(Church of Uganda News)
On the first day of the ACC-14 meeting, the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council made an unconstitutional decision to refuse to seat the clergy delegate from the Church of Uganda. The Church of Uganda is entitled to three delegates ”“ a Bishop, priest, and lay person.
In an e-mail dated 24th April, Rev. Canon Kenneth Kearon, Secretary General of the Anglican Consultative Council, wrote the Most Rev. Henry Luke Orombi, Archbishop of the Church of Uganda, saying, “I’m grateful for the nomination of Rev. Philip Ashey as ACC Delegate”¦and I look forward to welcoming him to ACC.”
Rev. Philip Ashey is a priest of Ruwenzori Diocese in the Church of Uganda, living and working in Atlanta, USA.
During the first press briefing, Venerable Paul Feheley, the ACC’s Spokesperson, stated that each province appoints its own delegates to the ACC, as written in the constitution of the ACC.
In a surprising move, the Joint Standing Committee, meeting on 1st May, exceeded the limits of their authority, reversed Canon Kearon’s decision of 24th April, and determined that Rev. Ashey was not “qualified” to serve as a delegate, citing section 4(e) of the Constitution of the ACC. Their reason? Rev. Ashey is an American who was received into the Church of Uganda in 2005.
In a 2nd May letter appealing to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Archbishop Orombi wrote,
“The appointment of delegates to the ACC from a Province is purely an internal matter and is not subject to review by any body within the ACC, including the Joint Standing Committee. That the Joint Standing Committee would assume such authority is a gross violation of our constitutional relationships, not to mention a further tearing of our bonds of affection. Our reasons for appointing one of our American priests to represent us as our clergy delegate are our reasons, and are not for the Joint Standing Committee to question. Section 4(e) does not give the Joint Standing Committee or the ACC the right to interfere in the appointing body’s determination of the “qualification” of a delegate. For the Joint Standing Committee to assume this power is nothing short of an imperialistic and colonial decision that violates the integrity of the Church of Uganda.”
When asked why he didn’t send a Ugandan priest to represent the Church of Uganda, Archbishop Orombi replied, “We had a last minute vacancy for our clergy delegate and couldn’t organize travel and visas for one of our Ugandan clergy to go. When we learned that our priest, Rev. Philip Ashey could go to Jamaica, we asked him to represent us.”
Orombi continued, “The appointment of Rev. Philip Ashey to fill a vacancy at the last minute provides the Church of Uganda with a strong voice of a priest in good standing in the Diocese of Ruwenzori. It is also a voice for the almost 100,000 orthodox Anglicans in North America who have been persecuted by TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada, who will not be represented by their delegations to ACC-14, and who will not otherwise have voice or seat at the table of the ACC. It is important for the Communion to be reminded that there is a serious tear in the fabric of our communion; all is not well and there continues to be an urgent need to address the ongoing crisis before us.”
When asked why he was not present for the meeting, Archbishop Orombi said, “I am speaking at the New Wine conference in the north of England at the same time the ACC is meeting. This speaking engagement has been in my diary for a long time. It was an unavoidable conflict. I regret that my alternate to the Primates Standing Committee, Archbishop Justice Akrofi of West Africa, was also not able to attend.”
The Church of Uganda’s Bishop delegate was not able to attend the meeting because of a conflict with a previously scheduled trip to the UK.
The Church of Uganda will be represented only by its lay delegate, who protested the decision of the Joint Standing Committee to refuse to seat Uganda’s clergy delegate. Her protest was, nonetheless, overridden by other interests on the Joint Standing Committee.
This is honestly not surprising. The Anglican Communion doesn’t seat people who aren’t members of the Anglican Communion for its bodies, even if certain clergy or laity are members of a *province* of the Anglican Communion. As I’ve been pointing out for ages, members of the Anglican Communion get to be considered for the ACC, invited to Lambeth if they’re bishops, etc, etc. And you can’t be a member of the Anglican Communion if you’re a member of a province while serving in the geographic territory of another province without that province’s permission. Just as with bishops of the ACNA, so with clergy of the ACNA. And so with laity of the ACNA.
I sure wish that Uganda could have nominated a clergyperson that was a member of the Anglican Communion — as a result of this unfortunate cuteness they lost a whole vote and discovered that the Anglican Communion is going to be consistent. Now the next try on the list, I suppose, is a layperson?
This looks like general spoiling for a fight on everybody’s part, or at best point-scoring. Why Ashey shouldn’t have been seated, whether one liked it or not, is beyond me, especially given previous notice and acceptance by the ACO; and why Primate and bishop and native Ugandan priest could not find a way to show up or at least have acceptable alternates is also beyond me (I am well aware of schedule conflicts when it comes to church meetings — but this is three separate people for a meeting that was long in the works). Someone sort this out, please, in a Christian manner that avoids further ruffling of everybody’s feathers.
Dr. Radner — why not just send over John Guernsey as a bishop of Uganda?
Yep — you’re exactly right. It’s simply spoiling for a controversy. And trying to go for a precedent on the ACNA’s part.
Thanks, Sarah. Well put:
[blockquote]you can’t be a member of the Anglican Communion if you’re a member of a province while serving in the geographic territory of another province without that province’s permission.[/blockquote]
This question of official status is crucial and the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates’ Meeting and of the ACC was right, it seems to me. As with the Lambeth Conference, presence at Joint Standing Committee meetings is more powerful than absence and, sadly, the Archbishop of Uganda chose to attend a meeting of ‘New Wine’ rather than of the ACC and its Joint Standing Committee.
It is good, however, that the hidden agenda of this last minute appointment was admitted:
[blockquote]The appointment of Rev. Philip Ashey to fill a vacancy at the last minute provides the Church of Uganda with a strong voice of a priest in good standing in the Diocese of Ruwenzori. It is also a voice for the almost 100,000 orthodox Anglicans in North America who have been persecuted by TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada, who will not be represented by their delegations to ACC-14, and who will not otherwise have voice or seat at the table of the ACC.[/blockquote]
The refusal makes sense as long as both sides are still in the Anglican Communion.
[url=http://sergesblog.blogspot.com/]High-church libertarian curmudgeon[/url]
This was poorly handled all around. I see the ACC’s point, but I fail to see how this is trying to go for a precedent on the part of the ACNA, as Sarah suggests.
Abp. Orombi’s priorites got a little mixed up on this one.
Gosh how is anybody’s agenda hidden at this point. Apb. Orombi said he had trouble securing visas for Ugandans and cleared Ashley’s presence in advance. Obviously a delegate is going to vote the same way and speak the same thoughts as if Orombi is there himself. Having this happen turns the conference into even more of a dog-and-pony show in my view.
Maybe Orombi should not be allowed to speak at the New Wine conference in England – after all, he is Ugandan.
Yes, of course there is a big difference in the situations, but my point is that either the clergy and laity of Uganda are in communion with the rest of the Anglican Church world wide, or they are not. Excluding Ashey (or Guernsey) because they are indigenous missionary clergy of Uganda is not just wrong, it is not in line with reality. One reason is that Ashey is in fact a priest in good standing of the Province of Uganda, something the ACC has no right to determine, regardless of the events that might have led to Ashey’s ordination and appointment.
Sure, everyone knows that Ugandan priests and bishops in America came about because of serious breaches in TEC of the received Doctrine and Discipline of the Worldwide Anglican Communion (something the ACC acknowledged, but was unwilling to deal with in a significant way). But their work continues, not as a lifeboat for dissidents, but as church planting dioceses and congregations, fulfilling the commission Jesus gave his church.
In my opinion, indigenous missionary clergy and bishops are simply doing what TEC should have been doing all along – planting churches and extending the Kingdom of God. If TEC would do the same, and stop persecuting those who differ from them, and stop creating New Age ashrams with Christian religious themes rather than outposts of God’s kingdom (otherwise known as Churches), then Ugandan “intervention” in America would not be needed.
And #4, how can this be a “hidden-agenda”? It seems to me that the agenda is quite not hidden, and that is why Ashey has been refused a seat. Furthermore, I am sure their are no agendas, hidden or otherwise, by the delegates from TEC, Canada, and … the list no doubt goes on, hence the need for folks like Ashey to be present.
I’m not following the logic, Sarah, or Graham Kings. The paper trail put forth here by Uganda shows that there was going to be no problem with Ashey’s attendance, until – until what, I wonder? Probably until the people with the money whined about it. After all, the section cited for cause here, 4(e), says this:
“Any appointing body as set out in the Schedule of Membership shall have power at any time and from time to time to appoint any qualified person to be a member to fill a casual vacancy to hold office for the unexpired term specified in clause 4(b).â€
There’s nothing there of any bearing on this that I can see. (And don’t think it has anything to do with “qualified”: you can see http://www.anglicancommunion.org/communion/acc/resources/docs/constitution.cfm for yourself.)
As far as the move being, “spoiling for a controversy,†so what? What part of the bylaws does that violate? And, if that’s a disqualifier, why is there an ECUSA delegation at all? More specifically, why was Catherine Roskam seated? Her fringe views also constitute “spoiling for a controversy†with the rest of the Communion, as far as I’m concerned.
Though it isn’t of relevance here, “communion†is transitive. If Ashey is in communion with Uganda, he’s in communion with Canterbury. The same goes for ECUSA and, say, Nigeria, whether either side likes it or not.
RE: “If Ashey is in communion with Uganda, he’s in communion with Canterbury.”
Not at all. There are several Anglican entities — in Africa for instance — that are in communion with various provinces but are not recognized by Canterbury. Heck — the *Lutherans* are in communion with TEC and are not recognized by Canterbury. Being in communion with a province here and a province there means essentially nothing when it comes to being a member of the Communion or recognized by Canterbury.
OK — so it was a shot across the ACC’s bow on the part of Uganda. Have there not been huge broadside hits on the part of TEC and the ACC toward the rest of the Communion?
Must the rules be that TEC, the ACoC and the ACC may act in any way at all that they find beneficial to their own interests while all the orthodox must adhere to the strictest possible standards of decorum no matter what?! Faugh! [for those concerned about “faugh” it is a Shakespearian word]
When all the point-counter-point wrangling is done, the fact remains that the Rev Ashey IS a priest in good standing in the Anglican Church of Uganda, and it is indeed up to Uganda to appoint their own delegate.
I for one say, “Good for Uganda!”
I think the part that I agree with most in your statement #10 is this:
[blockquote] Being in communion with a province here and a province there means essentially nothing [/blockquote]
This is precisely the point – the whole issue of communion has been stretched to the breaking point (hence the covenant process). I believe that soon there will be no Anglican Communion as it has been historically, and communion with Canterbury will become irrelevant. And this is not due to radical entities, but the failure of our current leadership and instruments of communion to deal with he praxis of heretics.
I would have to agree with Phil and disagree with Sarah and Graham on this one. If one reads through the ACC constitution and by-laws, one sees no definition for “qualified” and no power granted to the Joint Standing Committee to rule on a delegate’s “qualification.” Rather, it would appear that each Province does, as Orombi suggests, have full authority in appointing its own delegates. If Uganda wanted to appoint a Baptist as its lay delegate, I would see no legal reason why such an appointment could not be accepted. Ashley is a validly ordained priest in the Province of Uganda, and so there is no rule barring him from ACC attendance. Perhaps the ACC might wish to enact such a rule, but there isn’t one there now. If Sarah or Graham believe there is such a rule, I would ask them to provide the specific language. (Please note here that I am not arguing what “should” be, I am arguing what “is”).
I do agree with Dr. Radner – I would think that this is a case of spoiling for a fight on all sides, however, I think that the consequences of this will be complex. My guess is that Orombi wanted to get the precedent of sending an ACNA representative and having that representative accepted by the ACC. If the ACNA representative was rejected (as happened), then Orombi can use this rejection to demonstrate the colonialist hypocrisy inherent in the JSC. On the flip side, the Western liberal dominated JSC had two goals: 1) was obviously to block any precedent of letting an ACNA representative in to the ACC, 2) was to aggravate the Global South, and (I believe quite deliberately) to portray the JSC as a Western liberal dominated colonialist entity.
Why would the Western liberals wish to do the latter? Simply, because it would undermine the Covenant to the Global South, and thus make the GAFCON provinces more likely to reject it (after all, in the newest draft, the JSC plays the leading role). This is (I believe) the Western liberal game plan – they have no intention of signing on to the Covenant and are hoping that the Global South can be provoked into rejecting it. That way there is no Covenant, and the liberal Western churches won’t get blamed for it.
I am not sure what the result will be. I see in Kearon’s comments more liberal strategy in attempting to undermine the Covenant (when he essentially declares it to be a meaningless document – having no effect on non-signers). I am curious about this because if the Covenant is such a worthless document (and I will admit that it looks that way to me also, except for Stephen Noll’s perspective), then why are the liberals apparently so determined to undermine it? And is Orombi making a blunder in helping to undermine it?
Let me clarify in my post #13 – I would argue that the word “qualified” must refer back to the qualification processes for the individual Provinces, given that there is no definition in the ACC rules, nor any power given to the ACC body to determined qualifications. If this is correct, then Orombi is right, and the JSC decision is ultra vires of their power REGARDLESS of whether you agree with it or not. The Church of Uganda could have been *requested* not to send an ACNA person as delegate, but I think it is illegal for the JSC to do what it did.
RE: “If the ACNA representative was rejected (as happened), then Orombi can use this rejection to demonstrate the colonialist hypocrisy inherent in the JSC.”
If so then it would be rather silly of him. Because I can assure you that if TEC attempted to send a member of the Lutheran church as their clergy “representative” to the ACC that would be rejected as well.
Sarah, please reread my post # 11 and take it seriously. I think that on this one you are bending over backward to the beaking point.
Comparing Rev Ashey to the Lutherans is fatuous at best. He is a priest in good standing in Uganda which is entitled to send their own delegate.
If that is confrontation, make the most of it.
“Must the rules be that TEC, the ACoC and the ACC may act in any way at all that they find beneficial to their own interests while all the orthodox must adhere to the strictest possible standards of decorum no matter what?!”
Here is the way the AC has REALLY worked from the beginning of Lambeth:
[i]”Yes, there are written rules, but right from the beginning of Lambeth* it was understood (wink) that those rules were only put there to keep the peons in line… WE don’t always, er, WE have never actually needed to enforce them among friends … there is a gentlemen’s agreement to settle things (wink) according to the wisdom of the hour… Several of US are more, er, cognizant of overriding factors than some Provincials, so to speak, and WE know what is best, WE have ways to handle the overly earnest and overly scrupulous among us…don’t you know?”[/i]
The consistent Anglican Communion modus operandi is to break its own rules, operate by oligarchy and in disunity.
The first Lambeth was only attended by half the Provinces and worked out some kind of dirty deal to remove a bishop illegally. (see the Anglican Curmudgeon’s history of Lambeth here: )
Hear! Hear! GA/FL
Let’s please get real. The ship isn’t sinking. It sank. It is far too late for, “Let’s be patient.” Stand up it name it for what it is.
Sorry forgot the link to the Curmudgeon’s article, Ghost of Lambeth Past:
http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2008/07/ghost-of-lambeth-past.html
Please remind me again: which side is supposed to be acting like hardhearted Pharisees? And to think, we’ve been reading about the Sanhedrin for the past several weeks, now. While lost on the ACC, I’m sure the irony comes through loud and clear Heaven.
Sarah writes, “And you can’t be a member of the Anglican Communion if you’re a member of a province while serving in the geographic territory of another province without that province’s permission.”
Hunh? I didn’t see that in the Anglican Communion Constitution. Oh wait, there isn’t an Anglican Communion Constitution. There is NO requirements for membership in the Anglican Communion. The ACNA bishops don’t get invited doesn’t mean they are not “members of the Anglican Communion.” Rowan Williams has said himself that they are. But Lambeth is his shindig, and he can invite whomever he pleases.
What this does signify is hostility of the JSC towards the GAFCon-ners, and the new draft of the Covenant puts the JSC at the heart of decision making matters. This could be a death blow for GAFCon-ners to sign on the the Covenant.
I think Sarah is absolutely right on this one, Rev. Ashey clearly didn’t have either the right magic decoder ring OR the right secret handshake! There’s NO WAY he should be let into the ACC tree house! Good grief, is THIS what Communion conservatives (ComCons) have come to? Let’s move onto something more important, like the Presiding Bishop’s needlepoint!
Lumen Christie . . . you said “it is indeed up to Uganda to appoint their own delegate.”
One might say the same thing about TECusa. But no, they can’t go invite a clergyperson of a church with whom they’re in communion that’s not a member of the Anglican Communion to be their “representative.”
Rev. Ashey is a priest-in-good-standing in the Anglican Church of Uganda,
The Church of Uganda is a Province in-good-standing in the Anglican Communion and has the authority to send a priest (and a bishop, and a lay person) to this meeting;
The appointment of Rev. Ashey was made by the right person/s and in the right manner in the Anglican Church of Uganda; and
The Anglican Church of Ugada is sending the duly appointed priest to this meeting; so
What is the problem?
Fr. Kingsley+
Sarah:
I would challenge you on this one, Sarah. If the ACC was about to decide on a critical issue, and every vote was needed, and TEC’s original delegate was unable to come at the last minute, and a liberal ELCA Lutheran was available on the spot, and TEC substituted that person in, then I have almost no doubt at all, that the Lutheran would be seated because there is NO RULE saying that a Lutheran can’t be TEC’s representative, and there is no way that the JSC would challenge TEC’s delegate absent clear authority.
I have asked that you specify the actual rule prohibiting Ashley from being Uganda’s delegate. I understand that, Sarah, that you don’t think that Ashley is officially a member of the “Anglican Communion” and I respect your opinion. What I don’t see is any language in the ACC constitution and rules saying that Sarah’s (or anyone else’s) definition of who is in the Anglican Communion controls who can be a delegate. This smells to me of the liberals’ famous declaration that TEC’s constitution prohibits dioceses from departing TEC, and when they are asked where specifically, they just repeat their assertion somewhat more forcefully.
Please understand, Sarah, that I am not questioning whether seating Ashley is wise, or Communion-building, or good strategy, or determinative of Ashley’s status vis-a-vis the ABC. I am merely asking you where in the ACC’s constitution and by-laws the power is given to the JSC (or anyone else other then the representative’s Province) to determine a representative’s “qualifications.”
Scruff, a commenter at Stand Firm has analyzed the matter quite well: http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/22350/#360321
RobRoy, you need to read more carefully. The ABC has not said that members of the ACNA are members of the Anglican Communion. Never. He has said they’re Anglican — a rather different thing.
RE: “What this does signify is hostility of the JSC towards the GAFCon-ners . . . ”
Well no. It merely means that none of the instruments of the Communion have any intentions of de facto recognizing the ACNA as a member of the Anglican Communion. Kind of a duh statement there.
And of course there are membership requirements for the Anglican Communion.
You’re even already aware of those membership requirements — but let me repeat them by quoting from an article from back in 2007:
[blockquote]Now we delve into a bit of history — history which I have laboriously articulated over countless threads in the past years, [and which apparently no one cares about, except when they are offended over some perceived slight].
Back in 2000, when the Primates of Rwanda and Southeast Asia created a missionary activity called the AMiA in the U.S., and consecrated two bishops the then Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, did not recognize those bishops’ ministries as bishops of the Anglican Communion for several reasons.
First, there is a “one province, one geographic region” principle [although actually there are some notable exceptions to that rule], which is based on Lambeth resolutions from 1988 and 1998, which in turn were based on much earlier “assumptions”.
— The Lambeth Conference of 1930 articulated the formal definition of the “Anglican Communion†in a resolution as “those duly constituted dioceses, provinces or regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury†with three characteristics, among them that they are “bound together†“by mutual loyalty sustained through the common counsel of the bishops in conference†and that they are “particular or national churchesâ€.
— Resolution 72 of the 1988 Lambeth Conference reaffirmed “its unity in the historical position of respect for diocesan boundaries and the authority of bishops within these boundariesâ€.Â
— Both resolutions speak to the general principle that the Archbishop of Canterbury recognizes one church within a region as the “official†franchise of the Anglican Communion within that region.
Second, only those bishops in the one province of a geographic region that is the “franchise of the Anglican Communion” are in communion with Canterbury.
Third, and finally, only those in communion with Canterbury are in fact in the Anglican Communion — that is, they then are invited to participate in the “councils of the church” that is the Anglican Communion. There may be Anglican entities that are connected to provinces of the Anglican Communion — but that is not the same thing as being within the Anglican Communion and recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Thus, the only Anglican entity in the USA that is in communion with Canterbury and is thus a part of the Anglican Communion is an Episcopal parish in an Episcopal diocese. An ECUSA parish, in an ECUSA diocese.Â
Were a bishop of an alternate Anglican entity within the U.S. to be recognized as in communion with Canterbury, that would be the de facto establishment of an alternate province within the region of the U.S. There would then be two Canterbury-recognized Anglican entities within one geographic territory. But that creation of a Canterbury-recognized alternate province of the Anglican Communion has not, in fact, occurred . . . yet.
In his letter regarding those consecrations for the AMiA Carey said:
[As a side-note, let me point out that the two more minor considerations mentioned by Carey– constitutionality of the Province doing the consecrating, and knowledge by the Primates that the action of the CANA consecration was going to take place — seem to have been taken care of by the Province of Nigeria. The actions were both constitutional and well-publicized. Let me also note that Carey mentions this little tidbit in the letter — “. . . and that is why the Presiding Bishop of ECUSA and I set up an international conversation between bishops of different views, an experiment which was so successful that it will meet again later this year” — which sort of “gives the lie” to all of those protestations that there has been no communion-wide “dialogue” and “conversation”.]
And again, in another letter Archbishop Carey said this in regards to further consecrations:
Let me, after belaboring the above, point out two things. First, I would greatly like to see ECUSA stripped of its recognition as the Anglican Communion church in the U.S. Second, not being recognized by Canterbury and therefore as a jurisdiction of the Anglican Communion does not mean that CANA is not a part of the Province of Nigeria. And finally, people who have cheerfully escaped the insanity of ECUSA think and care very little about whether they are “recognized by Canterbury†or “in the Anglican Communionâ€. In fact, they care less and less as the months and years march on. In addition, none of the facts listed above say anything about a) whether departing ex-ECUSAns are “Anglicanâ€â€”they are, b) whether they are Christians—surely so, c) whether they did or did not do “the right thing†[who knows], and d) whether the definition of the Anglican Communion and who is within it is a “good thing†or not.[/blockquote]
RE: “then I have almost no doubt at all, that the Lutheran would be seated . . . ”
Well then we simply differ on this probability as I strongly suspect that it would not be allowed.
Elsewhere in your comment you seem to be saying that because there is nothing in writing that specifies that a province of the Anglican Communion cannot appoint a Buddhist, Baptist, or Mormon — are any other person they like — as their “representative” to the ACC, that therefore . . . a province may appoint anyone they wish. In regards to that I have no further comment. If that’s what you think then there is really nothing that I can say further and I have no wish to argue that point as it is fruitless.
Let’s look at the relevant sections of the ACC constitution:
Note a few things:
1. The condition “qualified” is only found in 4(e). Unless somebody is suggesting that only these special replacements are subject to extra ACC qualifications, then clearly, “qualified” refers back to 4(a).
2. There is nothing whatsoever in the ACC constitution limiting who can be appointed as a member outside of 4(a).
So the relevant questions are not “does Sarah think the person is officially a member of the Anglican Communion” but rather
(1) is s/he a member of [the Province’s] own representative structures? and (2) will s/he be given appropriate opportunity to report the proceedings of the council to its own decision-making bodies and to convey the views of such decision-making bodies to the council?
It would appear that Phil Ashley fulfills both of these requirements.
There are no other requirements for members of the ACC.
I fail to see how this is trying to go for a precedent on the part of the ACNA, as Sarah suggests.
That is because +Orombi has been an ethical pillar and has not been petty in all of this. He is an example to both sides. It is shameful that ACNA is trying to use him in this capacity.
In addition, Sarah has done an extensive (and correct) study on what it means to be in the Anglican Communion here:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/3096
and here:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/3117
So those of you who believe that you know what you are talking about would do well to read at least part one. An excerpt:
Now we delve into a bit of history — history which I have laboriously articulated over countless threads in the past years, [and which apparently no one cares about, except when they are offended over some perceived slight].
Back in 2000, when the Primates of Rwanda and Southeast Asia created a missionary activity called the AMiA in the U.S., and consecrated two bishops the then Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, did not recognize those bishops’ ministries as bishops of the Anglican Communion for several reasons.
First, there is a “one province, one geographic region” principle [although actually there are some notable exceptions to that rule], which is based on Lambeth resolutions from 1988 and 1998, which in turn were based on much earlier “assumptions”.
— The Lambeth Conference of 1930 articulated the formal definition of the “Anglican Communion†in a resolution as “those duly constituted dioceses, provinces or regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury†with three characteristics, among them that they are “bound together†“by mutual loyalty sustained through the common counsel of the bishops in conference†and that they are “particular or national churchesâ€.
— Resolution 72 of the 1988 Lambeth Conference reaffirmed “its unity in the historical position of respect for diocesan boundaries and the authority of bishops within these boundariesâ€.
— Both resolutions speak to the general principle that the Archbishop of Canterbury recognizes one church within a region as the “official†franchise of the Anglican Communion within that region.
Second, only those bishops in the one province of a geographic region that is the “franchise of the Anglican Communion” are in communion with Canterbury.
Third, and finally, only those in communion with Canterbury are in fact in the Anglican Communion — that is, they then are invited to participate in the “councils of the church” that is the Anglican Communion. There may be Anglican entities that are connected to provinces of the Anglican Communion — but that is not the same thing as being within the Anglican Communion and recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Thus, the only Anglican entity in the USA that is in communion with Canterbury and is thus a part of the Anglican Communion is an Episcopal parish in an Episcopal diocese. An ECUSA parish, in an ECUSA diocese.
Were a bishop of an alternate Anglican entity within the U.S. to be recognized as in communion with Canterbury, that would be the de facto establishment of an alternate province within the region of the U.S. There would then be two Canterbury-recognized Anglican entities within one geographic territory. But that creation of a Canterbury-recognized alternate province of the Anglican Communion has not, in fact, occurred . . . yet.
Sarah: I have supported my assertions with actual language from the ACC constitution. I am still waiting to see anything from you besides unsupported assertions.
Don’t tell me you are adopting the liberal TEC approach to argumentation?!?!? 😉 Oh the humanity!
I haven’t seen the [i]legal[/i] justification for inquiring into the validity of the appointments of a province – the scope of such an inquiry – and how to adjudicate such an appointment as faulty – at least given the portions of the constitution cited thus far.
I can’t exactly say that I am shocked that we find swift and facile justiciability, with prompt action taken – regardless that such might be ultra vires, its damaging effect, or how bad it appears.
One might comment many things:
*perhaps the JSC should broaden its inquiry for the sake of consistency, and scrutinize TEC/ACoC appointments
*for those placing their hope in the covenant – shouldn’t this question of appointments have been referred to the covenanted members on the JSC, once the covenant is in effect?
*inasmuch as the JSC has been so successful solving the Anglican problems, perhaps it now has too much time on its hands.
But the obvious one is: “why is the AC able to exercise swift and effective discipline about [i]some[/i] matters, but not others?â€
I know, I know – of course, I get it –
([i]”The Executive Council allotted $2.3 million to the ACC from 2007-2009.”[/i] TLC)
; – )
Ooops-Sarah quoted before I posted-sorry for the double quote
Sarah: Clearly if a Province attempted to appoint a non-Christian, non-Anglican, or non-Anglican Communion Anglican, then that would say something about that Province and how it viewed itself vis-a-vis the Communion. I am not suggesting that Phil Ashley’s appointment is not something that might raise eye-brows. I am merely suggesting that the JSC had no legal authority to refuse to seat him. Nor am I suggesting that the ACC or JSC ought not to have said to Uganda “we would REQUEST that you not send as your delegate this individual, as we do not believe that he is suitable”. All I am saying is that based on the clear, explicit rules as they currently exist, there is no prohibition on Ashley being a delegate.
Again, most of you throw away the practical for “what’s supposed to be.” The legal arguments and quoting Constitutions and your own reading of documents and rules that have been interpreted and left unchallenged by the vast majority of the bodies that they represent has not worked that well for you in the past. In the end, what you have is a sense of moral superiority, a spurned organization, public embarrassment and a wasted plane ticket.
Tired (#31), yes I don’t doubt those $$$$ play a role. But there is the Orwellian factor:
“All animals are equal. Some are more equal than others.”
We’ve seen that time and time again. I think that applies broadly even without the question of the money being thrown around.
I just quoted this again a few days ago. A diocesan standing committee (Indianapolis) voted to APPROVE consent to Thew Forrester (the Buddhist Bishop Elect). Their spokesperson, the Standing Committee president said something like “I supported this because dioceses should be able to elect the bishop of their choice.” Unless the diocese is South Carolina. Indianapolis TWICE voted to deny consent to Mark Lawrence in 2007.
All dioceses / bishops are equal. Some are more equal than others.
Well, Brian (and Sarah), that’s great, but I could quote you an equally extensive list of pontifications by Communion councils on what is and is not morally acceptable in the area of SS relations. Yet, we have Catherine Roskam and Ian Douglas accepted at the ACC meetings without a word spoken, when we all know their views on the issue; and not only their views, but, in the case of Roskam, their teachings as a bishop (sic) in furtherance of the matter.
All your comments prove is that 1) Sarah is a good researcher and analyst and 2) none of it is relevant, since Lambeth resolutions and the like don’t matter. If they did, the ECUSA delegation would also be holding a set of wasted plane tickets.
subscribe please….
I am grateful that Archbishop Drexel and Dr Radner and Archbishop Chew attended all the Covenant Meetings, and did not miss them because they had other commitments in their diary, which doubtless all did have. Archbishop Orombi is speaking at New Wine. So his voice in the discussion of the Covenant is gone, and his role on the Joint Standing Committee is forfeit. I cannot imagine that New Wine thinks that is a gain. And why +Justice Akrofi of West Africa going for Orombi? Are there no other Ugandan Bishops to attend on Orombi’s behalf, who are not speaking at New Wine? Perhaps Steven Noll can help here. I realise this is too late, but why does this kind of thing happen? The debate on the blog now is about Phil Ashey, but that is coming late in the game.
I agree with Seitz in post#38 (though I think that Ashley is not intended to replace Orombi – Orombi is absent from his place as primate on the JSC, which only another primate could fill). I find it somewhat troubling that Orombi saw fit to resolve his scheduling conflict between New Wine and the ACC by not attending the ACC. Orombi was elected to represent Africa, and now the largest group of Anglicans in the Communion is going unrepresented in the JSC at one of the most important ACC meetings.
We are getting bogged down in semantics. The 1930’s definition was that of the provincial (or extra-provinicial) membership of the Communion. It doesn’t pertain to individual membership. In fact, there is nothing about individual membership of of the AC. So Rowan couldn’t say they were not “members of the Anglican Communion.”
Sarah and Graham, can a member of the diocese of New Hampshire go to the ACC as the lay member representative of the TEClub? Would the JSC have objected? Of course not.
Ecclesiastical recognition is not the same as individual “membership of the Anglican Communion.” The later is a non-entity. It doesn’t exist. So it could hardly be a requirement for being a provincial representative to the ACC. But as pointed out, there are NO requirements of ACC representatives in the ACC constitution even if the figmentary concept of “membership of the Anglican Communion” existed.
One of the major points of this meeting of the ACC is to discuss the anomalous situation within the Communion created (as the Windsor Report pointed out) by the unilateral actions of TEC that tore the fabric of the Communion at the deepest level and by the equally unilateral response of some other provinces in extending their activities into North America. The status of TEC and ACNA as members of the Anglican Communion—whether both or either should be regarded as full-fledged members of the Communion—is something to be decided after a process of collective discernment.
To seat an ACNA clergyman on the ACC would be to shortcircuit that process. Existing Anglican Communion policy is that border crossing is not appropriate, and that it is not up to an individual province to change that policy. Clearly, the policy could change, and may well change someday, but it has not changed yet. Seating the Rev. Mr. Ashey would be a formal rejection of the policy and an agreement that border crossing is perfectly OK. Such a drastic change in policy should not be made without considerable deliberation, much less before the meeting even convenes.
For precisely the same reason, Bishop Robinson was not seated at Lambeth. To do so would have violated the wide consensus within the Communion that his consecration was a provocation. Those who agree that it was appropriate for Lambeth to reject the choice of the people of New Hampshire to be their bishop should not have a problem with the ACC rejecting the choice of the people of Uganda to be their delegate. Either we are a Communion where each of the provinces respects the consensus of the other provinces, or we are a loose federation of churches free to do their own thing.
Phil
You’re unfairly attributing my view to Sarah. I am the one who believes in pragmatism.
I did not mean to suggest that Ashey was Orombi’s replacement! My point had to do with why Uganda was unable to sort this out so that Orombi could attend, along with a full delegation, long before now. One possibility is that this is a way to bring other matters to the fore, e.g., ‘ACC meetings are a waste of time’; ‘American priests who are in orders in Uganda count as Ugandan reps.’ I cannot see how this is the proper time for this kind of thing.
++Orombi’s New Wine event is only from 5-7 May. The JSC were meeting last week, before the ACC meeting began on May 2. The JSC meeting which ruled against Ashey was on May 1. How was ++Orombi unable to attend JSC due to New Wine? In fact, ++Orombi has never attended a JSC meeting – funny how his dates always clash.
Dale et.al. – First, Lambeth attendance is very different then attendance at the ACC by Provincial delegates.
Second, recall that TEC’s and the ACoC were REQUESTED not to seat their delegates at the last ACC meeting for the reasons you provided. The delegates were no formally prevented from taking their seats, and it was argued at the time that such a prohibition would have been illegal.
I don’t dispute your and Sarah’s concerns with how seating Ashley might affect Communion issues. What I am saying is that there is no rule that prevents Uganda from sending him as its delegate. What the JSC should have done was issue a REQUEST that Ashley not be designated as the Ugandan delegate.
It has been known that the ACC meeting would take place in May 2009 since before the Lambeth Conference.
1. When did ++Orombi agree to do New Wine? Before or after he knew the ACC meeting was to be in May 2009?
2. Why did he agree to do it in May, knowing there might be the strong possibility of a clash?
3. Why did he not make a provisional agreement with New Wine and allow them to have a sub. ready in case he had to pull out once definite dates were known?
4. Why does he think attending a New Wine event in Harrogate is more important than representing Africa at JSC and ACC?
I do not see how to interpret Uganda’s action as anything other than an attempt to create a fact-on-the-ground which attempts to make the ACC appear to acknowledge the legitimacy of the “border crossings”.
JamesW,
RE: “I am still waiting to see anything from you besides unsupported assertions.”
Um — you saw no support for my assertions above in my above comments? Words fail.
RE: “Don’t tell me you are adopting the liberal TEC approach to argumentation?!?!?”
If you are referring to your comments on whom any province should be allowed to invite as their representative to the ACC, I’m not arguing with you at all. You assert as you please and wth no debate whatsoever from me.
Seitz-ACI,
RE: “So his voice in the discussion of the Covenant is gone, and his role on the Joint Standing Committee is forfeit.”
Right — but that was clear two years ago when the ABC wrongly sent the JSC to adjudicate TECs response to the Dar communique in New Orleans. I personally think and wish that both Mouneer and Orombi would refuse to take part in the sham of a JSC.
Not to mention that Orombi is rightly revealing his disdain for the sham “Covenant” as well.
Orombi is conducting his commitments and priorities with complete integrity as to what he believes is worthy — and what is not.
Would that more Primates would behave as Orombi and *move on from the ABC’s games*.
The status of TEC and ACNA as members of the Anglican Communion—whether both or either should be regarded as full-fledged members of the Communion—is something to be decided after a process of collective discernment.
Dale, it looks like the same reasoning would prohibit TEC from participating as well.
RE: ” if the figmentary concept of “membership of the Anglican Communion†existed. . .. ”
Of course it exists, RR — just as membership of a diocese exists by virtue of membership within a parish. If one is a member of a TEC parish in the US, one is a member of a TEC diocese, which makes one a member of a province — TEC.
But then . . . you already know that. You simply don’t like what the Anglican Communion has *spelled out through resolutions* for the past 80 something years, and which was assumed long before that.
Ashey is not a priest of the Anglican Communion. Guernsey is not a bishop of the Anglican Communion. That doesn’t make them “not-Anglican” or “not-Christian” or “not-members-of-the-Ugandan-province” or “not-bishop” or “not-clergy.” It makes them not a member of an organization that has rules for recognition of membership. What’s intriguing is that here and there, members of the ACNA admit those facts — out loud — and then alternatively 1) announce that they have to leave TEC in order to “stay in the Anglican Communion,” 2) announce that they don’t care about such things anyway, what’s important is leaving apostate TEC and not being a member of the Anglican Communion, 3) announce that they’re going to pursue membership by going through the ACC process, and 4) announce that they already are members.
Whatever.
There are many in the ACNA that communicate with integrity and sans sophism. Others, not so much.
I guess that TEC’s gross dishonesty and corruption and sophism has influenced the rhetoric of some departed-Anglicans more than they realize.
Sarah – no I still see no reference in your postings above to the governing constitution and rules applicable to this case. Yes, you have made a good argument that Ashley is not a full member of the “Anglican Communion”. But that is utterly irrelevant to the situation at hand, unless you can show that the ACC’s rules forbid such individuals from representing Provinces as delegates. You have utterly failed to demonstrate any such thing.
I would refer you to the poster Chancellor’s opinion over at StandFirm who supports my interpretation.
———
[i] Here’s the link to Chancellor’s comment:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/22350/#360411
We remind readers that embedded links are not working here or at Stand Firm.
Just copy and paste the full URL. Or, if it is very long, please go to Tinyurl.com to make a shorter link. Thanks and sorry for the linkproblems.[/i]
Sarah (of the black cloud). Whew. What a pox-on-all-houses approach you take on this and other matters. Makes Elijah’s ‘I, only I am left’ look like seratonin donation. +Mouneer’s decision to attend is thankfully not operating according to your black cloud-ism; nor +Chew’s or +Gomez’s decisions to press for a Communion resolution thorough a covenant. Disdain for the covenant is of course a view you are entitled to, but separating that out from simple dyspepsia is hard to do. Is the main point: +RDW ruins everything so why bother?
Oops…forgot that you can’t do links anymore….
Chancellor’s posting over at StandFirm is here: http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/22350/#360411
Also note Karen B. posting there as well, quoting Scott Gunn: http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/22350/#360434
#44 (laud) – i completely agree. you would think that before making decisions such as this, decisions which are sure to be controversial, that a member of the jsc, particularly if he actually was interested in the outcome rather than simply maneuvering, would make an effort to show up. but alas, ++orombi never has….
and good input, #34 (brian from t19) and #41 (dale rye).
So again, some guy in the pews in the diocese of New Hampshire could not be the lay representative for the TEClub?
Say it was a Ugandan born priest who was on furlough to the U.S. serving in one of the parishes. Now, that is a “violation of ancient traditions” but so are female priests. Adulterous priests are sinful, do we exclude these, too?
As James and others say, the constitution of the ACC is entirely silent. How does the JSC have authority to seat or not seat representatives of the diocese?
It is becoming apparent that the Covenant is being seen by the Fulcrum crowd to exclude the GAFCon-ners.
RE: “Makes Elijah’s ‘I, only I am left’ look like seratonin donation.”
Not at all — I have no fantasies about I being the only one who is left. Whatever gave you that idea?
My simple acknowledgements of *reality* and the truth on both sides of the conservative efforts is what it is, with no illusions about my being faithful or holy. I’m not placing any sort of “pox” on any house at all — merely wishing that people would cease the spinning and the sophistry on both sides, whether those who have left the Anglican Communion or those who have stayed and now are having to scrape the very bottom of the barrel to try to create some figment of “success” in this latest truly bizarre covenant. But I suppose both sides simply feel that they must come up with something — and here we all are, with one side needing to just go ahead and start their “ACC Tales From The Fringe” blog and the other side prattling on about how Terribly Important This Truly Magnificent Covenant is that enshrines the current status quo of the Communion and literally asks people to sign on to it as is, too. Both sides have their sheer unmitigated gall, I must say.
JamesW — thanks for clarifying your meaning.
RE: “no I still see no reference in your postings above to the governing constitution and rules applicable to this case. . . .You have utterly failed to demonstrate any such thing.”
And as I said, I have no intentions at all of arguing your assertions that any province can choose whomever they like to be their representative. I made no attempt, so it can hardly be said that I have “failed.”
But say as you please.
If Fr Ashley is not to be seated because he is part of a violation of the Windsor process, then certainly Bishop Roskam should not be seated either. On Louie Crew’s website, Roskam is listed as one of the co consecrators of Gene Robinson:
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/nh_consecration.html
Will Kearon look at that??? If not, why the inconsistency?
I wonder if in their haste, and it sounds like perhaps panic, to get the ‘right result’, the JSC did not overlook whether they had any authority to veto an alternate representative appointed by a church.
You would have thought they would have been on their best behaviour when a large part of the ACC meeting is devoted to the suggestion that they be given enhanced powers under the current draft covenant. Have they perhaps jumped the gun, does anybody know?
That said it probably was a bit provocative and presumably intended to be so.
Pageantmaster: I have a feeling that Orombi played into the hand of the Western liberals on this one. I have every belief that the western liberal-dominated JSC wanted to look provocative and wholly under TEC’s thumb for the very reason you suggest (i.e. to undermine the Covenant). As I have said many times now, I subscribe to Stephen Noll’s approach to the Covenant, and I believe that it is very much in TEC’s interests for GAFCON to reject the Covenant. Therefore, Orombi’s actions here was a gift.
A gift to the Western liberals, that is.
From today’s press conference:
[blockquote]Kearon told reporters later that day that the ACC’s constitution calls for provinces to appoint “qualified persons” to represent provinces, but that the constitution is silent on the matter of which communion body rules on qualifications. “In the absence of that statement, the Joint Standing Committee has that right,” he said. “That’s the legal advice we’ve been given.”
“If they did not have that authority, what other body would?” he asked. “There has to be a body that does.”[/blockquote]
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_107314_ENG_HTM.htm
“If they did not have that authority, what other body would?†he asked. “There has to be a body that does.â€
Is this one of the individuals who insist no one has authority to discipline a communion member? There has to be a body that does….
Well of course normally if constitution is silent on who has the right to rule on the appointment of an alternate, then perhaps no one does, other than the appointer. Perhaps it is and was intended to be their decision.
I am not sure that because there is silence on who has the right to boss you about that therefore someone has the right to invent an authority to boss you about which is not there, not that that seems to discourage people.
I wonder who the lawyer was who came up with the idea that “there has to be a body that does” have the right to take the decision away from the appointer? Sounds like rubbish to me.
“That’s the legal advice we’ve been given.â€
who gave the legal advice? The very word “legal” confuses me in this context – can anyone explain? I thought we were dealing with with bonds of affection etc.
As someone on SF has pointed out which I had forgotten, KJS is on the JSC, it does seem to be an odd decision in the circumstances that under the Windsor Report she should not have been seated at Dar or eligible for appointment to the JSC – strange old world isn’t it?
The word “qualified” only appears in section 4(e), not 4(a). So under Kearon’s logic, only replacement delegates need to be “qualified”. If Uganda appoints Ashley as its main delegate for the next ACC meeting, on what grounds can the JSC overrule it?
This represents the very same style of legal interpretation which KJS et.al. have been peddling in TEC. Take a small word, completely out of context, then expand its meaning to reach a conclusion which the text itself simply does not support. It is more then clear that “qualified” in 4(e) refers back to the clear qualifications set out in 4(a), and those qualifications are clearly for the Church of Uganda to decide on.
Who decided on whether to sit Obama’s appointed replacement in the Senate (appointed by Blagojevich). The whole senate, that’s who.
The new Covenant draft placing the JSC at the center can go to he11.
You can listen to the press conference here:
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/news.cfm/2009/5/5/ACNS4603
This all works to the conservatives’ advantage.
And, Pray all the More.
Well. Lot’s of blog since I left to go teach a class. I return home to 70 posts most of which offer more heat than light.
it never fails to astonish me how people get all entangled in legalisms and philosophical points. That’s exactly where the liberal-progressive-reappraiser-apostates WANT us to be. Which I have been posting for years now with little or no response and apparently no understanding.
Just keep everyone discussing niceties so they will do nothing.
Orombi’s move was a fine and elegant political act. “I am too busy doing other important things, like discussing mission, to attend yet another useless boondogle meeting of your antiquated and impotent structure.” How can any of you miss the actual POINT?!
This is eloquent political theater. (Duh)
“I do not attend your meeting. Here is someone who is a priest in good standing in the Church of Uganda. You don’t seat him? Ah. Thank you for making our point for us.”
The GAFCon continuation is continuing itself right on into an Anglican future without the nonsense, with the Faith once received.
The bus is leaving. So some folks seem to need to stand in the parking lot arguing about the color of the drivers hat.
See Ya around sometime.
Ah well. I always seem to miss the blogging bus myself.
My point is not frivolous. Theoretical issues are obviously not the point. What is needed is some real focused determination.
But apparently everyone has gone to off to bed. Sleep well.
RE: “Orombi’s move was a fine and elegant political act. “I am too busy doing other important things, like discussing mission, to attend yet another useless boondogle meeting of your antiquated and impotent structure.†How can any of you miss the actual POINT?!”
I didn’t — as I said above: [blockquote]Orombi is conducting his commitments and priorities with complete integrity as to what he believes is worthy—and what is not.[/blockquote]
RE: “The GAFCon continuation is continuing itself right on into an Anglican future without the nonsense, with the Faith once received. The bus is leaving.”
Lol. Yeh — continuing on, and “the bus is leaving” — while a clergy member of the ACNA hurls himself against the walls of the ACC meeting.
Right, LumenChristie.
If only you were right — but you’re not. Any more than Gene Robinson was “moving on from Lambeth” while encamped outside its walls holding alternative eucharists with his 20 allies.
This all works to the conservatives’ advantage???
This wreaks of Ms Schori’s manipulation and twisting of canons. If Ms Schori controls the JSC, the JSC controls the Covenant. What idiot thought that it was a good idea to put the JSC in charge of the Covenant after their wretched performance in Sept, 2007 (Ms Schori was clearly manipulating that, too)?
Robroy: “What idiot thought that it was a good idea to put the JSC in charge of the Covenant?”
Dare thee speak ill of people whose initials might be RW and KJS?