Spinning like a top

""We felt as a group that we were less whole, less representative of the church catholic in all of its many perspectives by the loss of those who have chosen to resign," Douglas said. "While it wasn't always easy for me as a person from the Episcopal Church to hear our brothers' concerns and observations about our life, the fact that they weren't at the meeting diminished us."


The committee agreed that its response to those who'd resigned "would express regret that their voices would be missed and that the committee's work was diminished when it lacked a range of opinion as well as full representation.""

From ENS' report on the winding up of the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion. Read the whole report here.

Let us get this straight: the Anglican Communion is 'less whole, less representative of the church catholic' because it has failed to get on top of the difficulty created by one of its significant (in money, power, loquaciousness) member churches undertaking a strategic course of action which is not representative of the 'church catholic'. It has so failed to get on top of the difficulty that one of its leading committees - the Standing Committee, no less - has lost members from it through resignation. One of them, in the same ENS article is reported thus:

"East President Bishop Mouneer Anis, who resigned his membership in February saying that his presence has "no value whatsoever" and that his voice is "like a useless cry in the wilderness.""

Unfortunate though those resignations are, they are not the primary reason why the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion is 'less whole, less representative of the church catholic.' The primary reasons lie further back: in the Communion's inadequate and tardy response to the strategic direction TEC has pursued in respect of its gay and lesbian members, to say nothing of the strategic direction itself. (Remember: if that strategic direction had not stretched to include ordaining partnered same sex persons to the episcopacy, we would not be in the situation we are in today!)

The spin here, by +Ian Douglas, is that all would be well if only the resignations had not occurred. But on the reason for the resignations he says nothing.

But there is another spin here. The impression is conveyed that the Communion is in a state of 'diminishment' rather than 'division.' If the SC really thinks we are just a bit diminished at the moment; that the effective loss of Nigeria, Uganda, and the like (including the many parishes in North America they have offered support to), amounts to 'diminishment' and not 'division', then we are not being well served by this committee. At least not as the true global Anglican Communion we could be.

It sounds like we are shrinking downwards to a moderate, middling, mediocre Communion which cannot stomach its more conservative member churches, which prefers to march to the beat of one social democratic cultural drum rather than a multi-cultural one, and which occasionally gets a razz from the Archbishop of Canterbury, but otherwise is really led by the spinmeisters. Is the "official Anglican Communion" really in American hands? Reading elsewhere in the ENS report one could be excused, I think, for concluding that the Millenium Development Goals are now the gospel of the "official Anglican Communion."

Except I do not think that is the whole story. Douglas and co can spin these things like a top, but a whole lot of Anglicans are not for turning. Keep spinning this way, Standing Committee & co, and the "official Anglican Communion" will spiral off into irrelevance to the majority of Anglicans.


Neither truth nor reality can be suppressed ... or spun to be what they are not.


Incidentally, can anyone find in reports of the meeting anything remotely forwarding the adoption of the Covenant?

It should not be surprising if the answer is negative. Some of the leading opponents of the Covenant are on this committee!


Then a final question to end with: if the continuing, active, voting presence of members of TEC is suspended from certain important Communion bodies at this time, why not from all the important bodies?

I know the answer is that the ABC had power to do so for those bodies but not for this one. But the point is that our Communion's rules (such as they are) are stupendously inadequate: suspension should be from all bodies of important, not some.


The Communion has no single set of rules governing all aspects of its governance and management.

My enemy's enemy is my friend?

Both Anglican Curmudgeon and Preludium find quarrel with where the Anglican Communion Standing Committee is heading re new representation. In the course of reading their posts you might get a sense of what this august body is up to, even though it is only July. Then again you might not.

In other, and Down Under relevant news, we can read from the ACO site:

"ACC-15
Canon Kearon then reported that during his visit to New Zealand earlier this year he had met with an informal group about the planning of ACC-15. Bishop John Paterson has been selected to Chair an official planning group and the venue has been selected as Holy Trinity Cathedral in Auckland. The group also identified the strong mission theme of ACC-14 as something they would like to continue."

I think this meeting will be in May, 2012.

Holy Trinity Cathedral in Auckland is a lovely venue for a conference. Auckland city itself is a multicultural, polyglot of a city. And it has multiple Anglican jurisdictions at work in it :)

It is not looking like there is a conservative evangelical is on the AngCom SC

At least, that is the way I am reading this analysis from Anglican Curmudgeon posted here. Curmudgeon is interested in a range of matters concerning the composition of the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion. In various ways it is looking quite unbalanced.

Some may say that is because various people have resigned who should have stayed around.

Perhaps.

Why did they resign?

How come TEC has so many bishops on this important committee?

Well, not to worry too much: if they misplay their cards in the game they are playing, there will be consequences.

And a committee to blame!

What is Valid Validity?

A post or two below I had a crack at some words on 'Anglican validity' and a very interesting series of comments has ensued which has got me thinking about this word 'validity'. In connection with the eucharist of course, not my stamp collection. (Actually, the latter is non-existent).

I wonder if we use the same word in different ways and thus making some distinctions could be helpful.

Here are some ways I think may have been touched on in the comments below:

(1) Denominational validity: there are these rules pertaining to the ordering of eucharistic ministry. Sure they reflect great theological insights and powerful Scriptural injunctions and examples, but their sharp edges are provided by the denomination. Thus we Anglicans can entertain thoughts like 'a Methodist celebrating a Methodist eucharist in an Anglican church is offering a valid eucharist, but a Methodist (not having been ordained by a bishop) offering an Anglican eucharist in an Anglican church is offering an invalid eucharist.' The measurement of 'validity' at this point is 'our rules'. And, I do not think we are saying such a eucharist is theologically invalid (or, if you like, invalid from God's perspective). I suppose 'invalid' here has a strong sense of 'illegal.' Yet the rules are not rules for rules sake: the rules of denominations re eucharist reflect particular theologies of church, ministry, liturgy as well as eucharist.

(2) Transformational validity: there is a view that something happens to the bread and the wine when the eucharist is held, according to order, presided over by a correctly ordered person (so Anglicans, Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Old Catholics, Eastern Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and (perhaps depending who one is talking to) Presbyterians), and, depending precisely on the view held, those holding to the view accept a variety of denominational eucharists as valid, and a potential variety of correctly ordered persons presiding over the eucharist as being okay; and even where we do not think some things are correct we can respect the transformational intention of such churches. But the one thing many holding this view are united on  is that a non-transformational intention (e.g. to steadfastly view the bread and the wine as nothing more or less than tokens or emblems) results in an invalid eucharist. Thus most Anglicans (so I understand) view Roman and Eastern Orthodox eucharists/masses/divine liturgy as valid eucharists (the exceptions could be certain evangelical Anglicans); and would see no need for a further ordination to take place of a Roman priest or E.Orthodox priest who (if we can imagine it) was willing to preside over an Anglican eucharist in an Anglican church. I understand Romans to view E. Orthodox divine liturgies as valid eucharists, but hold Anglican eucharists to be invalid ... yet I think they respect our eucharists in a way in which they do not (say) a Baptist or Brethren eucharist. It is on this sense of 'validity' that an Anglican might say that a Brethren or Baptist eucharist is invalid.

(3) Scriptural validity: all Christians undertaking eucharistic ministry aim to be faithful to the words of Scripture, both the narratival material concerning the last supper of Jesus, and the instructions of Jesus, reinforced in Paul's teaching. What Christians believe happens, or does not happen in respect of transformation of the bread and wine, and whether or not certain words are said as received by the church through tradition (such as the words known as the epiclesis or calling down of the Spirit), where Christians are faithful to Scripture in their enactment of eucharist, in this perspective, a valid eucharist is performed. Thus, as an Anglican, if I am a participant in a Baptist eucharist or a Brethren eucharist, I think I have been present at a valid eucharist. (I might also find it unsatisfactory in a number of respects and choose not to make it the form of eucharist I regularly attend).


Thoughts?

If only my name was Mead, Mede, Meed, or even Medici

... I too could have a very smart Anglican name for my blog!!!

Walter Russell Mead has announced the new name for his blog, Via Meadia.

He outlines its Anglican (and other characteristics) in this post, which includes a very fine Anglican war song :)

Many years ago I began to hear the name "Loren Mead" mentioned in hushed tones of reverence for his speeches and writings, and for the farsighted and thoughtful body of work emerging from the Alban Institute. I was fascinated to read one of WR Mead's posts and find that he is Loren Mead's son.

Is there just one conservative evangelical on the ACC Standing Committee?

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)

Let's create a church within a church

Julian Mann at Cranmer's Curate draws attention to an intriguing proposal re reaction to C of E women bishops, voiced within a Reform newsletter:

"One way of doing this may be to create a ‘Society’ within the Church of England, focused on mission, with its own bishops providing support and encouragement. It could even be that if such a Society were to come into being, the House of Bishops might recognise it as a place where separate episcopal oversight could operate when the Women Bishops Measure comes in. We will be actively exploring this possibility in the months ahead."

Julian Mann himself offers the view that new bishops ought to be consecrated to serve this Society (by which is clearly meant, consecrations not officially authorised by the C of E hierarchy):

"But there is no practical reason why the Society, made up initially of a group of around 20 GAFCON-supporting churches, should not be set up before 2012. There are existing bishops in the UK who could already provide episcopal oversight for clergy and churches in the network, but it would be advisable to arrange for the consecration of some new conservative missionary bishops to serve alongside them. That would be a clear demonstration that the new Society means business."

Note how small this particular group of anxious opponents of women's ordination to the episcopacy is: 20. (That would be a lot in NZ, but it is not many at all in the vast C of E).

Call me naive, and ill-informed through distance from the C of E, but is this not rebellion pure and simple? Or, if not rebellion, an effective step in schism? "To arrange for the consecration of some new conservative missionary bishops" is either with the approval of the leaders of the C of E, or it is not. Since the premise of such "arrangement" is that the C of E General Synod does not agree to satisfactory provision for opponents of women bishops it is not conceivable that the leaders of the C of E could approve of such "arrangement" in defiance of their own synodical governance. Ergo, rebellion or schism. Or both. But not reform.