[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]

Being completely above board



Accountability and representation are spelled out quite specifically
in the DFMS constitution and canons and in diocesan constitutions and
canons.

Since the Network wants to be recognized as the Anglican presence in
the United States, I am interested in its levels of accountability and
'representation.'

Would it be fair to say that those at the Plano meeting were not
elected as "delegates" or "representatives" in any formal sense but
there of their own volition or as proxies for other individuals that
you have sited in a few cases?  No Episcopal Church body elected them
to be delegates, right?  Nor are they accountable to any other
official Episcopal Church body, except perhaps to those for whom they
are proxies, right?  Or wrong?

These are not idle questions.  Look for example, at Resolution No. 1
to be considered at the convention of the Diocese of Alabama, Feb.
5-7:

> Membership in the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses & Parishes
>
> Whereas, In recent years we have seen a movement away from orthodox
> Anglican Christian teachings on the part of prominent clergy of the
> Episcopal Church in the United States, manifested by the preaching,
> teaching and publication of heresies, and culminating in the
> consecration of a practicing homosexual as a bishop in the church;
>
> Therefore be it resolved, that the Episcopal Diocese of Alabama
> distances itself from all such actions, affirms the primacy of
> Scriptural authority, and joins the newly formed Network of Anglican
> Communion Dioceses and Parishes, thus maintaining the continuity of
> authentic Anglicanism in Alabama and in America, and our effective
> witness for our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
>
> Submitted by,
> Dr. Roni Grad
> (member of) The Cathedral Church of the Advent

What kinds of financial commitments would the Diocese of Alabama be
making with this resolution?  What kinds of representation would be
assured for the diocese in the new network?  Would the Network replace
diocesan participation in and commitments to the work of the Episcopal
Church USA?  .... for starters.

With this resolution will the diocese in all but name only "leave TEC"
without even being upfront about the terms of the "departure" to the
Network?  That should scare lots of people who otherwise agree with
its deputation in their votes against Blessings (C051) and Consents
(C045) at GC 2003.

Will variations on this resolution appear at other diocesan
conventions?

Faithful Episcopalians need much more clarity than we have now about
the Network's processes and accountability.

The AAC leadership who convened the Network have not officially
disavowed the revelations by the Rev. Geoff Chapman as exposed in the
Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14209-2004Jan13.html.
In fact, Don Armstrong+ and Ethan Radner+ said that there were no
revelations, that the plans 'exposed' had been public for a long time.
Are we to conclude then that the Network is itself a mask for the
"faithful disobedience of canon law" that Chapman promotes?


L., Newark, member of Executive Council





Please sign my guestbook and view it.


My site has been accessed times since February 14, 1996.

Statistics courtesy of WebCounter.