The Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) meeting in Jamaica began May 2 under protest when the credentials of the Rev. Philip Ashey, the clergy representative designated by the Church of Uganda, were rejected by the Joint Standing Committee (JSC) of the primates and the ACC.
“’There is a double standard at work here and it favors the Western world and marginalizes Africa and others in the Global South.’
There is no primate representing Africa at the JSC meeting…..
A proposed resolution calling for member churches to respond by December 2014 ‘on the progress made in the process of adoption and in response to the covenant texts…’ drew expressions of concern. The meeting went into recess, and then went into private session after the meeting resumed.”
Golly, sounds like things are just going swimmingly.
Why is the JSC ruling on the eligibility of the representative of Uganda anyway? Is there something in the ACC constitution that allows them to do this?
Orombi is here, in the Uk attending a conference.
I suspect there are scant historical grounds for the rejection of this delegate, but we are witnessing a transforming organisation, one in which a new order is being established and precedents set at almost every turn. In the wider context these new laws by new ruling elites to deal with new and often unwanted developments on the ground are set to increase in a bid to break the power deadlock now gripping the divided Anglican factions. On the local front too the ancient role of Bishops as judges and setters of precedent and creators of customary law is clearly seen in the actions of America’s Presiding Bishop as she too moves to counteract unforeseen and unwanted developments and provide order where otherwise there might be chaos.
Almost every month or so there is some small but significant statement or development on the ground that sees Anglicanism changing and developing new “law”. It seems to be following the Vatican ‘s age old procedures “if you say something often enough and long enough and if it appears in the name of high authority and has the support of a large number of bishops – then it becomes authoritative.
Those who have been calling for greater order in the Church are likely to find their call answered, if not actually their hopes fulfilled.
#3 Martin Reynolds
Perceptive comment, but when authority is exercised because of power; and constitutions and existing laws are flouted or ignored, does one just not end up, not with the Vatican but with the law of the jungle?
Power corrupts, and I think we are seeing once again the power of a majority (in the ACC and the committee). Such abuse of power leads either to tyranny or revolution.
The respect, confidence, credibility and integrity rating of the AC, already low, has gone far to the right of the decimel with a half dozen more zeros in the last 12 hours: .00000000001
I’d like to hear from some of the orthodox Primates…particularly the FCA/GAFCON Primates on this.
And, as usual, the ABC is strangely silent.
#3. Martin Reynolds,
[blockquote]”…the actions of America’s Presiding Bishop as she too moves to counteract unforeseen and unwanted developments and provide order where otherwise there might be chaos.[/blockquote]
Are you serious? Do you think the “order” she is providing is preventing chaos? The order she is providing is considered by many to be unlawful, unnecessary, and unwanted.
Although the bold move by Uganda to have Fr. Phil Ashey be one of their three representatives at the ACC meeting may have been needlessly provocative, the real outcome is to further undermine the already low credibility of the JSC and the current international structures of the AC. To me, the main significance of this “flap” is that it underscores how sadly colonial the present Instruments of Communion remain. This highly hypocritical decision, which ++Orombi rightly protests as reflecting an obvious double standard that favors the Global North over the South, illustrates how desperately the old guard is trying to cling to power.
The double standard I’m referring to is, of course, the fact that Uganda is being chastised for not abiding by one of the three famous moratoria highlighted as a pressing need in the Windsor Report back in October, 2004 (the cross-boundary interventions), while TEC and the ACoC aren’t being chastised or rebuked for their much more serious violations of the other two moratoria. Such hypocrisy is hardly shocking given how disingenuously the JSC has acted in the recent past, but it’s still disappointing.
The irony is that it’s the American and Canadian delegations that should’ve been denied seating or any vote at this ACC meeting, just like at the last one at Nottingham in 2005. For they’ve shown no sign of repentance whatsoever, but rather have only acted in a more and more outrageous and unjustified manner since the Windsor Report appeared.
The tear in the fabric of the AC just got a little wider and deeper.
David Handy+
If someone has connections to Uganda, perhaps they could forward this to the lone representative of Uganda:
The proper entity to judge the appropriateness of Rev Ashey is not the JSC (did Ms Schori recuse herself?) but rather the ACC itself. In fact, a standing committee doesn’t have any authority while the legislative body is in session. I would hope that the matter would be brought out tomorrow as a point of order. (Points of order cannot be ignored.) In particular, I would move 1) to resolve that the JSC’s action was entirely inappropriate, and that the correct body to take up the matter is the ACC itself and 2) that the ACC should now vote on seating Rev Ashey or immediately unseating Roskam (a consecrator of Mr Robinson).
Are you serious? Do you think the “order†she is providing is preventing chaos? The order she is providing is considered by many to be unlawful, unnecessary, and unwanted.
Check your facts for the answer. The order she is provided is considered by a very small number of people to be “unlawful, unnecessary, and unwanted”
Has TEC been forcibly excluded from events? Is TEC the recognized Anglican Communion in the United States? Is TEC winning almost every lawsuit, including the one just decided in their favor against +Schofield? TEC stands in the AC. The ACNA is excluded. TEC fights for the property. The vast majority of schismatics lose. ++Katharine deposes (wrongly IMO) rogue bishops and even the Communion Partners Bishops don’t take action. The Communion Partners publish a questionable document on TEC regarding hierarchy vs individual Dioceses and the CA courts still rule in TEC’s favor. The writing is on the wall, so to speak.
#11 (brian from t19) — right on. the number of people who would describe ++katherine is those terms is a tiny fraction of episcopalians, or anglicans for that matter (though surely a majority of t19 posters…). and your questions and answers are right on as well. thanks for being a voice of reason when so many others are so up in arms.
No. 11 – I’m in neither the Reasserter or Reappraiser camp, but I believe that Schori is a theological ninny, which should have disqualified her from the beginning (aside from the WO issues).
The latest report on the ACC posted at Anglican Mainstream is just absolutely MUST reading.
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=10093
There is past precedent for TEC to seat an “illegal” delegate in spite of protest.
[blockquote]At the press conference Canon Kenneth Kearon was pressed about the legitimacy whereby the sovereignty of the Church of Uganda in choosing its own delegate was denied. It was drawn to his attention that in 1999, at the ACC-11 in Dundee, the Episcopal Church in the USA was represented by a Bishop Mark Dyer who had retired in 1995. Canon George Conger writes: “The ACC’s constitution at section 4.d says: ‘Bishops and other clerical members shall cease to be members on retirement from ecclesiastical office.’ I asked John L Peterson, in my capacity as a reporter for the Church of England Newspaper, why Bishop Dyer was being seated at the meeting, when the constitution said he was not eligible to be seated. Canon Peterson said that the ACC left it to the member churches to determine who would be their representatives and placed the onus on the sending church to conform with the rules. My commentary would be, in 1999 the ACC (in the person of John L Peterson) said the member churches could pick whom they wanted to send, even if they weren’t eligible. In 2009 the ACC is now saying the member churches are not free to pick their members, even if the delegate is eligible under the rules laid down by the ACC.â€
When asked about a perceived change of policy, Canon Kearon stated that he had not been present in 1999. The situation now was that the Ugandan church had sent a delegate who was not qualified. There is no definition for what “qualified†would be in the ACC constitution, nor is there any definition of who would adjudicate who was qualified. In the light of such a gap, the Joint Standing Committee had determined that it was the body to make such decisions.
Canon Kearon stated that Rev Ashey was not qualified as his membership of the Church of Uganda was as a result of a cross-border intervention by the Church of Uganda in the United States, a practice which had been consistently disapproved of by the instruments of communion since 2004.
So far so clear. However, it was also drawn to Canon Kearon’s attention that another infringement of the requirements of the instruments of communion had been the continuance of the lawsuits against orthodox churches in North America by TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada. The cessation of these lawsuits was a requirement of the Dar-es-Salaam Primates Meeting in 2007 as part of the compliance required of TEC and the ACoC with the Windsor Report and thus a condition for the re-entry of TEC and ACoC delegates to the Councils of the Communion ( they had been asked to withdraw from ACC 13 at Nottingham, but attended as visitors). How was it that TEC and ACoC had not complied with a requirement of the instruments of communion, yet had been readmitted, and that Uganda was not complying with the embargo on cross-border jurisdiction and yet its selected delegate was barred? The answer given that Uganda as a province had not been barred, only its delegate who was a product of cross-border intervention.
What comes across in all this is the lack of fairness and even handedness. TEC and ACoC are in constant breach of Lambeth 1.10, and by the secretary general’s own admission at the Saturday press conference, had in some cases continued to authorize same-sex blessings in defiance of the moratorium. They have not complied with the Primates’ call from Dar-es-Salaam to desist from lawsuits, but instead have increased them. Yet they are readmitted to full membership.
The Church of Uganda exercises its sovereign right to appoint a priest under its oversight from among orthodox clergy in the USA who wish to abide by the Communion’s teaching and practice, but is denied that right on the grounds of the priest being unqualified according to criteria that are not specified in the ACC constitution, (as a product of a breach of the communion’s requests), according to the decision of a body which is not given the authority to determine membership of provincial delegations either in the constitution of the ACC or in the tradition of the ACC ( according to the practice of Canon Petersen in the case of Mark Dyer).
One cannot help gain the impression of an unfair lack of even handedness while making up the rules as they go along. [/blockquote]
Indeed.
“Making up the rules” is now described as “post-modern” but precedents can be found throughout the history of institutions. One effect is to increase the tension and the conflict.
#s 11 & 12,
[blockquote]The writing is on the wall, so to speak.[/blockquote]
“For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul” Mark 8:36. This verse also applies to TEC.
“For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul†Mark 8:36. This verse also applies to TEC.
I suppose it would profit TEC lots of abandoned property and recognition as the sole representative of the Anglican Communion in the US.
Brian is right. But the converse is also true. The AC reflects the face of TEC. They are well suited for each other.
Time to leave the AC? You bet it is!
#16 — hi dcn dale,
i don’t think that the episcopal church is either gaining the whole world or losing its soul. the acc’s decision was its decision; if you or uganda don’t like it, then work to have ugandan representatives call a point of order to straighten it out, as #10 suggested. furthermore, if uganda is truly so concerned, then again — why no input from either ++orombi or his alternate on the jsc? and as someone who knows a fair number of episcopalians, i can assure you that they have not lost their souls. there are plenty of faithful, god-honoring, loving episcopalians, like it or not, regardless of what one thinks about ++kjs, et al. (whom i happen to like, as most of you probably already know).
and #17 – tec isn’t actually gaining any property at all, only not allowing themselves to suffer undue losses to others who incorrectly assert a claim to gain their property.
Hi youngadult,
Of course I totally agree that the property is already TECs, but saying it starts the more rabid to foaming at the mouth. And I also agree that no one has lost their soul.
Good to see young adults involved. Hopefully yo did EYE and attend General Convention.
BfT19
hey brian,
not eye, but i did represent at the provincial youth council.
and i’m a general convention deputy for 2009 after already serving in 2006 (that will scare everyone else!). : – )
I wonder if we’ve met?
if you’re from spokane (prior?), then yes, we met several summers ago i believe. : – )
Young Adult -nSomething tells me that we also may have met.
hi rob k – hmmm… where might we have met?
YA – Some place in Calif., perhaps.
I won,t be back on this site until 5/a8, unless I can access it away from home.
I mean 5/18.