According to the fourth Mark of Mission, Anglicans are called to ‘transform unjust structures’. This was a reiterated theme of ACC-18, as we lamented the disempowerment of communities and nations through the ongoing repercussions of colonialism and racism. In a compelling reflection, one West Indian delegate began with a rendition of Bob Marley’s famous protest song against the discredited philosophy which holds ‘one race superior, and another inferior’. And yet there is a giant unjust structure staring us in the face – the structure of the Anglican Communion.

Why should England always take first place, in the seat of Anglican power and privilege? Why should the ACC’s president live in a palace by the River Thames, at the heart of the English establishment, and not be an Anglican living by the River Nile, or the Amazon, or the Zambezi, or the Mississippi? This is structural injustice. The president of the Communion, if we need one, should be chosen by the Communion, not preserved as a perpetual English prerogative by divine right. At our sumptuous opening banquet, hosted by the President of Ghana, Archbishop Welby praised Ghana for being one of the first African nations to win its independence from the United Kingdom, in 1957. Yet the Anglican Communion is still living with structures which belong to the 1950s and which should be consigned to history. They are not fit for purpose. Structural transformation is urgent.

The Church of England’s General Synod in July 2022 made a mistake by changing the rules for the Canterbury Crown Nominations Commission, to include five representatives from the global Anglican Communion in choosing the next Archbishop of Canterbury. This is a structural reform in the wrong direction. It makes matters worse, not better. Presented as a magnanimous desire to include global voices, its effect is simply to bolster England’s primacy even further. It is like the strategy of a dying colonial power, faced by growing global unrest, which invites a few of its subjects to London as a last resort, offering them a modest voice in colonial policy. The new Canterbury CNC announces to the world that England comes first in the Anglican Communion, and always will be first. It trumpets our global aspirations. Rather than tinkering with the Canterbury CNC, what the Anglican Communion needs is a far deeper structural change.

These global dynamics were evident at ACC-18 in numerous ways. For example, on the first day of business the Archbishop of Canterbury offered to explain the recent proposals of the English bishops. It was billed as a ‘fringe event’, not part of the official ACC programme, but the room was packed. I encouraged the Lambeth team to broadcast the proceedings, for the sake of transparency, but they chose the opposite policy – the cameras were switched off, the press were expelled, the doors were shut, and we were instructed not to record or transmit what was said. In retrospect, that was probably a wise decision, as the Archbishop has a glorious habit of wandering ‘off message’ when providing unscripted answers to questions. However, after the English presentation there was time for only six short comments from global delegates. In a striking intervention, the Bishop of Valparaiso in Chile (who has given me permission to quote him) suggested that the fringe event itself was an example of ‘neo-colonialism’ – because England had taken 35 minutes speaking from the platform, while Chile was permitted only two minutes to respond from the floor. The bishop lamented, ‘this is a dysfunctional community’.

Read it all.

"For too long, we have stubbornly proclaimed… that the Anglican Communion is ‘one body’… But, counterintuitively, this mantra simply drives us further apart, because it forces provinces to shout more loudly to make their differences heard."https://t.co/YAXGtkbjtF

— Will Briggs (@WillBriggs) February 21, 2023

It is the Quadrilateral that sets out the basis of our belief. It is the Marks of Mission that set out the objects of our action.

The Instruments of Communion are much less important. They’re about, simply, organisation. They set out how we relate.

They are: first, the Lambeth Conference of Bishops which first occurred in 1867. Second, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in post-reformation form from the 1530s and going on developing, but in origin from 597 AD. Third, the Anglican Consultative Council from the 1960s and fourth the Primates’ Meeting from the late 1970s.

The Instruments have grown and changed over the years. They’ve responded to changes caused by wars, colonialism, decolonizing, corruption and failure, heresies and schisms, technological and scientific advance. They have never had the character of Synods with either doctrinal or ethical authority over the Communion, but they do have moral force.

But history shows us that when times change, so must the Instruments of Communion. The post Second World War era is ending. It is collapsing around us, as we sit here.

The international order is ending. Wars and technological destruction are growing. Climate change is increasing. The power of international bodies like the UN is failing. Commerce and modern economics is losing the fight to grow faster than the populations and to meet increasing needs.

Not least because of human selfishness. The future of this world, the world in which we live, the world in which the church lives, is for shaping.

It may be wonderful and generous particularly if the 2 billion Christians act as one, declare the beautiful, support the generous, love one another. We can play our part as the Anglican Communion. A crucial part. That is God’s call. Bless. Be a blessing to the world around us.

Read it all.

“The task of the church has been, since the first Pentecost, to declare the marvellous works of God and to call people to live out their trust in Christ.”

Archbishop Justin Welby gives his Presidential Address at the start of #ACC18.#AnglicanCommunion pic.twitter.com/C9oQ73Sl6F

— Anglican Communion (@AnglicanWorld) February 12, 2023

Although Dr. Atherstone devotes most of his report on ACC-17 to matters of church order, he does note that “our deep doctrinal disagreements as Anglicans rumbled along in the background,” because provinces “have changed their doctrine of marriage.” It would appear that he considers “disagreement” on marriage to be among the issues requiring “discipline, differentiation, and even separation.”

His discussion of the 3-year set of restrictions – a.k.a. “consequences” – imposed on the Episcopal Church in 2016 is curious. He notes that these restrictions have now “timed out,” that “the situation is farcical,” and that the “consequences” need more substance, but he refrains from framing the issue in terms of repentance. What makes the situation farcical indeed is that fact that Communion “Instruments” did not require TEC to change its teaching or practice, and now they are talking about moving on to the “healing phase.” Common sense parenting teaches that you do not send a child to a “time-out” without requiring on his return an apology and a promise not to do it again!

Dr. Atherstone apparently considers this failure of discipline a reason for differentiation, personally at least. Hence he declined each day to take Communion with TEC delegates at ACC-17 and suggests that this practice should be offered at Lambeth 2020 because “we are all part of the Anglican Communion but we are not all ‘in communion.’” While one can sympathize with his dilemma, his response is strangely individualistic. Did he commend his position to others at ACC-17? He argues that by allowing separate eucharistic gatherings at official Anglican meetings, “it becomes possible to meet together and discuss our differences and common concern, without pretext…and the pain of our disunity motivates us to renewed efforts toward unity.” As I have argued (see here and here), sitting at table with false teachers at a church council is just as problematic as sitting at the Lord’s Table (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:12). Certainly the early church councils saw it this way (yes, Arius attended Nicaea but was defrocked and exiled from there).

Giving formal recognition to false teachers at a church council, even if it is on the pretext of “listening,” serves to legitimate their position (some call this “open reception”). This is precisely how revisionists advanced their innovations within the Episcopal Church and took them on to the Communion level.

Dr. Atherstone seems strangely naïve about how the game is played. He contrasts the “informal” way the meeting in Hong Kong was conducted with the tightly controlled agenda and autocratic rule by the chair, the table groups gagged by long lectures, and the avoidance of sensitive subjects (“we don’t do doctrine”). But this contrast is not a bug in the program, as they say, but a feature. Welcome to indaba!

His own attempt to bring resolution to the divisions at ACC-17 is revealing. On the key resolution concerning membership in Anglican bodies, he thought his “Oxford” amendment – that LGBTQ advocates should be “welcomed” rather than “included” – would make peace, and he was surprised when the Africans “found their voices and stood one after another to denounce the resolution.” Why should this be a surprise? Meeting after meeting for twenty years, they have strongly defended Lambeth Resolution I.10 and its normative statement that homosexual practice is “incompatible with Scripture” and “cannot be advised.”

Read it all.

Read it all.

A new formula for setting the level of financial commitments from the Anglican Communion’s provinces approved May 4 by the Anglican Consultative Council has the potential to greatly increase the amount of money expected from The Episcopal Church.

Anglican Communion Chief Operating Officer David White acknowledged that the new annual formula, which is based on the number “active bishops” in a province multiplied by their average salary (including housing costs) multiplied by 10%, produces “the most extreme case of potential impact” for The Episcopal Church….

Historically, the Church of England (at 41.4% of the total income) and The Episcopal Church (at 21.9%) have been the two largest contributors to what is known as the Inter-Anglican Budget. General Convention has budgeted $1.15 million as its total 2019-2021 contribution (line 412 here).

White’s budget report says the ACC’s unrestricted spending budget in 2019 is about $2.3 million. “Given the consistent excess of ambition over resources,” the report says the budget needs a 5% annual increase in money available for unrestricted spending, as opposed to money contributed for specific programs.

Read it all.

At the January, 2016 meeting of the Primates of the Anglican Communion, the Primates said The Episcopal Church (TEC) would not be permitted to participate in ecumenical conversations or any decisions on the doctrine or polity of the Anglican Communion. This consequence was declared by the Primates because TEC had made decisions that unilaterally violate the teaching of the Anglican Communion. Therefore, the Primates reasoned, TEC shouldn’t be allowed to represent Anglicans anywhere.

Less than four months later the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC-16) met in Zambia on April 8-19, and “received” the report of the Primates. In fact, they ignored it. The Episcopal Church participated in every vote on every resolution that came before ACC-16, including every matter relating to the doctrine and polity of the Anglican Communion. You can read the facts in detail here. A spokesperson on behalf of Episcopal Church Communications reported that the ACC deliberately refused to implement the recommendations of the Primates. Even the delegates from TEC to ACC-16 publicly refuted Archbishop Welby’s claim that ACC-16 had honored the decision of the January 2016 Primates meeting and admitted to doing whatever they pleased during the meeting!

The refusal by the Anglican Consultative Council to implement the recommendations of the January 2016 Primates meeting is prima facie evidence that the Instruments of Communion are at odds with each other – broken systemically, and unable to reach the “conciliar consensus” that has characterized Anglican decision making at every other level of Anglican Churches other than this global, Communion level of governance. In fact, the Anglican Consultative Council is a major part of the problem, and not the solution.

The Anglican way of decision making is conciliar, and finds it roots all the way back to the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. Yes, in conciliar decision making every voice in the church must be heard – not only Bishops and clergy, but laity, male and female, theologians and more. But the place for this to happen is in a Synod where all voices come together in the decision making, and where Bishops exercise a unique role in guarding the faith and order, doctrine and discipline of the Church.

The Anglican Consultative Council is NOT such a Synod. According to its own Constitution[1], the Anglican Consultative Council has power only to assist Primates and the Lambeth Conference of Bishops “as and when required to do so.” (Art. 5.12) That is not the language of a Synod. It is the language of a subordinate and advisory body that serves the bishops rather than contradicting and usurping their authority. This becomes even clearer in the language of Article 5 where the ACC is referred to multiple times as an “advisory body” only: with power “to advise on inter-Anglican, Provincial and Diocesan relationships” (Art. 5.3 at page 4), power “to advise on matters arising out of national or regional Church union negotiations,” (Art. 5.8, at page 5) and power “to advise on problems of inter-Anglican communication.” (Art. 5.9, at page 5). The powers enumerated to the ACC in the rest of Article 5 are what we would expect for the Board of Trustees of a charitable organization—in language that facilitates the exercise of their fiduciary duties.

But here’s the rub: The Anglican Communion is more than a charitable organization under the UK Charities Act. It is a Church – led by Bishops who have an ancient, conciliar responsibility to guard the doctrine, discipline and order of the Churches they lead, and Primates to guard the faith and Godly order in the relationships among those Churches. This authority is recognized not only in the Resolutions of the Lambeth Conference but also in The Principles of Canon Law Common to the Churches of the Anglican Communion. One hardly knows how to characterize the repudiation of the Primates gathering by the ACC – arrogance, rebellion or legal fiction, it’s all the same.

As I contend in Anglican Conciliarism, this is the heart of the “ecclesial deficit,” the inability of the existing global structures of the Anglican Communion to say “no” to false teaching or any other violation of faith and order. There was some hope that the proposed Anglican Communion Covenant would provide a means for addressing this deficit. But those hopes were dashed at the 2009 meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council in Kingston, Jamaica.

Read it all.

The Secretary General’s statement that The Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) is not a province of the Anglican Communion is misleading at best. It ignores the very process of recognition of the Anglican Church in North America by some GAFCON provinces as early as July 2009. It ignores the public and published recognition of Archbishop Foley Beach as “a fellow Primate of the Anglican Communion” by those Primates of the Anglican Communion who installed him as the second Archbishop of the Anglican Church in North America on October 9, 2014. The Secretary General ignores the recognition of the Anglican Church in North America as a “partner province” of the Global South by the Primates of the Global South in their October 2016 Communique.

In other words, the process of recognition of the Anglican Church in North America as a member Church within the Anglican Communion is already a 10-year process initiated by Primates of the Anglican Communion, representing Churches of the Anglican Communion, and in keeping with their “long-standing” procedural authority to do so. It’s certainly in the Secretary General’s interest in his Report to take pride in his achievement in helping to form a new ‘province” of the Anglican Communion in Sudan. But that does not give him the right to take pride in misstating who decides membership in the Anglican Communion—especially by usurping the rightful authority of the Primates to do so while they are in the middle of an already ongoing process of recognition.

Read it all.

One of the participant’s in Scotland’s first church gay wedding thas been revealed as Anglican Consultative Standing Committee member Alistair Dinnie. On 29 Sept 2017 Christian Today reported Mr. Dennie had wed Mr. Peter Matthews at St John’s Episcopal Church in the first same-sex wedding conducted in a church. Mr. Dennie was the Scottish Episcopal Church’s delegate to the April 2016 meeting of the ACC in Lusaka and was elected by the delegates to its standing committee.

On 1 Aug 2017 the Rev. Markus Dünzkofer, rector of St. John’s, reported that he had officiated at a wedding at a hotel for an American couple, “Mark and Rick”. “This was not some pretty, fancy occasion,” he said. “They wanted a religious ceremony and they wanted it to be a nuptial Mass,” he wrote on Facebook.

On 16 Sept 2017 Fr. Dünzkofer officiated at the wedding of Peter Matthews and Alistair Dinnie at St. John’s, making it the first same-sex Anglican church wedding in Scotland. Since the Matthews/Dinnie wedding same-sex marriages have also been celebrated in Glasgow and Moray.

Read it all.

The next meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC-17) could take place in Hong Kong following a decision to move it from Sao Paulo in Brazil.

The Brazilian city was unveiled as the host of the 2019 conference at last year’s ACC conference in Lusaka. But the ACC Standing Committee, meeting in London, heard that the event was scheduled to go ahead at what would be a challenging time for the country and for the Anglican Church there. In particular, concerns were raised about the political and economic instability and also the Church’s discussions on human sexuality and marriage which will take place at the provincial synod next year. Whatever the outcome of those discussions, it was felt this would have an impact on the Anglican Church in Brazil and hamper its ability to stage ACC-17. Specifically, it was thought that the leadership of the Church would need time to deal with pastoral issues arising from the discussions.

Hong Kong emerged as a possible replacement during committee discussions. It was felt the territory had the resources to step in and also the experience, having hosted ACC-12 in 2002.

Read it all.

Just three months afterward, the Anglican Consultative Council (a deliberative body in which lay persons, clergy, bishops and Primates all take part as elected representatives of their respective denominations) held its sixteenth triennial meeting in Lusaka, Zambia. Representatives from ECUSA attended, but refused to honor the Primates’ requirement to abstain from certain deliberations of the Council having to do with “doctrine or polity.” Nor did the Council bar them from doing so.

The Episcopal delegates not only refused, but they gloated about the Council’s refusal even to consider the Primates’ requirement. In an open letter they sent to ECUSA after the meeting, which was published in the official Episcopal News Service, they reported that although Archbishop Welby had communicated the results of the January meeting to the Council, “ACC members seemed to have little energy for answering the primates’ call for consequences”.

Thus just as they flouted Resolution 1.10 from the 1998 Lambeth Conference in 2003, when they approved the consecration of Bishop V. Gene Robinson contrary to that Resolution, and just as they have repeatedly, in the years since, rejected all calls to change their course, ECUSA is determined to walk apart from the former Communion while keeping up the pretense that their actions have not turned it into a Disunion. (“How could it be a ‘Disunion’?” I hear them asking. “We still attend all its meetings!”)

Not only do they insist on exercising their full authority and rights when it comes to participation in Anglican-wide affairs, but they rub it in the GAFCON Primates’ faces every chance they get. For instance, Archbishop Welby has invited all Anglican Primates (with the exception of ACNA’s, whom he had invited the previous year) to another meeting at Canterbury next October. Just last week, the official news organ of the Anglican [Dis]union published a story about his invitation, and his expectations for the meeting. In the process, they rather loosely characterized ECUSA’s actions at ACC-16 in Lusaka (by serving up what is called “Anglican fudge” to describe what happened).

The ECUSA delegates to that meeting issued a response challenging the story’s accuracy, and ACNS had to add some further explanation by way of making the fudge thicker. (See the updated story here, and the explanation at the end. What ACNS added is the last sentence to the next-to-last paragraph.)

The upshot is that ECUSA once again saw to it that the other Primates were told in no uncertain terms that ECUSA had never yet acceded to their demands, and was not about to change its course.

Read it all (my emphasis).

Read it all. The ACNS then altered their article based on this response. You can see both versions there; make sure to read them and compare the differences.

Read it all.

..in the local Christian community, the parting of ways between the Anglican Church and Chung Chi College, the divinity college of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, is seen as a profound political development.

Its roots can be traced to efforts by Beijing to penetrate Hong Kong churches to persuade them to focus on spiritual matters and support the administration in the fields of education and social welfare.
…….
..the leadership of the Anglican Church appears to have lost its voice amid the political turmoil in society, shirking from its duty to speak up on sensitive political issues for fear of offending the powers that be.

Beijing has appointed [Archbishop] Paul Kwong, the spiritual leader of the Anglican Church, into the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, making the church a subject of the Communist Party’s rule.

In fact, the appointment implies that the Anglican Church is no longer an independent Christian church but a part of the Communist Party.

Many Hong Kong people lament that Sheng Kung Hui now belongs to the pro-Beijing camp, with its leader telling his congregation to “stay silent just like Jesus did on the cross” while the debate on the government’s political reform proposal was raging two years ago.

His position on the issue is that Hong Kong people should not go against the central government when it comes to its policies for the city.

Kwong also criticized those who joined the Occupy protests for trying to “force” central authorities to meet their demand for an election without Beijing intervention, adding that people should also try to look at the issue from the central government’s perspective.

He kept quiet when the authorities started condemning the Occupy protesters for “thinking only about their own interests and not considering the good of the public”.

It is somewhat unnerving that just weeks before the Anglican Church announced its decision on the breakup with Chung Chi College, Chinese President Xi Jinping announced the latest round of restrictions on religions including Christianity..

Read it all

…a number of Anglican Communion leaders are falling all over themselves trying to say that the ACC meeting embraced and fulfilled the letter and the spirit of the Primates’ resolution. It is clear that the Episcopal Church representatives fully participated in discussions and decisions about doctrine and polity, even moving and seconding resolutions, why would some people insist that the Episcopal Church followed the direction of the Primates’ disciplinary resolution? Very simply, it is because they cannot face embracing the alternative. Since the Primates called for TEC to be disciplined by an overwhelming majority, having the ACC fail to follow the lead of their Primatial leaders would mean that the already dysfunctional instruments of unity have descended into even more chaos; that there would be (and are) divisions, and worst of all, it could mean that there are people who, by their actions, have separated themselves not only from the Body, but also from Christ.
……
The unity of the Anglican Communion is not preserved by pretending that all is well. Unity can only be a function of truth. Actually, real unity can only result when there is accountability and consequence. It is meaningless to claim institutional unity when it doesn’t actually exist. Right now, the Anglican Communion is simultaneously going in two different directions. The only possibilities are that either there will be a change of direction by one of the groups, or eventually there will be a separation. Right now, we are living with the awful tension where pretty much all we share is a logo. The faiths of the two bodies are entirely different. They have utterly different trajectories. There is no joy in that. There is, however, an even worse possibility than eventually having a separation. It would be worse if the whole Communion were to turn away from the redeeming love of Christ. That way everyone would be lost. Having Biblically faithful people in the Communion means that there is a faithful witness to which others can be called to return. That is our hope and would be a cause for great celebration.

Denying the gravity of the situation does not bring peace. The only thing that will bring peace is the truth of Christ, shared with the love of Christ. It is toward that which we must move.

Read it all

‘Justin Welby and the ACC Lusaka are still in the news this week… just the not good news section’.

With thanks to Kevin Kallsen and George Conger at Anglican TV

..Meanwhile, the Archbishop of Canterbury is silent. That is, until May 11, when he announced the appointment of the “Task Force” the Primates approved to “maintain conversation among (among the Primates) with the intention of restoration of relationship.” The Archbishop of Canterbury appoints the Presiding Bishop of TEC to the Task Force! Barbara Gauthier sums up her utter perplexity and bafflement, and ours, at this turn of events:

1. ++Welby stated that the “consequences” imposed on TEC by the Primates have been received and “fully implemented” by both himself and the ACC.

2. Those “consequences” included banning TEC members for three years from being elected or appointed to any Communion-wide committee or group dealing with Anglican polity and/or doctrine.

3. ++Welby appointed TEC’s Presiding Bishop Michael Curry to serve on a Communion-wide task group whose only purpose for existing is to discuss how to deal with Anglican polity and doctrine in the wake of a crisis precipitated by an unrepentant TEC. Go figure”¦

It’s a case of politics and media spin worthy of any secular center of political power and intrigue.

But is that how we want the Anglican Communion to function? In the face of this incredible dysfunction and ongoing deficit of authority, people are asking why should I care any more about the Anglican Communion?..

Read it all

Presiding Bishop and Primate Michael Curry has been named by Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby to an Anglican Communion Task Force to “maintain conversation” among the Primates.

The request for the Task Force was presented during the Primates meeting in January to further their commitment to walk together despite “deep differences.”

“I support the establishment of this Task Force and I look forward to focusing on how we as Anglican Christians can “walk together” following the way of Jesus and living his way of love,” Presiding Bishop Curry stated. “I also look forward to working and praying together with our brothers and sisters on the Task Force.”

In addition to Presiding Bishop Curry, other Task Force members are:

Archbishop Richard Clarke, Church of Ireland;
Bishop Govada Dyvasirvadam, Moderator of Church of South India;
Archbishop Ian Ernest, Church of the Province of the Indian Ocean;
Archbishop Philip Freier, Anglican Church of Australia;
Archbishop Ng Moon Hing, Province of South East Asia;
Canon Rosemary Mbogo, Provincial Secretary of the Anglican Church of Kenya;
Bishop Linda Nicholls, Coadjutor Bishop of the Diocese of Huron, Anglican Church of Canada;
Canon Elizabeth Paver, the former vice-chair of the ACC, Church of England; and
Bishop Paul Sarker, Moderator of the Church of Bangladesh. Anglican Communion

Secretary General Josiah Idowu-Fearon is secretary for the Task Force.

Read it all

Archbishop Idowu-Fearon said he took a different view.

“The signatories of the statement have served the Anglican Communion tirelessly over many years. Their prayerful presence and wisdom has been an enormous blessing and has enriched the Communion immeasurably. They are entitled to express a view but I simply do not agree with their interpretation here. The response of the ACC was clear and its support for the Primates was clearly expressed.”

Read it all

Since the enriching, empowering and constructive meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC16) in Lusaka, 8 ”“ 19 April 2016, a number of statements have appeared with respect to ACC16’s engagement with the outcome of the January 2016 Primates’ Gathering and Meeting.
As outgoing members of the Anglican Consultative Council and of the Standing Committee, we are writing to clarify our understanding of what transpired at ACC16 with respect to the earlier Primates’ gathering.
……
In receiving the Archbishop of Canterbury’s formal report of the Primates’ Gathering and Meeting, ACC16 neither endorsed nor affirmed the consequences contained in the Primates’ Communique. There was no plenary discussion or decision with respect to the Primates’ Communiqué. From our perspective there did not seem to be a common mind on the issue, other than the clear commitment to avoid further confrontation and division. ACC16 did welcome the call for the Instruments of Communion and the Provinces to continue to walk together as they discern the way forward. No consequences were imposed by the ACC and neither was the ACC asked to do so.
……
Helen Biggin, The Church in Wales
Prof Dr Joanildo Burity, Igreja Episcopal Anglicana do Brasil
The Rt Revd Ian T. Douglas, The Episcopal Church
The Rt Revd Dr Sarah Macneil, The Anglican Church of Australia
Canon Elizabeth Paver, The Church of England, Outgoing Vice-Chair
The Rt Revd James Tengatenga, The Church of the Province of Central Africa, Outgoing Chair

Read it all

In receiving the Archbishop of Canterbury’s formal report of the Primates’ Gathering and Meeting, ACC16 neither endorsed nor affirmed the consequences contained in the Primates’ Communiqué. There was no plenary discussion or decision with respect to the Primates’ Communiqué. From our perspective there did not seem to be a common mind on the issue, other than the clear commitment to avoid further confrontation and division. ACC16 did welcome the call for the Instruments of Communion and the Provinces to continue to walk together as they discern the way forward. No consequences were imposed by the ACC and neither was the ACC asked to do so.

During the meeting there were many opportunities, both formal and informal, to explore the ACC16 theme of ”˜Intentional discipleship in a world of differences.” This was done faithfully and respectfully.

Read it all.

‘TEC has a sexual identity crisis this week and the ABC doubles down on happy happy primates….’

With thanks to Kevin Kallsen and George Conger at Anglican TV

In itself the Anglican Consultative Council meeting in Lusaka (ACC-16), was reminiscent of a bowl of blanc mange without a bottom. To be sure, the meeting adopted some 45 resolutions and elected a new chairman. But none of the resolutions mattered much; and the new chairman, the Archbishop of Hong Kong, is reportedly cosy with Beijing. Negatively, however, it allowed The Episcopal Church (TEC) delegates to participate fully, including with regard to doctrinal matters. It thereby failed to uphold the three-year suspension of TEC resolved on by the Primates’ meeting in Canterbury last January, in consequence of TEC’s canonical allowance of same-sex marriage. And this has two major significances. One is that Justin Welby, the present Archbishop of Canterbury, who is president of the ACC and was understood by the Primates to give assurances of TEC’s doctrinal non-participation, can be relied on little more than his predecessor, Rowan Williams, to play a positive role the Anglican Communion. The other is that the GAFCON Primates’ and their associates, though not uncoordinated in confronting Canterbury’s negativity, need to coordinate much more. Conciliarism points to a way in which they might do so…

Read it all

..I was greatly encouraged by my time in Lusaka at ACC-16. It was a delight to meet so many old friends from around the Communion, including a former student from St Andrew’s College, Kabare, Kenya, Johnson Chinyong’ole, now the Provincial Secretary of the Church of Tanzania, and to make new friends.

A colleague in Durham University had said that for the Mission Theology in the Anglican Communion project I should, some time, contact Professor Joanildo Burity in the Anglican Province of Brazil, who had been in Durham for four years. I was hoping to arrange a meeting in the UK or Brazil. God surprised us with the discovery of each other at ACC-16.

He attended the workshop I led on the book of theological resources in times of persecution entitled, ”˜Out of the Depths: Hope in Times of Suffering’, written by members of the Anglican Inter Faith Network..

Read it all

Read it all.

The 16th meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council ended this week in Lusaka, Zambia. I could tell you my interpretation of what the council did, which is quite different from Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby’s interpretation. However, I think it would serve you best if I focused on just the facts and let you draw your own conclusion.

* On January 15, 2016, the Primates of the Anglican Communion resolved as follows:“It is our unanimous desire to walk together. However given the seriousness of these matters we formally acknowledge this distance by requiring that for a period of three years The Episcopal Church no longer represent us on ecumenical and interfaith bodies, should not be appointed or elected to an internal standing committee and that while participating in the internal bodies of the Anglican Communion, they will not take part in decision making on any issues pertaining to doctrine or polity.” Addendum A, paras. 7 and 8

* On April 19, at the conclusion of the Anglican Consultative Council, an internal body of the Anglican Communion, the delegates from The Episcopal Church wrote in “A Letter from Lusaka”: “We want to assure you that we participated fully in this meeting and that we were warmly welcomed and included by other ACC members.”

* According to the Anglican Communion Office, Bishop of Connecticut, Ian Douglas proposed or seconded several resolutions for ACC-16. These include but are not limited to resolutions on:
– Anglican inter-faith engagement
– Ensuring both continuity and turnover of the leadership of the Anglican Consultative Council
– An Anglican Congress

* On April 19, Rebecca Wilson, an Episcopal Church communications consultant who traveled to Lusaka, posted the following comment online:…

Read it all

With thanks to Kevin Kallsen and George Conger of Anglican TV

The Archbishop briefed members of the ACC last week about the Primates’ meeting; and this week they unanimously agreed a resolution backing the Primates’ decisions.

Speaking to ACNS last night, as he prepared to fly out of Lusaka at the end of the ACC-16 meeting, Archbishop Welby welcomed the resolution. “The actions of the ACC demonstrate that it is working in close collaboration with the Primates, as has been the aim since both started and is set out especially in Resolution 52 of the Lambeth Conference 1988,” Archbishop Welby said.

“Given that my report, referred to in the resolution, incorporated the Communiqué and was very explicit on consequences; the resolution clearly supports and accepts all the Primates’ Meeting conclusions.

“No member of the Episcopal Church stood for office in the ACC or Standing Committee. The consequences of the Primates meeting have been fully implemented.”

Read it all

..Our time together over the last thirteen days has visibly demonstrated, once again, our unity in diversity as the provinces of the Anglican Communion. Meeting fellow Anglicans from around the world in discussions, around the altar, in tea breaks, and at meals, we learned from each other what intentional discipleship across our differences means as the Body of Christ in the world today. We are thankful to God and to The Episcopal Church for this privilege of representing our church on the Anglican Consultative Council.

Because this ACC meeting was held in the shadow of the January Primates Gathering and Meeting that sought to restrict our participation as members from The Episcopal Church, we want to assure you that we participated fully in this meeting and that we were warmly welcomed and included by other ACC members. Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby did report to the ACC on the Primates Gathering and Meeting [see here ] on the first day of the meeting. Beyond that report, ACC members seemed to have little energy for answering the primates’ call for consequences, for discussing disagreements over human sexuality, or for taking up the call of Anglican Communion Secretary-General Josiah Idowu-Fearon to pursue the Anglican Covenant. Yesterday, in fact, a resolution that sought to pursue further consequences against The Episcopal Church was withdrawn just before it was scheduled for debate.
………….
On April 15, the three of us had the opportunity to meet informally with Archbishop Justin, Caroline his wife and members of his staff at Lambeth Palace. Our conversation was easy, open and honest, and we came away from the conversation with the conviction that while the Archbishop does not agree with the actions of our General Convention regarding marriage equality, he is firmly committed to our unity as the Anglican Communion and the autonomy of Anglican provinces. He expressed fervent hope that The Episcopal Church will continue to be committed to and involved in the life of the Anglican Communion. We are grateful to Archbishop Justin for taking the time to meet with us, for his candor, and for assuring us of his respect for us and for the Episcopal Church.

Read it all

So here is my assessment of the Lusaka meeting:

1. The Primates earlier (in a January meeting) offered absolutely the most minimal discipline that could be done without totally losing credibility. TEC was not supposed to vote or deliberate about polity, doctrine, or ecumenical affairs.

2. TEC came to Lusaka.

3. TEC voted at Lusaka.

4. TEC fully participated in the meeting in Lusaka.

5. TEC reported that they fully participated and voted, claiming themselves that they did not follow the decision of the Primates Meeting.

6. Many institutional leaders gave a litany of reasons why the Primates don’t have authority.

7. Many utterly distorted the context of the desire to “walk together” and completely ignored the discipline that is necessary for that to happen.

8. The focus of the meeting (made clear by the resolutions) was institutional- rather than Gospel-centered, and a close examination of most of what came out of the meeting reveals that even when Gospel language is used, it means different things to different people.

In dramatic contrast was the meeting of the GAFCON Primates in Nairobi, which I did attend and which met shortly after the ACC. It was originally scheduled to be in Chile, but there were problems getting visas for some of the people, so we had to move it to Nairobi at the last minute.

The atmosphere in Nairobi was very, VERY different from the many “institutional” meetings I have attended. The most dramatic difference was that the undergirding principle of the GAFCON Primates meeting was the Gospel. By that, I mean people being saved, forgiven, discipled, and transformed. The Primates are in absolute agreement about the supreme authority of Scripture, but even though everyone knows it is a shared value, it is repeated constantly, not because those speaking are trying to convince people to accept Biblical authority, but because the life-giving power of the Word is being celebrated…

Read it all

..The appendix [to the GAFCON Primates Nairobi Communiqué 2016] is worth paying attention to.

The recent meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council in Lusaka, Zambia has again highlighted the inability of the current instruments to uphold godly order within the Communion. Delegates from the Episcopal Church, by their own admission, voted on matters that pertained to polity and doctrine, in defiance of the Primates.

GAFCON’s claim is clear. TEC made a deliberate choice to go against the will of the Primates and they freely admit to it. Here Rebecca Wilson (the communications officer that TEC brought with them to the ACC) confirms that TEC understood themselves to being voting on Doctrine and Polity contrary to the express wish of the Primates.

So get your head around that. TEC is deliberately choosing to advertise the fact that it rejected the Primates’ request. They also voted on amendments to the ACC’s constitution which are clearly matters of polity.

Read it all and it is also on Stand Firm