Posted on 06/15/2005 8:42:41 AM PDT by sionnsar
Two sources have published reports concerning a draft document which is titled: THE ORGANIZING CONSTITUTION OF THE ANGLICAN GLOBAL INITIATIVE.
Stephen Bates has this report in the Guardian Conservative Anglicans’ church plan revealed. It starts out:
Conservative Anglicans have drawn up detailed plans to set up their own church within a church, with their own constitution and decision-making synods, according to a document seen by the Guardian.
The move, days before representatives from the church’s 38 provinces meet in Nottingham to discuss the state of Anglicanism, appears to be the latest stage in the 77 million-strong communion’s widening split over homosexuality within the priesthood.
The draft organising constitution for a group to be called the Anglican Global Initiative envisages that it would operate within the Anglican communion. The document proposes that it should be headed by two conservative primate archbishops from the developing world “to affiliate and unite in love, holiness and true godly fellowship through our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Anglicans in [the] global south with Anglicans in North America and the United Kingdom”…
Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh has issued a press release about the document, with the title Akinola and Gomez Prepared to Start Alternative Anglican Communion which can be read here and in part says:
Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh (PEP) has obtained a draft constitution for an organization called the “Anglican Global Initiative” (AGI), apparently intended to be a shadow, alternative, or parallel Anglican Communion for so-called orthodox Anglicans. The document, which has circulated among leaders of the Episcopal Church, USA, and the Anglican Church of Canada since the Primates Meeting of last February, was discussed at a January Nairobi meeting of “Global South” primates led by Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola. The constitution, which seems not to have been formally agreed to by meeting participants, names Akinola and Archbishop Drexel Gomez, of the West Indies, as interim co-presidents. Akinola and Gomez have been two of the most vocal critics of the Episcopal Church and of the Anglican Church of Canada for their treatment of homosexuality.
Despite provision in the draft document for appointment of a group of 12 laity and a synod of bishops, all power lies in the hands of an Executive Council of primates and one lay representative of their choice. Between meetings of this Council, power is exercised by the president(s). One provision would allow the Moderator of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes (NACDAP) status as a primate. The top-down polity outlined by the constitution is also reflected in the document’s omission of the Anglican Consultative Council from a list of Anglican Communion entities owed respect for their “historical role and authority.” (The other three “Instruments of Unity” are named.)
An analysis of the text of the draft suggests that it was drawn up in close consultation with the NACDAP. It is prefaced by “If it becomes necessary, REALIGNMENT GUIDELINES.” “Realignment,” usually without any clear explanation, is a common theme of NACDAP spokespersons. The structural charter of the NACDAP and the AGI constitution each has an Article IX concerning property, with the AGI version closely following that of the NACDAP. The AGI constitution makes provision for a uniform canon law, recognizes the Anglican Relief and Development Fund by name, and commits to setting up missions in disregard of diocesan boundaries and directly serving dissident parishes, not only in North America, but in Britain as well. The AGI constitution was probably drawn up after the October 2004 meeting of CAPA (Council of Anglican Provinces of Africa) for presentation in Nairobi. Attached to it is what appears to be a preliminary draft of the statement actually issued January 28, 2005, at the close of January Nairobi meeting…
The AGI draft document itself can also be read in full here. The attached preliminary draft of the Nairobi statement can be compared with what was actually issued here.
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. Nice to see the good guys planning ahead..way ahead..Anyone who thinks this has all happened overnight also thinks the memos that Dan Rather got were genuine..BTWE..off topic, but have you seeen anything further on the Dennis thing since Louie Crewe's missive?
Seems that the buzz has been interesting this week on the Dennis Canon, first reported by David Virtue at his website, as best as I can gather. Of course, Louie Crew says its all good. What do I think? Considering my recent experience with litigating the meaning of the by-laws of Louisiana College, I tend to think the side with the best lawyers will win when litigating over the Dennis Canon. I’m available.
What makes me say that? Well, I think the answer will have to be found in the archives of the Episcopal Church, which I’m told are at ETSS in Austin, Texas. Either there are proper minutes showing that the Dennis Canon passed both houses, or there aren’t. Then, there is the issue whether such a trust would be recognized under a particular state’s laws. There is also the situation where individual churches in the Episcopal Church have been incorporated to limit liability of the national church and they own the property, and if the shareholders or members of the non-profit corporations choose to do something else than be an Episcopal Church, then, under nuetral principles of law being applied under the First Amendment, it seems to me the Dennis Canon may not hold up. Trusts also come in two flavors - revocable and irrevocable…
The progressives seem to have a problem with the so-called "top-down" approach, but it seems to me that the hierarchical Catholics have done a much better job of maintaining orthodox doctrine than the supposedly more "democratic" Anglicans.
The real problem isn't democracy per se, though-- it's the fact that the sorts of people who get involved in church politics tend to lean heavily left, heavily activist. After all, what sort of person joins a church in order to shift it all around? Only an activist, a progressive. Conservatives join a church to WORSHIP GOD.
John Derbyshire has a theory on this-- he says that any organization that isn't explicitly and determinedly conservative will, over time, move to the left. I think he's right, but the dynamic is a total perversion of everything a church is supposed to be about.
I don't know what the answer is, but it's clear to me that the road the Anglican communion has travelled isn't it.
I'm pretty much just your average Anglican observer, but my take is that this all would have been much less likely to have gone down had Anglicanism ever had a Magisterium with the kind of teeth the Curia has for Rome.
I know, I know, that's almost exactly WHY Anglicans split from Rome, but there was obviously more to lose than to gain. If we're at all smart, we'll bow to the obvious and jointly establish a Magisterium.
Now, who to run it...?
In Christ,
Deacon Paul+
"The real problem isn't democracy per se, though-- it's the fact that the sorts of people who get involved in church politics tend to lean heavily left, heavily activist. After all, what sort of person joins a church in order to shift it all around? Only an activist, a progressive. Conservatives join a church to WORSHIP GOD."
Certainly appears to be true in the West, but in Orthodoxy, the laity is involved because that is proper for the laity and the role of the laity is to assure...Orthodoxy! Not hardly a liberal left endeavor I assure you! :)
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.