4/17/2005

Those without Sin and without Stones

In their April 14th message the American Anglican Council responded to the Executive Council's letter to the Anglican Consultative Council as follows:

"The Executive Council is setting up an opportunity to lobby and influence the ACC meeting. Given the fact that ECUSA is insisting on such a presence, it seems a matter of justice and fair play that those who are excluded from ECUSA and isolated because they stand against revisionism should also be present and “available for conversation and consultation”. We call upon the Anglican Consultative Council to deny the Executive Council’s request; however, if the ECUSA delegation attends, we believe it is critical to include voices that offer a very different perspective, one that is consistent with Scripture and the accepted faith and order of the Anglican Communion." http://www.AmericanAnglican.org/News/News.cfm?ID=1373&c=2

This message is simple and straight forward propaganda:


This message would attempt to convey that the AAC would be sending persons to the meeting of the ACC because the ECUSA delegation is attending and taking the opportunity to lobby and influence: "we believe it is critical to include voices that offer a very different perspective..." There is no cause and effect here. The AAC was intending all along to send people to the meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council. The April 2005 newsletter of the AAC, after bragging about its activity at the Primates Meeting in Northern Ireland, David Anderson says, "Our international and domestic diplomatic and advocacy work continues. We will have a presence at the Anglican Consultative Council meeting in England later this year. While ECUSA has been asked to withdraw from ACC, we will be there to pray, serve, report and assist in any way possible." That letter got to my house on April 15. The letter takes no note of the Executive Council's decision, nor does it offer the excuse of presence that ECUSA representatives will be present. I assume it was written, printed on fine paper and sent out prior to April 13th.


It clearly indicates that quite independent of the actions of Executive Council AAC was planning to send people.


It falls in line with Archbishop Akinola's parallel request that the "global south" crowd bring folk other than their normal representatives to the meeting. Akinola's letter said,

"I am convinced that this (the ACC meeting) will be a critical meeting in the life of the Anglican Communion. I am confident that there will be a concerted attempt by ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada to undermine the gains made in Dromantine. This must be prevented. I also believe that it is crucial that we all send strong, well prepared representatives to the ACC meeting so that those of us who are present can work together effectively. It would be most helpful if you could communicate the names of your representatives to Bishop John Chew so that we can coordinate our efforts.


I would also strongly urge each one of you to consider the possibility of coming yourselves so that we can stand together. I realize that this will entail considerable personal sacrifice but I am convinced that this is a critical moment in our history."

Akinola and Anderson were already planning for outside representation at the ACC meeting.

As to the lobbying and influencing, I don't know what to make of it: Of course the ECUSA panel is there to speak (by invitation) on the decisions made at GC 2003. One would hope those speaking would try to influence. As to lobbying, the citations above give the clear sense that AAC and certain Primates have already clearly set up lobbying schemes. They are not without sin, and have no stones (let the reader understand.)

I can only hope that there is enough lodging for all these people, for should they all attend there might not be enough hotel rooms in all of Nottingham to hold them all!

No comments:

Post a Comment

OK... Comments, gripes, etc welcomed, but with comment moderation but with some cautions and one rule:
Cautions: Calling people fools, idiots, etc, will be reason to bounce your comment. Keeping in mind that in the struggles it is difficult enough to try to respect opponents, we should at least try.
Rule: PLEASE DO NOT SIGN OFF AS ANONYMOUS: BEGIN OR END THE MESSAGE WITH A NAME - ANY NAME. ANONYMOUS commentary will be cut.