They issue statements over the signatures of persons who have not been asked. In this case they issued a scathing report on the St. Andrew Draft (SAD) of an Anglican Covenant and signed up the Primate of the Southern Cone. Bishop Venables told the Church Times that he did not sign off on the critique of the Covenant draft, but did on the substance of the main letter, which concerned the Archbishop of Canterbury's concerns about GAFCON. So Venables has been signed up without permission by way of the letter to the ABC in which we find the following:
"We enclose a response to the St Andrew's Draft Covenant.
The clear indication was that the "we" who enclosed the response were those who signed the letter to the ABC. But that turns out not to be true. GAFCON signs 'um up and sends them out. Later various Primates have to object.
I have commented in an earlier post that the second sentence referenced here is a serious put down of the ABC.
The Lead from Episcopal Cafe also notes that Andrew Goddard has written a commentary on the GAFCON critique of SAD that exposes a totally flawed analysis by GAFCON based on comparing SAD to some document other than its predecessor document - the Nassau Draft. It's all rather complex and the article is long, and frankly of no great interest here, save to indicate that GAFCON is being managed by terrible managers. Goddard does point out that the Anglican Covenant idea might end up being shot down by a combination of forces from the left and the right.
It is increasingly clear that GAFCON / FOCA / The Primates Council is not easily managing its own work in ways that honors its own members. If there is dysfunction in Anglican circles, it seems to be available to all and to some more than others.
Haven't Minnsinola done this same thing a number of times before?
ReplyDeleteAs you say, this is not a new thing with the "agreed statements" flowing from the schismatics.
ReplyDeleteIt would be a useful ministry were some knowledgeable person to gather the complete list of "agreed statements" issued by the Primate of Nigeria which turned out not to have been agreed at all. Of course, such a list would have to delineate the specific names which Akinola, Minns et al added to each document without authorization and under false pretences.
Where I come from, adding a person's name to a document without their authorization would be considered fraud.
Of course, it also moves me to wonder what might have happened if the schismatics had been led by anyone half-a$$*d competent.
Hi Fr. Mark--TOTALLY OT. Check out the Three Legged Stool.
ReplyDeleteFr. Malcolm,
ReplyDeleteThe entire Gaffe is not led by anyone even 1/4 competent. They are so busy measuring themselves for white and gold miters, they could not lead a starving man to a banquet.
FWIW
jimB