Updated Wednesday afternoon
Doug LeBlanc reports further in the Living Church :Revised Network Charter Retains Clause Acceding to TEC Constitution.
Delegates to the annual council meeting of the Anglican Communion Network declined removing the organization from under the authority of the constitution of the General Convention of The Episcopal Church during a plenary session July 31.
The proposal would have deleted language from the group’s organizational charter that the Network “shall operate in good faith within the Constitution of the Episcopal Church.”
Instead, the council adopted a bylaws resolution that says Network affiliates outside The Episcopal Church are not required to submit to the constitution of The Episcopal Church.
The decision followed a plea by the Rt. Rev. James Stanton, Bishop of Dallas, that the council not act prematurely. Bishop Stanton pointed out that the General Conventions of 1964 and 1967 defined The Episcopal Church as a constituent member of the Anglican Communion.
Press releases issued include:
Network States Willingness to “Engage in Mediation” with National Church
Bishop Duncan Re-elected Network Moderator
Council Ratifies Common Cause Structural Document
Network Approves Common Cause Theological Statement
One reaction to all this can be found in Ephraim Radner: A Brief Statement of Resignation from the Anglican Communion Network.
George Conger has a picture of all the bishops.
Update
Doug LeBlanc has a further Living Church report, Archbishop Venables Challenges ‘Curia’ Characterization:
During a press conference after the Anglican Communion Network’s two-day council meeting, the Most Rev. Gregory Venables of the Province of the Southern Cone challenged the notion among some Episcopalians that the primates are claiming curial powers for themselves.
Because Anglicans worldwide are led by locally elected bishops, he said, “Common sense and biblical concepts would say that the primates are at that highest level of authority, along with the Archbishop of Canterbury.”
The Rt. Rev. Jack L. Iker, Bishop of Fort Worth, said the primates’ increased authority is in direct response to Resolution III.6 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference. That resolution said, in part, that the primates’ meeting should “include among its responsibilities positive encouragement to mission, intervention in cases of exceptional emergency which are incapable of internal resolution within provinces, and giving of guidelines on the limits of Anglican diversity in submission to the sovereign authority of Holy Scripture and in loyalty to our Anglican tradition and formularies.”
“The progressives dismiss everything that Lambeth says,” the Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan, Bishop of Pittsburgh, said…
Ephraim Radner has posted a “Brief Statement of Resignation from the Anglican Communion Network” on TitusOneNine: http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/4770/#more
Ephraim Radner, member of the “Covenant Drafting Group,” has now distanced himself (literally) and spiritually from the raw antics of excluding +Duncanites and also seperately from the Diocese of Colorado and especially from Fr. Armstrong (who became suddenly CANA and a former buddy who is in deep trouble on several fronts). One of my friends, a missionary priest, told me he met and had dinner with Ephraim Radner in San Francisco/Oakland recently and found him to be quite honorable, healthy minded and sincere even though they didn’t “agree” on “everything”…perhaps being “healthy minded, spiritually straightforward, HONORABLE and sincere” aren’t qualities… Read more »
Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner seems to have split then from the splitters. It seems that the fragmentation of the sectarians is going ahead early. Can’t they agree?
This isn’t quite along the lines of Conservative Evangelical and Open Evangelical, though there might be that characteristic to it as it moves along. Oh dear.
Why are they ‘splitting early’ when the truth is so totally clear (to them) ? And all because they couldn’t tolerate a few queers around the shop. Is THIS really so much better ?
It is a shame…I think Radner is probably right that +Duncan need not have gone so far at this point, given the end of Sept is not far away….but still, amusing to see Pluralist still hoping for a split amongst evos and others praising Radner merely because he has disagreed with +Duncan. Pluralist – ever thought about how liberals may split if the choice is TEC or most of the rest of the AC…..many English liberals are not automatically going to TEC……but in all your hopes for division, you are not finding anyone credible saying “actually, TEC is right to… Read more »
Actually, I have never heard anyone credible deny that Gene Robinson is fine as a bishop (& who wants a split amongst the Evangelicals?)
BTW — this may be the first time I have ever agreed with Dr. Radner about anything (although it seemed obvious to me from the first that this was the Network plan — Chapman Memo, etc. — sorry, but IMHO, it is still unclear whether Dr. Radner is disingenuous or naive)
I haven’t praised Radner, if others have, but the the split will be along ideological lines. _ever thought about how liberals may split if the choice is TEC or most of the rest of the AC_ Indeed I have. The history of the liberals is that they put up with a great deal they do not agree with, and indeed it has often been their function. Should the screws tighten some will be going, but many won’t. It depends how institutions respond, such as the Church in Wales, the Scottish Episcopalians and the Church of Ireland too (as we read).… Read more »
“ever thought about how liberals may split if the choice is TEC or most of the rest of the AC” NP, I can’t speak for Pluralist, but I can say I have often asked myself what I would do. I’m not at all comfortable with the hoops people jump through to get around the Clobber Verses. I don’t believe marriage is about validating relationships. I don’t feel particularly persecuted. But I also have no respect for those who condemn someone for sins they themselves are guilty of, or who excuse the sins they have done or are tempted to do,… Read more »
Ford – and if you went “Orthodox” would that be on a “don’t ask, don’t tell” basis or with full VGR validation for ignoring the “clobber” verses?
NP,
Not sure I get your point? Is it because they aren’t all that friendly to gay people? Why would that stop me?
NP
“Ford – and if you went “Orthodox” would that be on a “don’t ask, don’t tell” basis or with full VGR validation for ignoring the “clobber” verses?”
Not that I’d ever be tempted to become Orthodox, but could it be on a “let’s concentrate on what truly matters” basis without pretending that what 2 loving people do in the privacy of their own bedroom is the bedrock of all of Christianity?
“could it be on a “let’s concentrate on what truly matters” basis” Thank you, Erika! That’s it exactly. The Orthodox say that Western Christianity is all ‘a’. Either ‘a+’ like the Romans, or ‘a-‘ like the Protestants. They are ‘b’. By this they mean their attitudes are different. They don’t just come up with different answers, they ask different questions. They are fraught with problems. They are even more tied to the concept of the Imperial Church than we are. Yet their attitudes are very attractive to me. I suspect NP, in so far as he thinks of them at… Read more »
This is drifting off-topic, Ford, but I think you may have an overly-romantic view of the EOs (who have been copying many of the worst aspects of RC ethics lately). “I would be uncomfortable in a Church that explains away the clobber passages” What do you mean by “explain away”? I believe there is ZERO evidence that any of the authors of the relevant passages (or the rest of Scripture, for that matter!) had any concept of *homosexual orientation*—in the sense of life-long, immutable and CAPABLE of being expressed in a committed, monogamous, and non-exploitive (AND non-pagan!) manner. Does that… Read more »
“The progressives dismiss everything that Lambeth says,” the Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan, Bishop of Pittsburgh, said…”
Well, I for one, tend to remind people of the 14 other “resolution” of Lambeth 1998 ;=)
I remeber reading a rather famous work on the Byzantine church called The Great Church in Captivity.
Captivating title, but it was all about church B described as a faulty church A(+).
“How could they (a thousand years ago) send their students to a university that wasn’t “churchy”?” Yeah, how could they…
and so on…
Ford….that is my point, they have not thrown out the bible, like TEC, to please pressure groups….and as for focussing on what matters, it really does matter that I am honest with you and your church is honest with you about what the bible says……if we get what the bible says wrong, that must be shown persuasively. You are not the same as some here who want to ignore what you call the “clobber” passages or come up with very unpersuasive arguments (eg St Paul never imagined scenarios we now see in a few relationships)so you are willing to accept… Read more »
“a Christian using the brain God gave me?” As am I, JCF. I know very well what the issues are surrounding the meaning of the two Greek words Paul used. I am also fully aware, see elsewhere on TA, that the kind of monogamous relationships we are talking about were not something Paul would have known about. There’s a difference between my relationship and boffing a number of people I don’t even know in a back alley. But take for instance the recent discussion about the symbolism between the married couple and Christ and His Church. I tried, untrained though… Read more »
ACN delegates also passed a resolution stating their “unconditional commitment to the unanimous urging of the Primates of the Anglican Communion that all existing litigation between The Episcopal Church (TEC) and those who have left TEC or are otherwise engaged in litigation involving claims of TEC, be suspended.” Could it be we’re running scared on that one?
Ford “But take for instance the recent discussion about the symbolism between the married couple and Christ and His Church.” I’m finding it really difficult to engage on that level because to me it is entirely based on the wrong premise. The symbolism is just that – symbolism. The words and symbols used came about because they made sense in the times when they were developed. They try to describe concepts for which no other human words are appropriate, so they use the language that comes close to what the church understood the relationship between Christ and His church to… Read more »
Ford Elms wrote: “During that debate you never heard a liberal argument that dealt with issues of symbolism and signification….”
There are no such “issues”. Those “categories are made up. False. Don’t exist. Fraud.
It’s like “civil, ceremonial and moral”. It was invented for the purpose of schewing a (one) certain debate. Made up. False. Don’t exist. Fraud.
There must be mutual respect.
NP.
No one is “ignoring” the “clobber passages”.
They don’t exist in reality.
Not one of them adresses “homosexuality” in any sense. It is just in-reading.
The Emperor is naked.
“they have not thrown out the bible, like TEC, to please pressure groups….” “who want to ignore what you call the “clobber” passages” NP, is there any point? Live in hopes, die in dispair, I suppose. OK. TEC is not ignoring Scripture. They interpret it differently than your legalistic simplistic imterpretations, but that isn’t ignoring it. Christianity is based in Christ, not the Bible. The Bible is one of the most important ways in which God reveals Himself to us. I agree with you that Western theologians have a difficult time with Scripture, on all sides. We have in a… Read more »
“The symbolic correlation between marriage and the relationship between Christ and His Church” was always a deeply flawed concept and one that is now irrelevant. It only works if you continue to believe that God is a male Being and that marriage is a relationship between a dominant man and a subordinate woman. It overlooks the fact that God never intended Adam and Eve to have procreative powers and that He imposed ‘marriage’ on them as a punishment for their disobedience. All subsequent marriages and families in the Bible are largely disfunctional, involving everything from incest to fratricide. In sharp… Read more »
“It was invented for the purpose of schewing a (one) certain debate.” Well, this comes as a shock for someone for whom symbol is a vital part of my faith. The priest acting in persona Christi is pretty important to me. All priesthood comes from Christ. It is HE who takes, breaks, blesses, and distributes, as the Orthodox say in their liturgy. You might not agree, but is it really true to say this is a 20th century innovation? I find what you say pretty academic, even abstract, and I certainly don’t have the theological background to argue with you.… Read more »
Ford – sorry but if we take the AC’s interpretation of the bible at the hear of Lambeth 1.10, TEC is ignoring the bible on this issue. If the bibe says “do not” and some chap (even Rowan Williams in his old writings) wants to say in essence “don’t worry about that bit, it means the opposite to what it says, you go ahead”….I do not take him to be interpreting but simply selectively rejecting the authority scripture. Maybe you are right that I am “simplistic” etc…..but even Rowan Williams says there is no positive scriptural case to support overturning… Read more »
After this post, I will not respond to you. St. John Crysostom said “The desire to rule is the mother of all heresies.” I know, he was just an ordinary Christian, deserving of no great respect in your eyes. You need to be right. You need everyone else to say you are right. That is sad. I have tried to point out how your behaviour puts the lie to your claims of being a follower of the Gospel. And how this casts aspersions of the Gospel. You took this as opposition to your position WRT gay people and support for… Read more »
“The desire to rule is the mother of all heresies.” Great, utterly true statement; wonderful, above reproach, source. Thank you Ford.
Any further comments to be directly related to Network Council decisions, please.