Wednesday, March 30, 2005

Do we have to be rude? II

Back on February 25th, I expressed amazement that some North American liberals were advising ignoring the Primates and their request to not send representatives to the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC). They instead advocated sending Episcopal and Anglican Church of Canada representatives anyway.

While aghast, I still expressed the hope and expectation that most liberals and leaders in those two churches had more sense than that.

But now I’m beginning to wonder.

The rumblings have grown that the two North American churches may indeed defy the Primates and send representatives to the ACC in June. And it’s not just what is said, but what is not said. When the ECUSA House of Bishops met after the Primates Meeting, their “covenant” said not one word about the Primates’ request to withdraw from the ACC. And ++Griswold and Canadian Primate ++Hutchinson haven’t been exactly overwhelming in their response to the Primates’ request either.

Relevant bodies of the two churches are scheduled to make the decision about Anglican Consultative Council representatives this spring, April for ECUSA, May for the Anglican Church of Canada.

And that begs the question: What happens if the North Americans do stiffen their necks and send representatives? Will the rest of the ACC refuse to let them be seated or let them have their way? And if the ACC does seat them, what in turn will be the response to that from the Global South?

This summer may make Dromantine look like a Sunday picnic.

Now, there’s an additional question I have that I haven’t seen much written on: Just exactly what is the composition and leanings of the Anglican Consultative Council? I take it that they are the most liberal of the instruments of authority. Are they perhaps liberal enough to seat North American representatives in spite of the Primates’ request?

Please answer to your heart’s content.

No comments: