I do not know the answer to my question in the heading. But here is the official AngComm Standing Committee membership and profiles. I know some on this list are NOT in any way shape or form, conservative evangelicals!
And here is a set of Qs and As about the SC.
Clearer about everything now?
Anyone care to say that this committee IS representative of the whole Anglican Communion?
(H/T Thinking Anglicans)
5 comments:
"Clearer about everything now?"
The only thing I am at all clear about Peter is the sheer need for MUCH PRAYER these next few days ... For while the example of the proverbial "Rubicon" is often used, my own view is that this little meeting might just tip the entire Covenant matter either on track - or overboard into the Valley Chinnom.
Prayer it is!
I wonder how many of your readers are like me, unable to make any sense of some of your posts. They are sometimes so phrased I cannot work out if you are for something or against something – and wonder what the point of the post, being public, actually is?
This appears, for example to be a private conversation between you and Bryden Black – who has a similarly obscure approach with his “I have of course my own views. But what they are surely is not possible to express on any blogging medium!”
The H/T to Thinking Anglicans does not click through to anything – so we are left wondering, well I am at least, what is the point that you and Bryden are making, if any?
Who is this conservative evangelical on your list? Rowan Williams? And “conservative evangelical” by whose standard, and meaning what? Rosemary’s? Bryden’s? Yours? Mine? And is this a bad thing? A good thing? We should try and get rid of this person because he/she is anti-women in orders (being your current thread)? When are these people meeting? What is their agenda? What is the issue that you are writing about here?
Wouldn’t it be more use if you gave the Standing Committee list and actually put alongside each what you perceive to be significant about his/her particular perspective? I am genuinely struggling to see what the point of this and other posts like it actually is. If it is clear to everyone except me, I must be particularly thick.
Anyone?
Alison
Hi ALison,
I have been a bit ambiguous, I realise, rereading the post: the point of the post is that I think the committee is highly unrepresentative of the Anglican Communion as a whole, not least because I cannot find even one conservative evangelical on it. So far no reader has suggested that there is even just one conevo on this important committee so it may just turn out that I am right.
The H/T to Thinking Anglicans is because it is from them that I obtained the two links which I also provide in my post. Thinking Anglicans can be linked to from my blog via the link to it on the right hand column.
Hi Peter,
Doesn't look like it...all the conservative evangelicals have left because their voices were not being heard - Anis, Orombi, and Marshall. It looks less like a Standing Committee and more like a kangaroo court. How can a body that claims to represent the AC have no one from Nigeria, Kenya, or Tanzania?? The largest and fastest growing Anglican churches are excluded. Not sure any of their bishops or lay people would want to be involved now, but it shows what a joke this SC is.
Hopefully, they will follow Archbishop Anis' recommendation that once each province has had an opportunity to consider the covenant, the ACC and its SC will all resign and membership will be limited to those who have signed on.
Andrew Reid
Post a Comment