The following resolution was passed by the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion meeting in London on 15-18 December, and approved for public distribution.
Resolved that, in the light of:
1. The recent episcopal nomination in the Diocese of Los Angeles of a partnered lesbian candidate
2. The decisions in a number of US and Canadian dioceses to proceed with formal ceremonies of same-sex blessings
3. Continuing cross-jurisdictional activity within the Communion
The Standing Committee strongly reaffirm Resolution 14.09 of ACC 14 supporting the three moratoria proposed by the Windsor Report and the associated request for gracious restraint in respect of actions that endanger the unity of the Anglican Communion by going against the declared view of the Instruments of Communion.
This is the right direction. Hope it implies that Ridley Draft will be left intact.
that’s all ?? – wish I could have been a fly on the wall…
Item #3. of this resolution is a Christian ministry that is a direct consequence of the revisionist behavior related to items # 1. and #2.
This resolution seems analogous to citing that Germany invaded Poland and then invaded France and that Great Britain contributed to starting World War TWO by defending itself against German air attack in The Battle of Britain.
Grant–yes, esp with Schori in the meeting.
Excuse me, where is the “continuing” cross-jurisdictional activity? I do not recall that the “holding pen” has been delcared open for all the straying sheep to return to.
I suppose it would be too much to ask for the Standing Committee to commend the FCA provinces for returning clergy and churches under their care to a North American jurisdiction and thus beginning to restore provincial integrity.
I’m disappointed that there is no reference to the continuing work since the WR. For example, the Dar Communique which called for, inter alia, “The Primates urge the representatives of The Episcopal Church and of those congregations in property disputes with it to suspend all actions in law arising in this situation….”
#3, your historical analogy is spot on.
Empty words. Any “authority” at the Anglican Communion level has about as much force as canons (priests, not laws) in most dioceses.
The Standing Committee is meeting for the purpose of receiving the report from the review committee re: Covenant. That is the sole purpose for its meeting. That it would issue a statement regarding Glasspool — with Ian Douglas and Schori present — that indicates disapproval of TEC’s direction is, to my mind, the ‘story’ in this resolution. For those looking for a Covenant pleasing to Chew (review committee), Anis (standing committee), and the GS (recent statement), one can pray that this resolution shows where the standing committee will come out re: Ridley. Given all the delays and new committees and etc, it is encouraging to see them speaking publicly and on time. I hope we hear about the Covenant in the same spirit.
I have to commend this action whole-heartedly. This is the strongest and clearest language we have seen yet coming out of the AC apparatus — no obfuscation this time.
Seitz: Jefferts-Schori was at this meeting? Sounds like she was taken to task — yeah?
This is the most hopeful event I have seen yet. I pray it gets the momentum really moving in the right direction.
As for the Covenant — if TEC were even invited to join under these circumstances, I would be surprised, and I haven’t been suprise-able in a long time.
I’d be interested to hear if it was unanimously passed.
Piddle, Twiddle, and Resolve . . .
#8 Prof Seitz
“I hope we hear about the Covenant in the same spirit.”
I do too, but expect that the *JSC’s resolution is being translated into Rowanese, edited for clarity and stuffed into a very late Advent letter from the Archbishop?
[*I can’t be bothered to go along with the latest shenanigans of calling the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates and ACC and which is not an “Instrument”, as the pretentious “Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion” – yet the latest invention of the Archbishop thought up on the back of an indaba packet.]
I’d be surprised if this had any effect on Schori and Company. I’d prefer replacing words with action.
#10–for what it’s worth, my hunch is that this is going to be a bloodbath if anything strong is to emerge. Nothing CAN be unanimous, given the severe divergence of an Orombi/Anis/Chew sense of our Christian life and that of Schori. If the Covenant emerges and it joins up with the recent GS statement, then we have sign-on independently of the schemes of Bruno/Schori TEC. Throw in the legal battling inside the US and the stakes will go even higher, if this is the positive outcome.
RE: “I can’t be bothered to go along with the latest shenanigans of calling the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates and ACC and which is not an “Instrumentâ€, as the pretentious “Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion†– yet the latest invention of the Archbishop thought up on the back of an indaba packet.”
You noticed that too, PM? ; > )
#5 “Excuse me, where is the “continuing†cross-jurisdictional activity?”
In Mount Pleasant.
#15 Sarah
“You noticed that too, PM?”
I am glad it is not just me.
There is no such thing as the “Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion.”
At ACC-14, resolution 39, the ACC voted to rename the Joint Standing Committee” of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates Meeting as the “Standing Committee”. The “of the Anglican Communion” has been added on either through ignorance or an attempt to further puff up this group.
As an aside, there is no such thing as the “Anglican Communion Office”. Under George Carey the ACC staff printed stationary calling itself the Anglican Communion Office—with GC asked be recalled. Under Rowan Williams the ACC staff has been allowed to use this name, even though it has no legal authority to do so. The legal review of the Lambeth Conference finances made the point that the ACO was not the legal name of the ACC staff.
Perhaps it is a small thing, but name and title inflation does not bode well for an institution’s integrity, I believe.
G Conger
PM . . . no no no no no. You’ve missed the game there.
You see — ACNA clergy and laity no longer have any connection to other Anglican Communion Provinces [pay no attention to ACNA bishops!]. So there is no “cross-jurisdictional activity” with ACNA parishes now.
In the words of Snoopy and his Great American Novel explanation to Lucy . . . “see how neatly that all fits together?”
#19 Sarah
I see…I think.
#18 George Conger
– thank you, that is helpful clarification.
Conger is dead right on this. The chief concern I have is a strong covenant. If that does not happen, committees will all be a nonsense anyway, whatever their name.
[blockquote] You see—ACNA clergy and laity no longer have any connection to other Anglican Communion Provinces [pay no attention to ACNA bishops!]. So there is no “cross-jurisdictional activity†with ACNA parishes now.[/blockquote]
Our revisionist combatants are quick to point out that the ACNA is [i]not[/i] not a Anglican Communion recognized organization. Foreign primates have no episcopal authority over ABp Duncan. There are some clergy that are clergy in foreign provinces working here. Prior to Ms Schori’s ruling on Bp Ackerman, no one thought that was a problem.
Where is the call for Ms Schori to recuse herself from the JSC meeting?
This is about as important as the Ladies East Anglican Tatting Society issuing a resolution that allowing domestic cats to roam free is detrimental to song birds. So what? Talk, talk, talk and more talk; but never do.
#8 Then they are still meeting today–and we might expect to hear something about Section 4 some time soon?! (I thought the decision and announcement were scheduled for January.)
From the Dar Es Salaam Communique (agreed to unanimously by the Primates, including KJS):
Remember that? And the “robust scheme of pastoral oversight” was provided when? The Pastoral Council was established when? The Presiding Bishop delegated powers to the Primatial Vicar when? The “scheme of pastoral care” became “fully operational” on what date? The law suits ceased when? What exactly did the House of Bishops clarify by September 30, 2007?
Christopher I understand that you do not particularly like acknowledging my post, but on this one we seem to be on the same page. 🙂
In view of the ongoing discussion of this “Standing Committee” —
— should we understand correctly that this is an “interim body” which functions to keep wheels turning between meetings of the Primates and/or ACC? Therefore, it represents the current position of these two groups in view of the most recent history of their official meetings?
From where I stand outside the inner (or even outer) circles, it appears that this is in fact a stronger move than many people posting here are giving credit to.
And in terms of Ms Jefferts-Schori’s participation — this looks like she has at least been put on the defensive — is that accurate?
Have a genuinely nice day. Things [i]may[/i] in fact be looking up?
RE: “And the “robust scheme of pastoral oversight†was provided when?”
That was the new dusting off of DEPO that they tried after Dar — and the ungrateful rebel wretches were dissatisfied with that so it all fell to the earth again.
; > )
As soon as TEC can unlaughably state WHERE it’s boundaries around the globe ARE, then perhaps crossing boundaries won’t be an issue. For a Church with domestic and overseas dioceses the complaint about crossing boundaries is ridiculous. Secondly, why aren’t those overseas dioceses being shifted to provinces that are more contiguous to them, or…gasp…how about letting those dioceses self-determine and become their own province?
Lumen–I really threw away a sense of where things might be going some time ago. I just pray now. Presumably if a poor covenant emerges, then the GS will run with the original, the CoE will have to decide what to do, and the whole communion will shift in identity. But gosh, that is just an obvious evaluation. It would be nice if the decision about the content of the covenant did not get dragged out.
Yrs in Christ.
Release of the Covenant?
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/2686
As of right now, the only version of the Covenant on the AC website referenced by the ABC is Ridley- has it been kept intact, or is someone taking their time putting up the copy being sent to the provinces?
Let me follow up on George Conger’s comment in #18. Maybe this is just speculating before the decision on the Ridley Cambridge Covenant is announced, but I do fear there is a bait and switch going on with the very way in which the “Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion†is setting itself up.
First of all, George is correct that there is no Standing Committee [i]of the Communion[/i], even from internal documents (see below).
As to term “Standing Committee,†ACC 13 Resolution 4 requests an amendment of the ACC Constitution. Of note is the following:
[blockquote]d. It requests the ACC Constitution to enlarge the “Standing Committee†to 14 members, including the five from the Primates’ Standing Committee, as set out in Appendix Two. [/blockquote]
Comment: This amendment essentially merges the former “Standing Committee of the ACC” with the “Standing Committee of the Primates.†In so doing, it guarantees that the ACC will have a 9 to 5 majority in any “Standing Committee†actions. Note also that it does not determine how the 5 members of the Primates will be apppointed. Perhaps the nomination from the Primates’ Meeting will be automatically accepted, but there is nothing in the ACC Constitution that requires this. In any case, symbolically it places the ACC over the Primates as the parent body of the Standing Committee.
It appears that the ACC Constitution was indeed amended as proposed in ACC 13 Resolution 4 (anyone know for sure?) since ACC 14 presumes the change in Resolution 39, which is rather strangely tucked in at the end of the Report. It reads:
[blockquote]a. “Notes that the former ‘Joint Standing Committee†is named as the ‘Standing Committee’ under the new constitution;
b. Amends the resolutions of this Anglican Consultative Council meeting so that the title ‘Joint Standing Committee’ is replaced with the title ‘Standing Committee’ wherever appropriate.â€[/blockquote]
Comment: It appears that the “Joint Standing Committee†of the ACC and Primates is subsumed under the Standing Committee of the ACC. If this is what indeed has happened, it may explain why RW has always insisted that the Primates Standing Committee members meet jointly with the ACC Standing Committee. Am I correct? Has the Primates’ Standing Committee met independently and when? Would there be any reason for an independent Primates Standing to meet except to take tea together?
Conclusion: How is this relevant to the Ridley Covenant? First, curiously the Drafting Committee apparently did not get the message that the “Joint Standing Committee of the ACC and Primates Council†has now become the “Standing Committee of ACC†since “Joint” appears throughout section 4. Maybe this change of wording seems inconsequential, but as noted above, it fixes the representation of the ACC at 9 and of the Primates at 5. Presumably if the Primates’ Meeting were to demand equal representation, the ACC would say, sorry it’s in the Constitution.
As many may know, I have favored the Covenant as a means of reform and renewal and have even supported adopting Ridley Cambridge Text as presented by the Drafting Group, but I am increasingly wary that the role of the (Joint) Standing Committee in section 4 will prevent the necessary discipline which the Communion so desperately needs. The Primates as bishops and upholders of faith and order should be the adjudicators. The bait and switch is that they become at best minority invitees to the Standing Committee of the ACC.
#30 TJ
Looks like my comment:
[blockquote]I do too, but expect that the *JSC’s resolution is being translated into Rowanese, edited for clarity and stuffed into a very late Advent letter from the Archbishop?[/blockquote]
wasn’t too far out. But where is the decision on this matter by the JSC pre-empted by the ABC’s message and video. Where is the report of the committee who reported to the JSC? What is the version approved for sending out by the JSC? What if anything is the impact on Section 4?
This is all very confusing, as usual.
#31 Dr Noll has some good and important questions.
[blockquote] 3. Continuing cross-jurisdictional activity within the Communion [/blockquote] How many African bishops have been on North American soil lately? Have there been any recent sightings of ++Venables? How many departing TEC parishes have found refuge in an African or South American bishop lately?
It seems to me that the Global South, having given the ACNA battery a jump-start, has been lying low lately, while continuing to consolidate its own position. This might–just might–be a tacit recognition of Moratoria #3.
Nevertheless, in light of +Schori’s participation, this bone had to be thrown to TEC and Canada to get her assent to the statement, however silent that assent might have been.
At the least, this statement is not bad news.
RE: “I am increasingly wary that the role of the (Joint) Standing Committee in section 4 will prevent the necessary discipline which the Communion so desperately needs. . . . ”
But hasn’t been the issue all along with section 4 of the Ridley Draft — which is why even the un-edited version would be essentially kneecapped anyway, even were it to pass without revisioni?
RE: “How many departing TEC parishes have found refuge in an African or South American bishop lately?”
See Pageantmaster, how the game is supposed to work?
#16 Pageantmaster: Mount Pleasant is affiliating with ACNA, which is a North American province led by a North American archbishop. It does not constitute any kind of “cross-border intervention” by any other province of the Anglican Communion. The cross-border links with the Global South are those that already were in pre-existence at the sub-provincial level.
Mount Pleasant is appealing to no African or South American bishop.
See PM?
; > )
“See how neatly that all works together?”
Of course . . . many or *all* of the bishops of ACNA are maintaining *joint* membership as bishops of the provinces of the Anglican Communion that were their sponsors.
Ie, AMIA bishops are Rwandan bishops and Iker is a Southern Cone bishop, etc, etc, etc.
“Bait and switch.”
Thank you for your kind answer, Christopher.
So Dr. Noll, please let me redirect my question originally asked of Christopher to you instead.
It sounds to me that you are saying that this “Standing Committee” situation is fact quite negative. Yet this latest published statement is taking TEC to task more clearly than I have ever seen.
It amazes me that the ACC seems to be able to make internal resolutions giving itself previously non-existent powers which then become the rule of law for the whole Communion and all the Instruments of Unity. So, do I understand correctly that you view this as another such move?
Also this “Standing Committee” is the group which has Section 4 of the Ridley draft under its hand to amend or change or whatever they decide to do with it, is it not? I am interpreting their statement to mean that their mood is to call for some actual discipline. Do you consider this to be an accurate take or not?
Would it be at all possible to stop the ACC juggernaut by preventing them from making their internal organizational policies from becoming the de facto “law” of the entire AC? They are only one instrument among four, and yet their operations have the effect of pushing the other 3 instruments into line with their own agendas — as you have so astutely pointed out. Could it be suggested to any of the Primates that they need to make clear that the ACC is not, on its own, somehow the “governing body” of the whole AC in the manner in which it functions? If the Primates Standing Committee becomes just a matter of a few members of the ACC;s own group — just because they say so — then the Primates apparently need to stand up and reassert their real position in regard to the whole Communion sooner rather than later.
I have all too often observed that this is precisely the sort of political scheming that has allowed TEC to be redefined and dragged into its present apostasy.
The children of darkness are indeed wiser in their own “generation,” but the Children of Light need to get the doves-and- serpents thing into better perspective.
Dr. Noll,
“Note also that it does not determine how the 5 members of the Primates will be apppointed. ”
I was under the impression that the 5 Primates were the Primates Standing Committee- one each from the Americas, Africa, Europe (ie, Great Britain), Asia, and Australia/NZ/Pacific- chosen at Primates meetings on a regional basis. There was talk of expanding the number of Primates on the JSC (or SC) to better equalize the disproportional system (which currently has 50% of the laity represented by 1 primate, and 4 primates to represent the other 50%), but it would appear that hasn’t gotten anywhere yet.
Correct me if I am wrong, esteemed Dr’s, but it appears that the “Joint” standing committeel had as its purpose the robbing of the voice and authority of the Primates which they previously held in their own Standing Committee.
If not the purpose, at least that seems the outcome.
This would appear to be the final text.
http://www.aco.org/commission/covenant/final/text.cfm
Thank you Dr. Seitz, I see the ABC’s link has been corrected as well.
How much did they do to section 4?
This appears to be the working party’s commentary on Section 4:
http://www.aco.org/commission/covenant/final/commentary.cfm
and pdf:
http://www.aco.org/commission/covenant/docs/commentary_section_four.pdf
I am tied up and will have difficulty looking at this. It appears that the Instruments of Communion will be the ones that determine which Churches are sign-ees, and I take it that means it is possible to be invited to covenant — that is, in those cases where a province should refuse to do so. But the confusion looks to me to be the various agents involved in this and how they will relate to one another. That’s all I can tell with a quick read.
Thanks, PM.
If, however, the canons and constitutions of a Province permit, there is no reason why a diocesan synod should not commit itself to the covenant, thus strengthening its commitment to the interdependent life of the Communion.â€[1]
The Group recognise that any ecclesial body may express commitment to the Covenant. Some may find that the affirmations and commitments of the Anglican Communion Covenant contain helpful guides for interdependent life at other levels and in other contexts than those specific to relations amongst the Member Churches of the Anglican Communion. This sort of endorsement is to be encouraged as contributing to the covenantal life of the Communion.
[25] Oh yeah, there is that. And the whole devaluation of the instruments, indaba, etc.
😉
But now we have this shiny new resolution from a committee reaffirming the content of a past resolution in support of a portion of an earlier report that had been commissioned by a different committee, which committee received the report with the Dromantine and DES Communiques.
Goodness gracious, such developments –
What a truly pathetic resolution resolution from an even more pathetic body.
In view of the three matters which are the subject of the resolution, nothing is said about discipline, there is just another pathetic appeal to “moritoria” that were spat up as soon as they were proposed. God help us all.
“No reason why not” (as I have recently learned to my great dismay) does [b][i]NOT[/i][/b] necessarily mean that there is any genuine expectation that something [b][i]will[/i][/b] or even [b][i]CAN[/i][/b] in fact happen.
Can anyone recall a recent indication from — the ABC? — or somebody “official” — that while dioceses can affirm or celebrate or whatever the Covenant, only Provinces can actually sign on as members? It seems to me that this has been recently clarified. Affirming and signing-on as a member of something are two completely different circumstances.
I think it is truly still an open question whether or not the Covenant is the answer that so many have been hoping for. Would that it were so, but the prospects still look if-y at best.
More Goodies:
Responses to ‘Ridley Cambridge Draft’ from Around the Communion:
http://www.aco.org/commission/covenant/responses/index.cfm
Responses from Provinces to Section 4 or the Ridley Cambridge Draft of the Anglican Covenant including responses received after the working group meeting [70 page consolidation]
http://www.aco.org/commission/covenant/docs/collated_covenant_reponses.pdf
[only 21 provinces responded apparently and it looks as if the Ugandan response was received after the working group met]
And there are some more documents here of which the comparison of the final section 4 with the Cambridge Ridley Draft seems important:
http://www.aco.org/commission/covenant/docs/index.cfm
Comparison is here:
http://www.aco.org/commission/covenant/docs/section_four_comparisons.pdf
Oh and the mouth speaks:
http://www.aco.org/commission/covenant/docs/letter_from_the_secretary_general.pdf
OK Two things from a quick reading of Section 4: the language of membership refers only to “Churches” national or regional — there does not seem to be any provision for dioceses, as such, to sign-on.
This refers to “The Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion” as the entity which actually runs the AC in an ongoing functional way. This St. Com. of the AC would the intact processor for complaints or disputes which puts a great deal of power in their hands.
Good things? I am not at all convinced so.
Sorry. I was trying to say: the intake processor. That is, this new entity the AC Standing Committee would be de facto running the show.
Yes – it is particularly worthwhile looking at the amendments to Section 4.2 here [among others]:
http://www.aco.org/commission/covenant/docs/section_four_comparisons.pdf
I haven’t yet been through it in detail, and it is not clear what amendments were made by the JSC as opposed to the Working Group to Section 4 [if any]
And it looks as though according to Kearon’s letter, which is worth reading carefully, three provinces of the 21 put in responses which were received after the Working Group met.
#44 Professor Seitz
“I am tied up”
I am very glad to hear it. All blessings and good wishes.
PM
Worth reading all this carefully I think – what I have seen so far seems positive if rather circuitous and ungainly.
I’ve just read the comparison pdf and unless I’m missing something section 4 remains intact with some pretty language in a new 4.2.1 clause. The many additions in Section 4 seem more to highlight the intent of the covenant rather than weaken it.
Kendall has entered a blog post dedicated to the Covenant issues. I am pleased with section 4.2.8.
51 Lumen: The ABC’s talk (see transcript) specifically said provinces adopt; others may affirm.
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/2686
Like everyone else, I shall need time to read over the new text (not, I would argue, the final text!). However, I picked up a couple points that confirm my thoughts at #31.
The Covenant Working Party notes:
[blockquote]In the meantime, the Joint Standing Committee as such has ceased to exist. By the constitutional changes which became active at ACC-14, following approval by two thirds of the Provinces, the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting has developed into “The Standing Committee of the Anglican Communionâ€, in which membership is constituted by elections from the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting.[/blockquote]
But note that the constituent numbers of members of the Standing Committee is determined not “jointly” but in the Constitution of the ACC (a registered UK charity). Sadly, the Primates have no constitution, so they’ll have to go along with the ACC.
Over against my contention that it is the role of bishops in council to oversee the faith and order of the church, they argue:
[blockquote]The Ridley Cambridge November Text continues to accord the Standing Committee with the crucial role of monitoring the functioning of the Covenant. The Covenant Working Group considers that the Standing Committee with membership from all four Instruments of Communion, combining bishops, clergy and laity, is best placed for this role.[/blockquote]
Another sign of the relegation of the Primates to the B League is the ABC’s statement that the next step in the Covenant “process” will be taken 3 years from now at the ACC. The Primates Meeting, which at one time was set to meet every year, has now been postponed to two years away, but apparently they will have no determinative role in the process, advisory at best.
[blockquote]The Primates Meeting, which at one time was set to meet every year, has now been postponed to two years away[/blockquote] Dr. Noll,
Do I understand you correctly? I was under the impression that the ABC had promised to call a Primates Meeting in the spring of 2010. Has this been “postponed” until 2012? (Or, more accurately, “canceled”)
#60 TJ – My understanding as well – I believe it was fixed by the Primates before they left Alexandria, given that Dr Williams sometimes forgets to call them together in a timely fashion.
Does anyone know exactly who constitutes the Standing
Committee of the Anglican Communion? How and by whom
is the committee elected and under what constitution?
What is the canonical or constitutional authority?
Who is the chair? I am thinking that the headline must
be wrong and that this resolution must have been made
by another committee, differently named. Perhaps
this refers to a primates advisory committee? A Standing
Committee of the Anglican Communion seems to run
counter to having autonomous provinces.
I don’t disagree with the statement, but curiously this
is a new one on me, and curiously there are no
signatures attached to the statement.
Anyone know?
Robert,
It used to be called something like the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and Primates Meeting. It is made up of the two standing committees. However, the name is now changed as of the last Anglican Consultative Council. Both the ACC and the Primates Meeting have separate methods of choosing the members of the Standing Committee. In the Primates Meeting one Primate from each of the Five Regions of the World is chosen. I wouldn’t be surprised if this method is revisited at the next Primates Meeting.