Responses to the Three Questions

Earleir I asked three questions of the House of Bishops / House of Deputies list:

(i) Do the writers of the Windsor Report believe ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada have done what was asked? I mean, the actual writers, and or Archbishop Eames.

(ii) The “found” proposal for an Anglican Global Initiative speaks of forming a new Anglican Communion body with headquarters in Lagos and Nassau, the Virtue interview with Archbishop Malango speaks of a headquarters in Alexandra. Both the found proposal for an Anglican Global Initiative and the Virtue interview have been disavowed by some elements wishing realignment. There has been an attempt to discredit both. There has been the effort discredit Pittsburgh’s Via Media group and David Virtue, both reporting on what they found. My question here is: Has Alexandria been mentioned as a location for a new Anglican entity before? By who? I believe I have heard this before, but can’t find a citation.

(iii) The heated exchange between Canon Anderson of the AAC and David Virtue led Virtue to denounce the AAC in the following words, “What irks Anderson and others of his kind is that they have lost the power to change anything. The power has moved to the Global South and the AAC is a succubus, drawing from the spiritual life blood of the south because he and the AAC have none in themselves. The AAC is a parasitic organization.” (in an article on Virtue Online.) My question is, are we seeing here the very changes that the Chapman Report predicted – that the AAC would give way to the Network and that both are only elements in a wider tag team match, in which a new entity, the Anglican Global Initiative (or something like it) claims to be an “orthodox” Anglican Communion and the Network folk look to that entity as the locus for their broader “Anglican” patriarchy, and in turn the basis for their claim to be the “real” Anglicans in North America.

About question one I received one answer. That person wondered why I had asked the question since it was evident to him that we had not done what was asked. However, no member of the commission has answered or is likely to until someone on this list forwards the question to them. Please do so. The question again is this: Do Writers of the Windsor Report believe ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada have done what was asked?

I understand from an undisclosed source that Archbishop Eames believes we have (but perhaps that is wrong.) It would be good to hear from the writers.

About question two: Several persons pointed out that in an interview by David Virtue about a year ago with Bishop Wantland the bishop voiced roughly the same opinion and proposal. So the possibility of a "new" Anglican patriarchy has been discussed before. The fact that Alexandria is mentioned on both occasions is more than happenstance. I am inclined to believe that Virtue's interview was in major respects accurate, that the proposal for a Global Anglican Initiative was genuine, and that these possibilities stand in the wings ready to go if realignment does not take place within the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada and if the Archbishop of Canterbury decides to invite us to Lambeth 2008. It might well be that later this year there will indeed be a meeting to "stage" the walkout either at Lambeth or before. Thanks to those who wrote me privately.

About question three: I have the assurance of several correspondents that what is unfolding is precisely the direction laid out by Champan. The strategy of several organizations, each meshed with others, all diverting the focus of outsiders from their constant aim - namely (as Canon Anderson likes to think of it) to win the war. At a time when making war, and making it badly, and for wrong caused, is both a clear talent of the United States and it damnation, I would advise Canon Anderson to choose some other imagery to bolster his sense of righteousness. War making language is bravado, but its mirror in the world is an obscenity.

1 comment:

  1. And its a good thing, Mark, that they don't use stronger verbs. The Lambeth Conference itself has no authority to do anything stronger. It is not a global synod, and it is certainly not an ecumenical council. Witness the 1930 Lambeth Conference, Resolution 49, "On the Anglican Communion."

    The provinces "are bound together not by a central legislative and executive authority, but by mutual loyalty sustained through the common counsel of the bishops in conference."



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.