant.
Recently in this forum, Dr. Radner asserted: "There is nothing 'mischievous' about this [the Ridley draft]. One may not like it, but it is not underhanded nor is it some nefarious plot to unseat TEC as a province. (It needs to be said, of course, that not all currently recognized participating members of the Communion are provinces. That is precisely one reason this article is in the Covenant: the Communion is not now, nor is it necessarily assumed to become, something that only “provinces” are a part of, although that remains the normal, if not exclusive, ecclesial grouping.)"
It seems disingenuous to me, in light of this statement from ACI, for Dr. Radner to pretend that he would not very much like to see TEC "unseated" as a province.
I assume the primary motivation for this desire is because Dr. Radner disagrees with TEC's general direction toward full inclusion of all the baptized in all the sacraments.
(In fact, I assume that to be true of everyone who signed the ACI statement, and of most people pushing for quick adoption of the covenant. Would anyone care to demonstrate that this assumption is incorrect?)
Jason Cox
Posted by JasonC![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 24, 2009 1:28 PM