CHOOSING SIDES?

Tuesday, November 25th, 2008 | Uncategorized

Is the hammer about to be dropped on the Southern Cone?

A conservative province in the Anglican church faces “punishment” this week for offering a safe haven to conservatives.

Senior bishops and laity meeting in London are to consider suspending the Anglican church in South America for taking rebel US dioceses under its wing.

In a further indication that the liberals are winning the Anglican wars, The Episcopal Church of the US, which was suspended at a previous meeting, is expected to be welcomed back into the fold after sticking by its pledge not to consecrate any more gay bishops.

The Latin American Province of the Southern Cone headed by English-born bishop, the Most Rev Gregory Venables, has aroused the fury of liberal primates after a fourth US diocese voted to leave The Episcopal Church and realign with it.

The penalty being considered against the Southern Cone, which has 22,000 members in Argentina and surrounding nations, includes the removal of voting rights at the forthcoming meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council, the central governing body of the Anglican Communion, in Jamaica next May.

Is there anything to this story?  Not much says a commenter at Stand Firm.

Take a deep breath, folks. This story is way overblown. No one is going to be able to deprive the Southern Cone of a voice and vote at the next ACC meeting.

1. First, as to membership. The ACC Constitution provides that the PSC is a member, and Art. 3 requires, as we know by now, a two-thirds vote of all the Primates “to alter or add to the schedule” of membership. No matter how much TEC and its allies might wish it, they are not going to be able to kick the PSC off the membership schedule.

2. Next, as to vote. Section 6.1 of the ACC Guidelines states: “Only members of the council shall be entitled to vote on business before the council.” Section 7.2 provides: “The Council may at any time with the consent of the Standing Committee revoke, amend, or supplement these guidelines or any part of them for the better conduct of the business of the council.” I doubt whether the power to “revoke, amend or supplement” would include the power to deprive a duly constituted member of its right to vote—remember that at Nottingham in 2005, the Primates had made only a request of TEC and ACoC that they “voluntarily withdraw” their representatives from the Council.

So the most that will happen is that a majority of the Primates might make such a request, and ++Venables can politely decline to do as they request. 

I think what happened is that TEC and ACoC were just asking ++Rowan to let ++Venables have a little of the medicine they were handed in 2005, and the request was leaked by someone who wanted it leaked to hit the news cycle before the meeting in Wheaton next week.

That sounds about right.  I find it hard to believe that Dr. Williams would support something that would probably bring on the very split he says he wants to avoid.  That split may be inevitable anyway but I can’t see my gracious lord of Canterbury deliberately bringing it on.

12 Comments to CHOOSING SIDES?

Sasha
November 25, 2008

Actually, I believe that it would be the best thing for absolutely everybody (I could be wrong…) if Mr. Williams does just what is here being rumoured. It’s HERESY that’s worse than schism, NOT the other way around (unless one’s an institutionalist – which means being an IDOLATER in other words!!!). [The ways one can commit idolatry are so infinitely many as to boggle the mind...]

Clearing the air once and forever would force people to WAKE UP!!!

Clown Celebrant
November 25, 2008

I agree with The Sash. Drop the hammer. Create martyrs. Church history shows this is the catalyst for growth among the faithful.

Allen Lewis
November 26, 2008

This is much ado about nothing. The “new” province is not even a reality yet. Yet the American Anglican blogosphere is getting all breathless about some pretty sketchy speculation by Ruth Gledhill. Gledhill, we may remember has been shown to be a bit too prone to float the liberal balloons that come her way.

I would suggest some deep breaths and some reading of the scriptures for the Daily Offices. This is one of those “Slow News Day” attempts to get something going. I am not saying that we should toatally ignore this information, but that is really all it is – information. All this committee can do is make a recommendation regarding the agenda of the next meetings. Some other committee will have to sign off on it. Still further the actual groups involved (the ACC and the Primates Meeting) would have to act on such suggestions.

Personally, I see nothing to be getting all worked up about. Just because Schori is sitting next to Dr. Williams in a photo means nothing more than she pushed her way there for the photo. Really, folks, don’t we all have better things to do than swivet about non-news such as this?

Katherine
November 26, 2008

Jefferts Schori shouldn’t even be in attendance at this meeting, in the front row or the back, since her Province is still in gross violation of the Windsor moratorium on same-sex blessings. Just means the Windsor idea is dead and the ensuing Covenant, moribund.

Even so, this committee does not possess the power to unilaterally kick a Province out of the ACC. Probably a stiff Communique will be issued. So what?

LaVallette
November 26, 2008

ACC Constitution Rules: Sorry Chris, these rules are no more binding then the Canons of the TEC (PBUT). Where it suits the Canons (PBUT) are the sine qua non of TEC/Anglicanism. But then just watch them being changed and altered or ignored whenever it suits a la the deposition procedures of the TEC.

But I empathise with you: is becoming very confusing as to which TEC/Anglican rules/canons are set in concrete and which wobble this way and that way because they are set in jelly! The new motto of Anglicanism is ” Do what you will”

JM
November 26, 2008

Having swallowed the camel of changing God’s word to suit their convenience, the revisionists are not likely to strain at the gnat of modifying (or just ignoring) their own canons if a momentary advantage can be gained.

Jim McNeely+
November 26, 2008

Consider this: TEC and ACoC puts this forward anyway and forces a vote. They get a simple majority, but fall far short of the necessary super majority. This still gives them lots of propaganda ammo with the institutionalist drones left in TEC.

And let’s not forget how Radner and the rest of the Al-Anon co-dependents will simply say that this affirms their position that working from within is the only legal way to achieve change.

Sounds like a good move to me for the Loon Left to give it a go.

-Jim+

Tom (St. Louis)
November 26, 2008

“They get a simple majority, but fall far short of the necessary super majority.”

I predict Kathi will do and end run around the rules and redefine the majority.

dwstroudmd
November 26, 2008

The PB says it’s not true. Terrible conundrum: whom to believe, Gledhill or the PB? Error of facts, floating liberal trial balloons is not the same as the lying known to be produced at Dar es Salaam and in regard to canons, is it?

Elkanah
November 26, 2008

I think it would be GREAT for Rowan to throw Venables and all the rest of the Christians out of the Canterbury circle jerk. It would save them the trouble of having to leave gracefully.

Whitestone
November 28, 2008

I didn’t think the AC was capable of PUNISHMENT – but if it were, TEC should be the target – NOT – the Southern Cone.

IF the SC is punished, I will have no respect for the Anglican(ha,ha excuse for a) ‘Communion’ at all – I will have nothing to do with Canterbury connected ‘Anglicanism’.

What a joke excuse for a Christian church leader/organization Williams, Canterbury,TEC, et al are.

Floridian
November 28, 2008

Let’s hear it for the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans…real believing CHRISTIANS.

John 3:3

Support The MCJ

Archive

Search

Links

Meta