Posted on 06/01/2005 3:50:24 PM PDT by sionnsar
The lovely and talented Leanne Larmondin, editrix of Canada's Anglican Journal, wishes that some of you would learn to communicate better:
Too often in the Anglican church, confusion reigns. Case in point: asked by the primates of the Anglican Communion in a communiqué last February to “voluntarily withdraw” its members from the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC), the Council of General Synod (CoGS) instead decided that the Canadians should “attend but not participate” in a meeting next month in Nottingham, England.
Its decision was nearly identical to that of the Episcopal Church in the United States, which was also asked to withdraw its members for the period leading up to the next Lambeth Conference. Both North American churches appear to believe they have bowed to the primates’ request, but early signs are that the hardline primates and others – those who had hoped for a suspension of the two churches from the worldwide Communion – see the response as a sidestepping of their wishes.
Which it is. From the Primates statement:
Within the ambit of the issues discussed in the Windsor Report and in order to recognise the integrity of all parties, we request that the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Anglican Church of Canada voluntarily withdraw their members from the Anglican Consultative Council for the period leading up to the next Lambeth Conference. During that same period we request that both churches respond through their relevant constitutional bodies to the questions specifically addressed to them in the Windsor Report as they consider their place within the Anglican Communion.
Anyone who thinks that the US and Canadian "attend but don't participate" responses are anything other than an evasion is deliberately playing dumb, a fact Ms. Larmondin seems to confirm as she discusses Canada's response to the request for a moratorium on same-sex marriages.
Similarly, also responding to a request from the primates, the Canadian house of bishops agreed last month “neither to encourage nor to initiate the use of” same-sex blessing rites, at least until General Synod 2007. The wording (“neither to encourage nor to initiate”), in fact, came from the primates’ communiqué. Immediately, some (including the media and even some bishops themselves) interpreted that agreement as a moratorium on such blessings, which seemed specifically called for by the primates. Other bishops argued that the agreement was decidedly not a moratorium and at least one news service suggested the bishops had actually “skirted” the primates’ request. Still other observers said the bishops were equivocating, that they deliberately omitted the word moratorium, agreeing specifically (and only), “neither to encourage nor to initiate” the blessing of same-sex couples “until General Synod has made a decision on the matter.”
From the Primates statement:
In the meantime, we ask our fellow primates to use their best influence to persuade their brothers and sisters to exercise a moratorium on public Rites of Blessing for Same-sex unions and on the consecration of any bishop living in a sexual relationship outside Christian marriage.
And would you like to know in what context the phrase "neither to encourage nor to initiate" occurs in the statement? Here:
Equally, during this period we commit ourselves neither to encourage nor to initiate cross-boundary interventions.
But in a backhanded way, Double L is right about one thing. Considering their sociopathic natures, ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada were allowed far too much wiggle room by the Newry statement. If there is one, the next statement needs to explicitly declare what the Americans and Canadians must do to get back in the Anglican world's good graces and explicitly how each must do it. And no exceptions are to be allowed and no rhetorical evasions tolerated. Because if you give ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada an inch, they will take a mile.
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. Dear Sionn:
Wonderful example of what the wordsmiths in ECUSA and ACC are capable of. Remarkable how glibly they cut and paste comments so they can then respond to a directive of their own designing, without having missed a word. All they had to do was switch two phrases, introducing them into contexts where they were decidedly not on offer or intended and then reacting and proceeding on this deliberately false reading of a given text.
In Christ,
Deacon Paul+
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.