Monday, March 28, 2011

Rearranging the deckchairs

You knew they were meeting, didn't you? And you didn't tell me. Noone tells me anything these days. But I have found out. Secret agent Titus One Nine is on the case. So, thanks to their tip off, now I know. The Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion is meeting as we read these words. ACNS is reporting daily. SPOILER: Do not read these reports just before bedtime ...

Here for Day One.

Here's my journalistic hunch. If we may liken the Communion to the SS Titanic just after it has hit the iceberg, then we will find this meeting may be likened to the work party assigned to rearranging the deckchairs.

But I could be wrong.

Actually I would like to be wrong about the official, institutional work of the Communion's elite committees.


Father Ron Smith said...

Peter, you must still be suffering from what has become known as 'post-
Quake depression'. If this is what represents a 'faith' viewm I wouldn't want to encounter a doubting one.

Do you think the Holy Spirit has opted out of the Anglican Communion? Or are you just hoping that it will be taken over by trhe GAFCON crowd?

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Ron,
(1) Wherever the Holy Spirit is at work in the church it is possible that we may 'quench the Spirit'. The Holy Spirit is at work in the Communion. Is it possible that we are quenching the Spirit through our refusal to face important matters?

(2) I am not hoping the Communion will be taken over by the 'GAFCON crowd.' Nothing I have written on this blog suggests that is my hope at all. There have been plenty of comments by me over the years here which are critical of GAFCON and highlight inadequacy of the Jerusalem Declaration.

(3) I am hoping the Communion will be taken over by a desire to acknowledge the significance of the absence of bishops from Lambeth and primates from the Primates Meeting.

Andrew Reid said...

Hi Peter,
Day 2 wasn't much better!

My personal favourites:
"It was agreed that, due to the pending ACC in 2012, the Secretary General would write to all Member-Churches concerning expected membership representation at that meeting."
- After all the manipulation to keep orthodox representatives out of the ACC and make sure nothing substantial is achieved to resolve the Communion crisis, they have a problem with people not showing up!
"Mr Fordham reported that the auditors had given the (ACC) finances “a clean bill of health”."
- Too bad the ACC is dying from non-financial illnesses.
"Responses from the committee to the presentation included an agreement to explore the desirability of employing a professional fundraiser."
- Who would want to give money to the ACC? If member churches of the Communion don't see its value and hence aren't paying their contributions, I'm not sure anyone else will.

Andrew Reid

Peter Carrell said...

You will observe, Andrew, that I have not bothered to post a link to day two ...

liturgy said...

I’m confused. Isn’t this the committee central to clause 4 of the Covenant? That only 2 days ago you were (once again strongly advocating for) saying is intended to fix not only the Communion but also the common life of our province – impacting us to the point of causing a separate diocese of Taranaki to exist? Isn’t this the committee that I, and droves of others, from conservative through to liberals (the conservatives are not turning up and they are not going to sign) have been saying constantly: “it will do no such thing”? Why are you so surprised that the committee is doing no such thing? Has the dialogue been so in vain?


Ps. your allowing through moderation the anonymous comment from “church services online” is just allowing through spam. The “author” (probably a bot) never even read what you wrote. Click on the link.

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Bosco,
Point about bot commenter appreciated!

I distinguish between the reality of the present Standing Committee which has no Covenant to work to (and no complaints generated by the Covenant to attend to) and the hoped for situation in which the Communion is committed to the Covenant and has a Standing Committee resolved to uphold the Covenant.

I know you will recall some earlier posts/comments by me which is very hesitant about the role the Covenant will play in a Communion which is not 90% or more committed to it. While the Covenant remains a live possibility for the Communion I am committed to supporting it, in the hope which I hope is not in vain that 90% or more will come to the Covenant table.

liturgy said...

As more than 10% have already made very clear they will not sign this Covenant, we will both be right.

Peter Carrell said...

A win-win situation?!

Andrew Reid said...

Another day, another re-arrangement.
This time, the Bible in the Life of the Church project dithers away on the Marks of Mission, while we can't even agree on slightly more fundamental concepts like the authority of the Scriptures, and the nature of Scriptural revelation - ie is it God's Word, and do we need to obey it?
Andrew Reid

Peter Carrell said...

The thing, Andrew, is to keep reading, talking, reading, talking, reading, talking ... :)

Father Ron Smith said...

Perhaps Andrew Reid ought to be comforted by the fact that "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us". This puts into a proper context the words in The Book. Scripture, since the Incarnation of the Divine Word, has to be understood in the light of the life, death and resurrection, and the legacy of Jesus Christ, who is The Light of the World. Scripture is but a pale reflection of that Light.

What I say is more Eucharist, and less
talkie-talk. Less obfuscation through words, words, and more words. What we need is action! We who are at one with the Word-made-flesh - through our Baptism and the Eucharist, do not need to fear - as those without Christ are wont to do. We have been redeemed, we are redeemed, and we will be redeemed - not by our personal goodness, but because God loves us - despite our sins. That is the message of the Gospel.

Anonymous said...

'"The Word became flesh and dwelt among us". This puts into a proper context the words in The Book.' -

But we only know this because John's gospel say so and we choose to interpret these words quite literally (fundamentally?). Paul's letter to the Romans presumably came earlier. Are you going to obey its teaching as well? or deconstruct it?

"Scripture, since the Incarnation of the Divine Word, has to be understood in the light of the life, death and resurrection, and the legacy of Jesus Christ, who is The Light of the World."
True enough - but the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ are only known to us through Scripture. We know nothing of any consequence about Jesus outside the NT.

"Scripture is but a pale reflection of that Light.'
It's the only light we have in this world. It's God-given and fit for purpose.