ACNA priest part of Anglican Communion evangelism group

Following up on my earlier post in which I asked "Is Julian Linnell an ACNA member of an Anglican Communion group?" the answer appears to be "yes." Thanks to several readers who found additional information on this.

The two trails leading to this conclusion are (i) Dr. Linnell is named as a member of the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh on its website, and (ii) his name is found on the list of priests and deacons "granted release from licensed ministry" published in the preconvention materials of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh in 2010.  (p. D14)

There is every reason to believe then that Dr. Linnell is a member of the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh and therefore is a priest in a diocese of the Anglican Church in North America and by rather extraordinary logic also a member of the clergy of a diocese in the Province of the Southern Cone. His only link to the Anglican Communion is by way of the Southern Cone and that link provides little safety.

In my previous post I wrote, 

"... if he is part of ACNA, the Anglican Communion Evangelism office has appointed a member of ACNA to one of its groups, the Evangelism and Church Growth Initiative.

Given that TEC members of several committees have been dismissed or reduced to consultant status, it seems worth noting that ACNA has a priest on an Anglican Communion panel.

Again, as relates to the concerns of Evangelism  and Church Growth, there is no reason not to have members of  churches not part of the Anglican Communion as a member of this initiative. But it would appear that if he is from such a church, he is the only one the list who is.... 
If he is, then the Anglican Communion Office ought to have noted the fact.

For a Church that often exemplifies the niceties of formal relationships and for an Archbishop who is so concerned not to have members of a church that is unrepentant of Windsor demands part of its ecumenical work, there seems to be no parallel concern about having members of churches not in communion with Canterbury and schismatic part of a working group of the Anglican Communion."
The question is, does the Anglican Communion Office even know that Dr. Linnell is a priest in ACNA? And if they know it have they made him part of this initiative because he is a member from another church , one not in communion with Canterbury, with specific skills or information they needed for their initiative, or because they believe him to be a priest in a diocese of the Southern Cone?
Again, this is not about Dr. Linnell or Anglican Frontier Missions, it is about the Anglican Communion policies concerning inclusion on Anglican Communion bodies. 
It is more than strange that members of The Episcopal Church get bounced from ecumenical conversations and that ACNA members get included in evangelical and church growth initiatives. 


  1. Mark,
    What notifications and what directives has the Executive Council and the Presiding Bishop done to correct this? I have asked repeatedly that the National Church create a lobbying effort that is at least equal to that of these faux Anglicans in order to stop all this nonsense.

  2. And we give money to the Anglican Communion why?

    My understanding has been that ordinary priests of ACNA are only in ANCA, not in the Southern Cone, whereas the archbishop is both in the Southern Cone and ACNA. Linnell, so far as I can determine, is not in the Anglican Communion at all.

  3. Mark,
    I do not think that ACO groups (and they are legion) are necessarily limited only to Anglicans. Anglicans form the bulk, naturally, but I think others are called on to serve or assist. Especially on study groups, which this appears to be. I don't know if there is a comprehensive list somewhere of all of the various interlocking (90r not!) groups, reference groups, resource hubs, and so on that the Anglican Communion Office seems to enjoy.

    Still this may have been an oversight, and Linnel was assumed to be Anglican (via the Southern Conic Section... or am I being hyperbolic?)

  4. Might he have been appointed to the committee before his release from the TEC clergy?

  5. Possibly, Paul; or he might be a scholar of sufficient value on the subject that he's worth having on the Committee generally, and more so for his participation in the Anglican Frontier Mission. After all, it is common currency for some to claim the growth of Anglican-roots congregations while proclaiming the demise of the Episcopal Church (and, friends, I am certainly aware of the statistics. I'm just saying it's a bit premature to claim that the Episcopal Church will soon be gone; and some have claimed that).

    That notwithstanding, I think the fact that "AFM is independent of The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion and Other Churches. AFM is not an official part of an established denomination," (from the AFM web site) would allow a question of the denomination in which Dr. Linnell finds his ministry. I don't think it's a matter of disqualification. I do think it'a a matter of understanding what background he brings the Committee's tasks. The recent decision to exclude folks from the Episcopal Church from "representative functions" (unless that person happily happens to be licensed in the Church of England) only highlights the question.

  6. If you want to reference Windsor you really should be writing a piece objecting to schorri being elected to the standing Cmt. Honestly.

  7. Carl David

    Anonymous Rob,

    I feel very sorry for you and your
    obvious insecurities not to mention you lack of common manners.
    You might at least address the Primate and Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, Dr. Schorri with the respect due her office in the church, regardless of your personal opinion of her actions.

  8. Thank you so much for your pity Carl. It means so much. And you are so insightful to be able to discern my many insecurities, legion that they are.

    On the other hand, you might care to observe that I was simply following the same shorthand as most of the posters here refering to "The Rev. Dr. Julian Linell" as "Linell." This is a blog not a formal address.

    I suppose you discerne a deep and abiding sense of security in the posters here who use terms like "faux Anglicans?"

    If "The Windsor Report" findings are to be referenced as applicable the sword does cut both ways. That is really my only point.

  9. Carl

    Rob: The "Windsor Report" findings have no standing by any authority of the Anglican Communion to be binding on any member of said communion. It is referenced often by those who hope to give it some form of validity.

    If you chose to follow the "same shorthand" as other posters than you must accept the same judgement
    as you follow.

  10. Carl, are you implying that Mark Harris is trying to give the Windsor Report some form of validity as he is the one who brought it up and Rowan's selective use of it? Surely you jest.

    I fully understand that it like all other Anglican Communion papers, agreements, covenants, resolutions, etc. are all exercises in futility destined for the rubbish bin. No one pays any mind to them anyway. Rather, everyone is doing right in his own eyes.

  11. Rob,

    The only real Anglicans in the United States are Epsicopalians. The rest, all the rest, are faux Anglicans including starting with your former Bishop, now Mr. Schofield and ending with ACNA (whatever that is supposed to be) and Mr. Duncan.

  12. Now Fred, your insecurities are showing. Or is that hostilities or both? Tsk. Tsk. I mean really, what does Anglican mean anyway? It is just a loose divided collection of churches now. Who is really qualified to say that one group is Anglican and another is not? The structures aren't there anymore are they? The representatives of the Anglican bodies won't even meet. Any resolutions, papers or covenants they put forward aren't worth the paper they are printed on because everyone won't recognize them and they aren't representative anyway. See what good prophetic work TEC has done? You are rabidly defending an affiliation that isn't. Faux Anglicans? Look in the mirror and by all means take pride as you do.


OK... Comments, gripes, etc welcomed, 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.