So Why The Low Profile?

Indeed, Stephen Smuts is not the only one puzzled at Bishop Marsh's request that he not mention the ACA in his blog, since Smuts's blog is semi-official, and he normally posts almost any official utterance made anywhere in the "worldwide Traditional Anglican Communion". But since total "worldwide" TAC membership outside the US is almost certainly in the very low four figures (if not even less), news from the US franchise would be extremely important. What in fact is going on here?

Let's start with something that's been in the back of my mind, and about which I'd neglected to post up to now: Marsh's project to merge the ACA with the Anglican Province of America. This is the public issue that's clearly preoccupied him. I've often wondered, though, how the APA ought to consider the St Mary of the Angels situation, as well as another potential scandal in the ACA, as it might relate to this merger. Poking around the web after my post yesterday, I ran into this item, in which the Standing Committee of the APA Diocese of Mid America registers "grave concerns" about the leadership of the ACA. The piece goes on:

According to a memo sent to VOL, the Standing Committee of the APA Diocese of Mid-America (DMA) says it cannot proceed with merger talks because of "grave concerns" about the present leadership of the ACA, "given past actions." A motion was unanimously passed by the Standing Committee on August 9 [2013] as the consensus of the 4th Synod of the DMA held in La Porte, Indiana. . . . Furthermore, . . . great concerns were brought forth regarding the present Episcopal [sic] leadership of the Diocese of the Missouri Valley, Anglican Church in America.

Well, let's parse this out. A standing committee in Anglican denominations is the diocesan equivalent of a parish vestry. It's responsible for the temporal affairs of a diocese, including diocesan assets and property. Why would an APA standing committee have so many reservations about a merger with the ACA? It's pretty much answered its own question: it's worried about the ACA Bishop of the Missouri Valley, the Rt Rev Stephen Duane Strawn, of whom I've spoken here. The "past actions" to which the APA DMA Standing Committee refers presumably include:

• Encouraging factional disputes in individual parishes, at two Texas parishes and St Mary of the Angels Hollywood
• Using those factional disputes as an excuse to step in and seize temporal control of the parish
• In the case of St Mary of the Angels, going outside his diocese (and later, even his denomination) in order to do this
• Violating both ACA canons and a statement by the ACA House of Bishops in order to seize a parish
• Appointing a disreputable and scandal-tainted priest to supervise this process -- including the use of violence against parishioners
• Exceeding his authority as bishop to discipline and damage the reputation of a priest not under his episcopal authority.

It's worth recognizing that, although the specific complaint of the APA DMA Standing Committee is against Stephen Strawn, ACA Presiding Bishop Brian Marsh has either tacitly or explicitly endorsed and even encouraged Strawn's actions and those of Strawn's disreputable stooge, the late Anthony Morello. Er, in a merger of the ACA and the APA, what could possibly go wrong? The cardinal virtues are Prudence, Temperance, Fortitude, and Justice. I congratulate the APA DMA Standing Committee for displaying these -- though I wonder how the APA leadership can otherwise countenance a merger with the ACA. At least one group of APA laypeople have their heads screwed on.

What's Marsh's worry here? I think it's pretty plain: almost any publicity about the ACA is going to have a down side, because it's going to bring up the scandal of St Mary of the Angels Hollywood and the conduct of Strawn and Marsh. That in turn could cause second thoughts in the APA. Indeed, almost any event in the ACA will have the effect of raising questions -- new bishops in the ACA so close to a possible merger? Why? A Dean at a parish that had previously had only a rector, for a "cathedral" whose bishop has a funny background? Why?

Best to say nothing, until the suckers take the bait, anyhow.