In a welcome move, ACO Standing Committee reports on its activities
Sensing perhaps that it has a significant public relations problem, the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion has begun to offer reports on its activities. This constitutes a welcome step in the direction of transparency, even if the need for the existence of this body remains opaque.
The headlines:
In brief
•New ACC Articles of Association now replace the old unincorporated Constitution. •Canon Janet Trisk confirmed as the replacement to Ms Nomfundo Walaza. •Bp Ian Douglas continues to serve on Standing Committee •Representative elected to fill vacancy. •Committee agrees its official name is “The Standing Committee”. Friday’s agenda included membership issues, recent developments in the Communion and reports from Chair Bp James Tengatenga and Secretary General Revd Canon Kenneth Kearon.
In other developments, the Anglican Communion Office has posted a Q&A on the Standing Committee.
Read the Q&A titled What is the Standing Committee? Does it answer your questions? Does it leave you with more questions?
At the same time the ACO issued a roster of the Standing Committee. How many bishops do you count?
Hat tip to Thinking Anglicans.
8 bishops, 1 priest, 4 laypeople.
2 Americans, 3 Brits, 6 from less-developed countries, an Aussie and a Kiwi.
It's odd to see the Presiding Bishop named as Dr. Jefferts Schori; one more time of the CofE fetishizing academic credentials over ecclesiastical ones. Anything they can do to separate themselves from the common folk, they do. A minor canon at Westminster Abbey will have 40 initials after his name and preach to a congregation of six at Evensong.
Posted by Josh Thomas![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
July 24, 2010 12:25 PM
The following part of this report reads rather like Pravda used to; one wonders what the PB, or Bp. Douglas, or others had to say in response to such claims:
"There was an opportunity for members of the Committee to express their
views and ask questions about the decision to remove or alter the status
of members from one province serving on the Anglican Communion’s
ecumenical dialogues and IASCUFO. The Archbishop of Canterbury and
Secretary General Kenneth Kearon explained the rationale behind this
decision. In particular the Committee was assured that the Archbishop
had not acted unilaterally but with the support of the Secretary General
of the Anglican Communion; that they had acted within their powers; and
that the action had not been punitive in intention. Rather it had been
taken—following the breaking of the agreed moratoria—in response to the
needs of the Communion in respect to ecumenical dialogues and faith and
order bodies. Committee members were told that other Provinces were
under consideration."
Um, "[i]n particular the Committee was assured that the Archbishop
had not acted unilaterally but with the support of the Secretary General
of the Anglican Communion; that they had acted within their powers; and
that the action had not been punitive in intention."???: Oh, well then, that settles it all; how very silly of us not just to take their word on everything.
Yes, mere "assurances," not any actual answers with documentation and explanation (e.g., *how* exactly was not this *not* ultra vires under existing rules, especially for Kearon to act as if Rowan++ alone is his boss?), that's all that was needed.
Posted by David Cornell![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
July 24, 2010 4:05 PM