ACO reports:
The Archbishop of Canterbury’s Panel of Reference met in the offices of the Anglican Communion Secretariat during the week beginning 30 April 2007. In its meeting, it reviewed its work so far and discussed how best to follow up the work that had already been undertaken. It has currently completed outstanding work on all the references made to it by the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Panel also reviewed the Report which the Chairman, the Most Revd Dr Peter Carnley AO, had made to the Primates’ Meeting in Dar es Salaam in February, and authorised him to release an updated version. The Panel also set dates for future meetings in late 2007 and in 2008.
The Review of the Work of The Archbishop of Canterbury’s Panel of Reference can be found here as a tiny PDF.
Earlier reports on Florida, Fort Worth and New Westminster, together with other material about the POR can be found here.
I think this is a very important review. With each completed submission to the Panel of Reference, the dissenters in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada have been denied any alternate structure, independent of the existing province, through which to maintain communion with Canterbury. Perhaps this is why Archbishop Akinola was so determined to establishment of CANA as an episcopal jurisdiction under Bishop Minns. The official processes of the Windsor Process have denied a model, a process, or any validation of such an alternate structure. What the Windsor Process will not provide Nigeria will simply create on… Read more »
Stand Firm is reporting that the meeting adjourned after 6 hours.
Marshall:
Thankyou for stating the obvious–something that must sometimes be done on this particular board.
Steven
One might also say that the Panel of Reference has consistently refused to let the crybabies have their own way. Either one believes in episcopal government or one doesn’t. Apparently the neo-traditionalists don’t. Their idea of episcopal governance is that one should be governed by bishops unless you happen to disagree, in which case you should be governed by whatever bishop suits your fancy this week, the Holy Spirit be damned. Various national churches have come up with models of alternate episcopal oversight, from the “flying bishops” in the UK to the formal DEPO process in the US to the… Read more »
“the dissenters in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada have been denied any alternate structure, independent of the existing province, through which to maintain communion with Canterbury.”
As they should. The Panel of Reference wasn’t established to accomplish the independent province idea. It was established to provide a buffer and a neutral third party in an attempt to *avoid* the schism that an independent province would represent. To the extent that conservatives have subverted the review by insisting on impossible demands such as their own province or diocese or sect, they are responsible for the result.
Fr Marshall is just telling it as it is. There is no side here. From the Akinola perspective the Windsor Report and all that has followed has failed to meet his agenda and he has now acted in a perfectly consistent way to suit his plans. Remember, it was Akinola who departed from London in a fit of pique immediately after the launch of the Windsor Report. He has never baulked at the prospect of increasing the difficulties for the Windsor Process by doing such things as supporting the draconian Nigerian legislation or placing further obstacles by creating “realties on… Read more »
“The only point where I might differ from Fr Marshall is on the question of influence of others. I am not by nature a “conspiracy” man, but I believe there are forces at work here that may not always be apparent.”
See Jim Naughton’s “Follow the Money” reports on IRD and other entities tangled in all this.
Martin Reynolds —
FWIW, I agree with ++Abuja that TWR is fatally flawed (although we may disagree about where & how)
The Panel of Reference has stumbled not infrequently, but, like TWR, has tried to stick to the brief of trying to hold things together (perhaps long after the split has actually occurred)
& I agree that Marshall Scott is a very insightful person whose posts are always worthy of prayerful consideration
To all those here convinced that the split is a big “conspiracy” and/or that the conservatives have no right to cry foul at the Panel of References’ lack of support for them, might I remind you that there are real people involved in this farce. Our local Episcopal church was built using a large donation from a man now in his eighties, but he no longer worships there. The new priest doesn’t believe in the principles of the faith he was taught:Christ alone as way to the Father, inerrancy of scripture, Christ literally rising from the dead. The new priest… Read more »
NonAnglican,
I assume your new priest was chosen by the appropriate bodies and therefore now represents what your church has discerned as appropriate.
I have recently made a gift to a person who has used it in a way I had not intended. Yes, I feel aggrieved, but at the same time – a gift is a gift and carries no strings. Anything else would be an attempt to buy someone’s behaviour/loyalty.
Nonanglican – I am quite happy for TEC to keep all the property and cash it has inherited from people who would not recognise the current TEC leadership as the intended recipients of their ind gifts. It is not a very liberal attitude to fight to keep the property etc but never mind. Money will run out quickly enough given shrinking, ageing, already small congregations in TEC (on average) – TEC needs the money more than those who want to get away from the current TEC leadership….let them have it (decline is expensive) It is hard for some churches to… Read more »
Non-Anglican
A -perhaps unnecessary – seconding of Erika Baker’s comment – a gift is indeed a gift- the old gentlemen presumably took advantage of tax laws and declared his gift as precisely that – possibly with a letter to the effect that nothing was “traded” for the donation – I also realize “old gentlemen” become rather settled in their ways but perhaps growth in “his” church was an opportunity for him to grow along with it into the “new” world he finds himself in – and which is not as bad as he may imagine-
“Christ alone as way to the Father, inerrancy of scripture, Christ literally rising from the dead.” The first part is incredibly nuanced, but is often used to mean “if you are not a publically declared Christian, you are going to Hell.” Regardless of this man’s good character, might he be using it with this meaning? I believe it, but that doesn’t mean I think Ghandi is going to rot in Hell. I have only ever heard the second phrase used by fundamentalists. It is not even defensible, since large swaths of Scripture are patently errant. This doesn’t mean Scripture is… Read more »
A gift is a gift, and a donation does not give the right to see something remain as you want it when it is occupied by ministry and congregation. The principle was established in the UK after the Lady Hewley case that congregations can change their beliefs and outlooks and keep trusts and moneys founded by those of a different theological outlook, in this case a continuous period of 25 years. The Episcopal priest will be within the broad range of TEC as it is. It is a slur to say these people are Hindus or Muslims when almost all… Read more »
The new priest doesn’t believe in the principles of the faith he was taught: … inerrancy of scripture …” Scriptural inerrancy, like other aspects of Christian fundamentalism, is an invention of the early part of the 20th century. It posits that the Bible is inerrant in all aspects, including history and descriptions of the natural world. It is the theological equivalent of believing in a flat earth. It has never been an element of Anglican biblical scholarship. For a detailed study of this and other aspects of this quite recent innovation, see Karen Armstrong’s excellent history of Jewish, Islamic, and… Read more »
Cynthia
Yes, you have the title right and the book is excellent! It should be compulsory reading.
_intellectual honesty could begin to reconcile those two very different religious views. Sorry, but I’d have to ask you to prove such a person exists._ Ford Elms He does exist, and he does have intellectual honesty – and he told everyone. The Modern Churchpeople’s Union carried the story. My study door has the Hindu 3-0 symbol on it with Ganesha inside, I ahve a Shiva and a Baby Krishna. They are understandings of divinity, about creation, sustainting, destruction and recreation, removing objects, representing divinity and playfulness – ordinary growing up humanity. They are models and metaphors, just like those from… Read more »
Sorry to be so late responding, but I have decided, obviously unsuccessfully at this juncture, not to frequent this space, it’s too damaging to my soul. I feel the need to make some final repsonses, however, and this is one. I’m sorry, Pluralist, but I don’t understand reconciling the worldviews of two such radically different faiths. Hindu understandings of Incarnation, sin, purity, are all quite different from those of Christians, and this is not to mention such things as Resurrection and Sacrament. I have great respect for Hinduism, don’t get me wrong. I am uncomfortable referring to another religions deities… Read more »