The Most Rev. Dr. Mouneer Anis, who has resigned his position on the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion, told The Living Church that discussions at the committee’s meeting in December 2009 are what prompted his resignation from the committee.

“I had been in communication before the meeting that I needed to discuss the participation of the Episcopal Church on the standing committee. I found some resistance to this,” said Bishop Mouneer, who is Bishop of the Anglican Diocese of Egypt with North Africa and the Horn of Africa, and President Bishop of the Province of Jerusalem and the Middle East.

Bishop Mouneer announced his resignation in a five-page letter dated Jan. 30 and distributed by his diocese [PDF].

“I didn’t see a way forward to follow through on the recommendations made by the primates and by the Windsor Report itself,” Bishop Mouneer said regarding the Episcopal Church’s continuing representation on the standing committee.

“Many sing praises of ‘inclusiveness’ while at the same time they exclude others,” Bishop Mouneer wrote in his resignation letter. “I am deeply disturbed in my conscience when I see a kind of double standard in dealing with different issues. While emphasizing the importance of caring for the marginalized in our communities, like the LGBT community, the orthodox Anglicans are marginalized.”

He expressed a similar concern in a brief telephone interview with The Living Church.

“When it comes to who will sign and adopt the Covenant, there is exclusiveness,” he said. “This double standard hurts me.”

The bishop said he sees the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, as retaining an important role in future discussions of the Covenant.

“The Archbishop of Canterbury is very important — very important,” he said. “If he insists on following through on the recommendations [of the primates and the Windsor Report], people will listen to him.”

Bishp Mouneer said he hopes Archbishop Williams will “stand by and follow through on the agreements made in his presence.”

Archbishop Williams issued a brief statement on Monday morning in response to Bishop Mouneer’s resignation.

“Bishop Mouneer has made an important contribution to the work of the Standing Committee, for which I am deeply grateful,” Archbishop Williams said. “I regret his decision to stand down but will continue to welcome his active engagement with the life of the Communion and the challenges we face together.”

Douglas LeBlanc
View the original post

Remarks from Jim Naughton in this ENS article:

Anyone who watched Archbishop Anis be led around by British and American handlers at the Lambeth Conference, saw him read statements they had prepared for them, and watched them prompt him when he forgot his lines, knows that he does nothing without coordinating with the Western right. So what we’ve got here is a concerted effort to undermine not just the covenant process, but the quasi-governing structures of the Anglican Communion by a right-wing party that has begun to fear that the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada will never be punished for treating gay and lesbian Christians like human beings.

Below is an utterly offensive piece of writing that slanders one of the great men of the current Anglican Communion.  I am glad that God is forgiving as I find myself not so generous.  God clearly has work to do with me here.  Meanwhile TEC digs a deeper hole for itself.

Charles Wingate - 02 February 2010 11:00 AM

Remarks from Jim Naughton in this ENS article:

Anyone who watched Archbishop Anis be led around by British and American handlers at the Lambeth Conference, saw him read statements they had prepared for them, and watched them prompt him when he forgot his lines, knows that he does nothing without coordinating with the Western right. So what we’ve got here is a concerted effort to undermine not just the covenant process, but the quasi-governing structures of the Anglican Communion by a right-wing party that has begun to fear that the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada will never be punished for treating gay and lesbian Christians like human beings.

Ian Montgomery - 03 February 2010 09:39 PM

Below is an utterly offensive piece of writing that slanders one of the great men of the current Anglican Communion.  I am glad that God is forgiving as I find myself not so generous.  God clearly has work to do with me here.  Meanwhile TEC digs a deeper hole for itself.

Charles Wingate - 02 February 2010 11:00 AM

Remarks from Jim Naughton in this ENS article:

Anyone who watched Archbishop Anis be led around by British and American handlers at the Lambeth Conference, saw him read statements they had prepared for them, and watched them prompt him when he forgot his lines, knows that he does nothing without coordinating with the Western right. So what we’ve got here is a concerted effort to undermine not just the covenant process, but the quasi-governing structures of the Anglican Communion by a right-wing party that has begun to fear that the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada will never be punished for treating gay and lesbian Christians like human beings.

While Naughton’s comments offend even me - an admitted revisionist - I think it is clear that there has been coordination of the efforts of conservatives in the US and elsewhere in the Communion. I would not expect people as intelligent as Dr. Anis and Dr. Radner not to coordiante their efforts.

Daniel Weir - 04 February 2010 10:24 AM

While Naughton’s comments offend even me - an admitted revisionist - I think it is clear that there has been coordination of the efforts of conservatives in the US and elsewhere in the Communion.

Well, there’s nothing wrong with that.

Charles Wingate - 04 February 2010 10:45 AM

Daniel Weir - 04 February 2010 10:24 AM

While Naughton’s comments offend even me - an admitted revisionist - I think it is clear that there has been coordination of the efforts of conservatives in the US and elsewhere in the Communion.

Well, there’s nothing wrong with that.

My point,exactly. And, aside from the offensive language, there was nothing wrong with Naughton’s pointing out the obvious collaboration.

Naughton’s line on this, over the years, has been the insinuation that there IS something wrong with such collaboration. Indeed, one of the points I see passed around on some of the more stridently liberal blogs is that the Africans even caring about these issues is driven by the US conservatives, and behind them, the forces of the Evil Political Right through IRD et al.. Naughton’s anti-Ahramson expose is a part of this. However, one can see here that the church establishment is doing it too, and Chane, in his last diocesan address, has stated that his diocese at least is also receiving important funding from the outside.

The reality, I think, is something of a paradox. One segment of homosexual activism finds a diocese like Washington (and now, a church like ECUSA) useful in the legitimization of homosexuality and homosexual mores. This fits into the recollection of the church as a societal force towards black civil rights, two generations back. However, with the resorting of political alliances and positions, the church receives the disdain from society of being an establishment (an attitude fostered by liberal activists forty years back), but none of the benefits; it has no real power outside its own institutions because those same liberal activists managed to sever churchgoing from respectability in ECUSA’s power base. It seems to me that this is wherein lies Michael Russell’s oft stated “punishment”: it would hurt ECUSA’s claims of representing an establishment of power if it were deprived of the Anglican brand name, even though it really is trying to change what that brand name means in the first place. In a bigger picture, the ECUSA brand has already been transformed into a subsidiary line of the liberal establishment, but since there is no single establishment anymore, people have the choice of going to a conservative establishment instead (with the caveat that there are several of these). Endorsing homosexuality in this church, to some very large degree, simply means that more people hold it in contempt.

Charles Wingate - 05 February 2010 02:29 PM

snip

It seems to me that this is wherein lies Michael Russell’s oft stated “punishment”: it would hurt ECUSA’s claims of representing an establishment of power if it were deprived of the Anglican brand name, even though it really is trying to change what that brand name means in the first place. In a bigger picture, the ECUSA brand has already been transformed into a subsidiary line of the liberal establishment, but since there is no single establishment anymore, people have the choice of going to a conservative establishment instead (with the caveat that there are several of these). Endorsing homosexuality in this church, to some very large degree, simply means that more people hold it in contempt.

I find the trade off, bigots for broadminded to be worth it, Charles, and to be honest I experience far less contempt from the unchurched that do conservative groups.  As with other minority rights struggles, the tide of time is on our side.  I am glad that the lines of demarcation are clear, because TEC no longer need be painted with the swathe of contempt so many young Americans hold for those Christian groups whose energy is absorbed in collecting hatred.  We may be on a slppery slope towards Spong, but conservatives on on the slippery slope to Pat Robertson.  We only need listen to the homophobic rhetoric from Uganda, revved up by conservative Americans, to see the net result of following your path.

Having been asked by several people here to address what ++Anis wrote, I have had time to read his entire letter. I think it is a shame that he has resigned believing somehow that not participating gives him more voice than participating. 

He suggests that the “Orthodox” are being marginalized by a position which seeks not to marginalize glbt people.  No one forced the “Orthodox” to leave or huddle in a corner.  It was their decision that they could not be in fellowship with the glbt community that led to them withdrawing.  But that was their decision, not TEC’s.  For those of us who support inclusion of gays and women, for that matter, there is little difference between the “Orthodox” position and other segregationist positions. He also suggests we do not uphold Lambeth I.10 and I agree that we do not accept the statement as authoritative for the communion.  Lambeth has no such power and did not have it in 1998.  But again we are at an impasse on that so I expect no new light or agreement there.

In an add formulation in #1 he uses a quote from a RC cardinal criticizing our polity to somehow affirm it. The difference may well be that synodically governed includes governing the episcopate.  Their leadership is also a leadership within the structure of laws, they are not the law makers.  Casper and Anis wish to elevate the role of Bishops and that is fine, we just differ.  TEC may well be too different from former colonial churches in that we have two centers of authority Bishops and Conventions.  Clearly Casper has no use for Conventions and I doubt that the Imperial Bishops of the Anglican Communion do either.

He complains about the ACC seeming to grab power from other Instruments.  But one can argue as well that they simply sought to correct the rather blatant power grab by the Primates, some of whom seem to think that they should run the communion alone.  his remark highlights the power of inventing four sources of authority without inventing delineations of authority and checks and balances.  We have this brawl forming as a result of half baked proposals about potential governing authorities.  Of the four, only the ACC was created to govern anything (beyond the boundaries of Britain) and it was certainly not created to govern the WWAC, but neither was the Primates meeting.

So we have the prospect of endless internal jostling to see which IU will take the central governing role.  Anis thinks it should be the Primates, he is entitled to his position.  I for one would refuse to acknowledge the authority of the assemble Primates to dictate anything.  They are welcome to meet for tea and fellowship, but otherwise should mind the business of their own province.

In #2 he indicates he reads section 4.1.3 as not being retroactive. But what that section actually says is that the Covenant cannot trump Provincial Constitutions and Canons.  I doubt that any Province will surrender this provision for the sake of being allowed to sign the Covenant.  He then goes on with the most amazing statement in the document; that some Provinces should not even be allowed to sign the Covenant!  Who has the authority to decide that?  The Primates? This is an anarchic proposal and his further suggestion that Dioceses within leperized Provinces be allowed to sign portends more conflict and anarchy.  But his comment illuminates the whole problem with “making it up as you go along”.  You cannot create governing structures without a deliberative process that brings everyone to the table.  And since this entire escapade with the Covenant has been one of trying to invent authorities, invent an expansion of their authority for the sole end of punishing TEC it was doomed to be a hack job from the beginning.  Well done ACI.

in 2D he proposes to simply revise the structure of the ACC outside of their own process. His demand that the current membership resign to make way for a group formed somehow from a group of churches that someone has allowed to sign the covenant is absurd.  I know he really hungers to just take it all over, but the AC has NO internal justification to demand the resignation of anyone in existing IU or to propose supplanting them.  I trust this coup attempt will draw the guffaws it deserves.

#3 is a sad justification for sidelining the listening process.  Who can pastor sensitively to anyone without listening?  But the fact is that those who condemn glbt people have their minds fixed (and despite views of me, I have frequently said we might be wrong on this) so there never has been any sincere listening.  The various gay->straight conversion ministries, or claims of addiction, sickness, or sin are the stock in trade answers of those who seek to marginalize glbt people.

#4 I was criticized for mentioning the West-South issue, but it was in reply to this section of his letter. It is certainly reasonable to make the offices reflective of the composition of the communion, and I support that.  It is not, however, a legitimate reason to abandon existing structures. 

That said, it is then entirely fair to shine the light to critique and accountability in all directions.  Without even discussing homosexuality there are social norms in parts of the global south that must be addressed, most significantly the role of women and their treatment.  If TEC’s cultural context is irrelevant to good doctrine and discipline, so too is the African, South American, or Asian context.  Post Colonial Stress Disorder is no longer a justification for corruption, mistreatment of women, etc.  I was appalled to hear, for example that Peter Akinola is to receive a $50k mercedes and a house upon retirement. It is wonderful to reward a person for their service, but not to reward them in such excess. 

Until we see and hear a thoroughgoing self analysis from the Global South, we are unlikely to pay too much attention to their opinion of us. 

It is also sad and increasingly despicable to listen to the attack Human Rights theory now being advanced out of Uganda and Rome as well as out our conservatives. This is dangerous ground and will be addressed.  It may well be fair for religious organizations to run their own internal business discriminating as they please.  It is entirely another matter when they propose to impose their religious beliefs on the broader society.

#5 It is good to know that ++Anis supports sheep stealing as a way towards church growth.

I have suggested in the past that the considering of the ordination of Bp Gene Robinson as communion-breaking might not have happened if there were not some long-standing friendships between US conservatives and Anglicans in Africa. I may, of course, be wrong, but there is evicence that US conservatives helped prepare African Bishops for the debates at Lambeth 1998. I am not suggesting that the convictions of African Anglicans about homosexuality aren’t real and long-standing, but simply that these important friendships may have made the response to the Robinson ordination stronger than it might have been otherwise. It is not all surprising to find friends make common cause with one another. To suggest a parallel, the response of Episcopalians to crises in other parts of the world is often deeply influenced by our friendships with Anglicans in those places.

Interesting comment Dan
The experience of the Africans particularly, but more generally folk from what we call the Golbal South now, was at the 1988 Lambeth Conference terrible.  These folk found themselves involved in a process that was arcane with its procedures, resolutions, amendments and voting - all in English which was not their mother tongue.  It then became a concerted training project in which several people volunteered to train and equip these folk to be able to participate.  Not to mouth or echo conservative attitudes from the USA etc, but to be able to participate in western type of process.  This they did with wonderful success in 1998.  They were still were outmaneuvered in 2009 in Jamaica, but by then several such as ++Orombi had given up trying.  I agree with what happened between 88 and 98.  However I believe the break after 2003 would have been more abrupt without this preparation. Most of my African friends would have simply thrown up their hands in horror and walked away. At this point I thank God for the faithfulness of these folk in the face of TEC and the very arcane machinery of the AC.

Daniel Weir - 05 February 2010 05:34 PM

I have suggested in the past that the considering of the ordination of Bp Gene Robinson as communion-breaking might not have happened if there were not some long-standing friendships between US conservatives and Anglicans in Africa. I may, of course, be wrong, but there is evidence that US conservatives helped prepare African Bishops for the debates at Lambeth 1998. I am not suggesting that the convictions of African Anglicans about homosexuality aren’t real and long-standing, but simply that these important friendships may have made the response to the Robinson ordination stronger than it might have been otherwise. It is not all surprising to find friends make common cause with one another. To suggest a parallel, the response of Episcopalians to crises in other parts of the world is often deeply influenced by our friendships with Anglicans in those places.

Of course we find our allies where they are.  On a personal level these are the folk who uphold the apostolic faith in the face of heterodox TEC.  The rantings of Michael Russel not-with-standing, there might have been much possibility of discussion had there been a respectful listening to these good folk.  They listen to God and the Scriptures and not the fickle spirit of the age that MR seems so to delight in.  They go to the nth mile to save a person from hell and damnation by bringing them into a saving relationship with Jesus Christ.  They are rigorous in their pursuit of the Great Commission and the Holiness of the Church and its members.  They will not compromise with a moral culture of death such as that they see blessed by TEC.  However TEC tore the fabric of the Communion in 2003.  There will be no repair or healing until TEC repents and reorders itself.  I think this is what ++Anis has realized finally with his removing himself from the failed and failing processes of which he had been a part.

Sheep stealing is bad, but I would hope that someone as open-minded as Michael Russell would rejoice that people exercising their free will would go to the church of their choosing.  If that happens to be a church where the apostolic faith is taught rather than the pecusa gospel variant, they do so of their own free will.  You would think that liberals wouldn’t feel so threatened by competition if they truly believed that what they are doing in of the Lord.

Michael Russell - 05 February 2010 05:12 PM

I find the trade off, bigots for broadminded to be worth it, Charles, and to be honest I experience far less contempt from the unchurched that do conservative groups.

Not all contempt is expressed in shame and spitting; these days, much of the contempt for the churches is expressed in simple dismissal. You express the mores of the unchurched (or at least some of those unchurched—I suspect that time and place might produce a different sentiment), and they may well say “but of course, it is about time the church got in line on this. But don’t expect me to come to church just because you’ve seen the light.” Which is to say, they do no more than tolerate you; there’s no reason to expect them to heed you if you teach some other sexual restraint or self-discipline. I suspect you have no pull at all on the large faction which is otherwise libertine and which disapproves of homosexuals.

Perhaps time is on the side of the homosexuals, but if it were so, they do not need the church to advance their cause. The atheists and secularists make the same claim.

You have earned my anger in one respect: you repeatedly try to destroy discourse here by assigning me in particular a position which it is expedient to your rhetoric. I cannot see how you could love me as a person and continue to do this.

I get confused as the threads seem to get off track as we go on about the Church’s task as it appeals to people’s sense of values.  It is as if the values of society are the critical factor in understanding a church’s proper role.  I understand the Church as being the vehicle through which God has chosen to save the world and society from its death in sin.  WE preach Christ and him crucified so that people may be saved through an encounter with the living Christ, whose atoning sacrifice saves those who believe and receive Him as savior and lord.

It is not about the church being appealing to people.  It is about the appeal of Jesus meeting people’s need for salvation.  I believe that we are in the rescue business not the blessing business if the latter means blessing that which Jesus died to redeem.  Jesus spent time with sinners so as to save them.  In every generation and in every age this is the role of God’s Church.  If they crucified Jesus can we expect less.  If the Church does not preach Jesus Christ, crucified and risen then it is not the Church but some kind of religious club.

In all the arguments back and fro surely it is for this that ++Anis, the global south and the orthodox are striving and praying, enduring the opprobrium and name calling.  So long as I may be found faithful to Christ I do not care ultimately what I may be called on earth so long as I may hear the Lord say “well done.”  Is the Church striving to be the pure bride of Christ?  Or, sadly is it striving to be the bride of the spirit of the age?  Has the birthright of the Church been sold for a bowl of porridge in adopting an agenda that is in opposition to Scripture and the apostolic tradition? 

Time surely for us to repent of being less than our Lord expects as the spiritual warfare continues for the soul of the Church.  “Judgement begins with the household of God” dear Ones, beginning with us.  The Lord disciplines those He loves.  Painful is it not?

Ian Montgomery - 05 February 2010 11:28 PM

SNIP

It is not about the church being appealing to people.  It is about the appeal of Jesus meeting people’s need for salvation.  I believe that we are in the rescue business not the blessing business if the latter means blessing that which Jesus died to redeem.  Jesus spent time with sinners so as to save them.  In every generation and in every age this is the role of God’s Church.  If they crucified Jesus can we expect less.  If the Church does not preach Jesus Christ, crucified and risen then it is not the Church but some kind of religious club.

In all the arguments back and fro surely it is for this that ++Anis, the global south and the orthodox are striving and praying, enduring the opprobrium and name calling.  So long as I may be found faithful to Christ I do not care ultimately what I may be called on earth so long as I may hear the Lord say “well done.”  Is the Church striving to be the pure bride of Christ?  Or, sadly is it striving to be the bride of the spirit of the age?  Has the birthright of the Church been sold for a bowl of porridge in adopting an agenda that is in opposition to Scripture and the apostolic tradition? 

Time surely for us to repent of being less than our Lord expects as the spiritual warfare continues for the soul of the Church.  “Judgement begins with the household of God” dear Ones, beginning with us.  The Lord disciplines those He loves.  Painful is it not?

Ian, I find that when I read the Gospel Jesus is usually in the blessing business and that redemption, as the freeing of a person from oppression is a blessing.  Luke’s rendering of Jesus is always concretely social in its implications, as opposed to Matthew who speaks more spiritually (just compare the Beatitudes for example).  Jesus spent time with the Pharisees, too in the hopes of redeeming them from their own relentless judgmental clericalism, the same spirit that infects those who misuse the Scriptures to call down hatred on glbt folks. 

It certainly seems to me that it is the global south folks who have been liberally dispensing opprobrium and invective, so much so that they advance criminalization laws that plan to jail and execute gay Christians, and rev up their followers to kill people in the streets of JOS.  I have not seen liberals or progressives propose such remedies for conservatives.  The end of your sort of Christianity is polarization and violence, not the Kingdom of God.  But in the end God will decide, and we take too much on ourselves when we pretend we have the authority to judge.

A good friend of mine had an Adventist as an employee.  The Adventist would from time to time express his sorrow that he would not see my friend in heaven when the time came.  My friend simply replied that he lived for the moment of suprise that would appear on teh Adventist’s face when they met in heaven.

Michael I find that the sequences of your thinking almost more than I can follow.  Somehow we evangelical and reformed Christians are responsible for all the ills that you care to find. 

You just plain do not like us and want to make us the reason for all the ills you find in the world.  You have seemingly advanced way beyond reasoned discussion and outside what I would understand to be apostolic and biblical Christianity.  You are my example of both the impossibility of discussion and the impossibility of reconciliation since our beliefs are seemingly mutually exclusive.  I wish you - very sadly - God speed.
Do not try to take the apostolic church with you on your adventure into error.  It was Bishop Alden Hathaway who once challenged Spong - “If you don’t believe in cars then don’t try to sell tires.” (excuse my probably slightly inaccurate quote).  I like the following:

“Anglican doctrine is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Catholic Creeds, the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, and the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal of 1662.”

This is what I was ordained to promote and to then defend the same against all false doctrine contrary to God’s Word.