My apologies everybody. My original commentary on the Synod ACNA vote was completely wrongheaded. Unfortunately the initial reports on the proceedings were posted by US right wing sites and they spun in to look like their side had won. They haven't. Okay, the truth was in the detail but in my excitement at being a prophet of doom before everybody else I didn't read the small print. I unreservedly apologise to my brothers and sisters on General Synod who did in fact show themselves to be eminently sensible and, to be honest, boringly Christian about the motion put before them.

Fortunately for me, Grandmère Mimi was paying attention:

Jonathan, could the amendment that passed not be as bad as you say? See The Lead. Lorna Ashworth's amendment was defeated. Seems to me that the amendment that passed simply acknowledges that ACNA wants to be part of the Anglican Communion. OCICBW.

Which, of course, she usually is. But every clock has to be right at least once a day (or twice a day, in Mimi's case, as she's one of those old fashioned clocks that need winding up regularly).

However, I was right about one thing. I am still the most embarrassed person in the world at this moment in time. But it's because of my own stupidity rather than somebody else's.



  1. Oh brilliant one, you apologize very nicely and in turn I apologize for threatening England with me starting up a TEC Jnr. mission there. I am so ready to believe the worst.

    And now I see why. My word verification hints at just how the Evil One hides out in the details:

  2. Stephen Bates has a write-up on this in the Guardian — Church of England keeps distance from breakaway US conservative Episcopalians. To me, one of the most interesting observations was this:

    “Watched from the public gallery by senior US members of the breakaway faction, some of whom have now become bishops …”

    Do these people do anything besides go to meetings? If the whole purpose of breaking away was to give them more freedom to proclaim the Gospel, I wish they’d go proclaim the Gospel. Going to non-stop meeting is just playing church politics. It’s not proclaiming the Gospel.

  3. I saw some discouraging initial reports, but thoughts to meself, “I can’t know how I feel about this until the Mad One tells me how to feel about it.”

    And I thank you. Sorry I missed the earlier posting, as I would have believed every word you said.

    I’m the sycophant!

  4. I think just about everyone is guilty of this at some point in the life of their blog.

    To to be corrected by Mimi isn’t all that bad, though! She shows great diplomacy skills here. ūüôā

    I’m speaking broadly here as I have no idea regarding the content of the topic. But I do love a good apology!

  5. MadPriest, courage! I had to change my headline, because Lorna’s was a motion, not an amendment. Even the most brilliant amongst us make mistakes. And sometimes you make mistakes, too.

  6. I would point out that the post itself was just taken word for word from the report, without any editing. It is my commentary that I am apologising for.

  7. look at the bright side: by passing this motion, Synod has said that at the present time, ACNA “would like to be” but is NOT in communion with Canterbury (i.e., the CofE).

    At last we have a definitive statement that they are not Anglicans in communion with Canterbury. Thank you Lorna for getting Synod to say what Rowan could not.

  8. We all get it wrong sometimes, especially in a hot offf the press moment.

    It is an amended motion that has been passed isn’t it?

    But doesn’t it say something about recognising the desire of the ACNA to stay in the Anglican fold? (unless I’ve got the wrong wording.)

    Now, that DID piss me off because they didn’t stay did they?

  9. But doesn’t it say something about recognising the desire of the ACNA to stay in the Anglican fold?

    suem, ACNA is a conglomeration of groups, some of whom were not part of TEC and others who left TEC. So, as of now, it’s not a matter of staying. ACNA is out, and certain procedures must be followed to become part of the AC. Plus, the process will take time if they even begin the procedures. The ACNA folks are generally not patient people.

    In addition, I’ve heard that not all of members of the groups in ACNA want to be part of the AC.

  10. Wilfried, thanks. I, too, have my screen shots for historical purposes only. Heh, heh.

    MP, that’s a nice bit about planting the oak tree. Allen noted its excellence at my blog.

  11. ACNA hasn’t learned it, and one would hope that the Church of England recognizes it (even though its archbishops may be a little slow):

    Anglicanism is more than brocaded vestments and Elizabethan English.

    ACNA seems to be founded on the supposition that Anglicanism is those vestments plus that language plus excluding [wimmen clergy / gays / take yer pick].

    They have yet to specify where in the teachings of the Son of God or his message of Good News there is any hint of excluding any Child of God.

    They yearn for it, but they don’t know what Anglicanism is.

    Mere trappings won’t do.

    Is Synod on the right track?

    wv = porem
    (a pitiful American composer)

  12. Look, I really want to say this, as someone who has worked on papers for years and years: this sort of error is so easy, and you don’t need to be embarrassed, journos do this sort of thing, every day, day in and day out, it’s nothing. Especially on a blog, because you get to just take it down, as opposed in print, which leaves journalists red-faced all the time because once it’s in print you can’t call it back. Every day I do something dumb with what I’m working on at the paper, and someone tells me I’ve forgotten such and such or done something too fast, and the same thing happens to every colleague I work with. Don’t worry about it. It really doesn’t matter.

  13. AC-NA is not going to be part of the Anglican Communion. First it wont undertake the process. Second it contains elements that have been gone from TEC for decades and see no reason to be part of the AC (cf. REC.) Third there is no way they communion will adopt a plan that has multiple jurisdictions in the same place. If nothing else given the FIF problem in England, no way the archbishops can let that happen.

    Bp. Duncan may yearn for that Lambeth invite — not gonna happen.


  14. Sorry for the cross-posting from Friends of Jake. But thought you might be interested.

    The Diocese of Los Angeles update concerning the
    current standing committee approvals for the bishops suffragan was released tonight. It says:

    “Of a total majority of 56 standing committee consents needed in each election, 36 have been received for the Rev. Canon Mary Douglas Glasspool, and 48 for the Rev. Canon Diane Jardine Bruce.”

    This was the announcement last week:

    “Of a total majority of 56 Standing Committee consents needed in each election, 29 have been received for the Rev. Canon Mary Douglas Glasspool, and 34 for the Rev. Canon Diane Jardine Bruce.”

    So Mary has gone up 7 votes while Diane has gone up 14 votes during the last week. I reserve comment at the moment.