There may be some particularly English aspects of the papers that I miss but they seem fair and reasonable. Perhaps this will be a test of the relative strength of the Evangelical and Liberal parties in General Synod.
Well isn’t that just typical. William Fittall is an excellent Secretary-General and this is a well prepared paper.
However…it has all the pawprints of Lambeth Palace and one or more of its canon lawyers all over it. It confuses the ability which Synod has previously used to make regulations delegating particular duties on behalf of the Church of England to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York over matters such as recognition of foreign clergy with the primary authority of recognition which is in the control of Synod itself.
In the Church of England changes to legislation is made by Parliament after adoption of a measure by General Synod and further in the cases of matters which do not require legislation, those decisions are also made by General Synod, who may, if they so wish, delegate authority to whomsoever they wish, including if thought fit one or both of the Archbishops.
What the paper which bears William Fittall’s mark suggests, is that the Church of England General Synod has no authority to make decisions, but may only “advise” the Archbishops, which decision the Archbishops are at liberty to take or ignore at their whim.
This is not the case. In the same way that authority delegated by Synod to particular Archbishops has been granted in the past over particular issues, Synod also has the authority to make its own decisions including on the recognition or not of ACNA, in the same way as it has to adopt the Covenant or open the episcopate to women or any of the other aspects of the control of the CofE it has subject always to the laws of the land and the prerogatives of Parliament to legislate for it as the established church.
Decision making in the Church of England is absolutely the preserve of the General Synod consisting of the bishops, clergy and laity of the Convocations of Canterbury and York. It is not in any way the preserve of the personal fiat of Rowan Williams or John Sentamu, whatever William Fittall would appear to have been leaned on to brief Synod.
You may think, as I begin to, that this has all the hallmarks of the passive-aggresive and sneaky approach of Rowan Williams and his cronies in Wales and St Andrew’s House. Never opposing directly, but setting up situations and reports behind the scenes through his appointments and appointees, but keeping plausible deniability and a veneer of process.
We see the same thing in the JSC manipulated constitution as we have at the Lambeth Conference, Jamaica ACC meeting and now the “secret constitution” and grab for power by the JSC which we will get to the bottom of in due course.
If you see secrecy, behind the scenes manipulation, appointments and reports and committees being conjured out of thin air and sleight of hand, you can be pretty certain that Rowan Williams is behind it.
If Synod makes a decision on any matter as Parliament has granted it delegated authority to do, including the issue of recognition of communion with any church such as ACNA, then Rowan Williams will obey that decision. He will do so in accordance with the terms of his office, His duty to obey English [and Welsh] law and the oath of obedience which Rowan Williams took to the Queen and Supreme Governor of the Church of England and which includes obedience to the laws made for the Church of England by HM’s Parliament and the unfettered decision-making authority held under those laws by the General Synod of the Church of England.
[i]In asking Synod to express a desire to be in communion with ACNA, there is therefore no suggestion that we should not remain in communion with TEC or ACoC, [b]nor am I suggesting that everyone in ACNA is a paragon of perfection.[/b] Rather, it is a recognition that there is a considerable and growing body of faithful Anglicans representing a wide range of church traditions, many of whom have been hurt, who are now members of ACNA. They would be grateful to be in communion with the Church of England as the Windsor/Covenant process works through.[/i]
While I am sure that this is included to conciliate moderate members of Synod, I actually think it attests to a truth. ACNA isn’t perfect; it’s just better than the alternative. Some of should really start internalizing that, not just pay it lip service.
Pageantmaster,
On a practical level, does it really matter? Since the resolution doesn’t propose to disfellowship TEC, it leaves the initiative very much in the hands of members of the House of Bishops (who themselves represent a wide spectrum of opinion). It’s also unlikely to stop the litigation in North America; ultimately, I suspect it will have to be ACNA who does that by conceding the point.
What the resolution – whether it passes or fails – will do is to emphasize that a sizable part of the Church of England identifies with the expressed desire of the Global South for a covenant with teeth. It will also, as the Ashworth briefing paper suggests, provide those in ACNA with some reassurance that they are not “out on a limb” as Anglican splinters. Such matters as the interchangeability and/or validity of Orders and Sacraments will, in the short term, continue to vary from English diocese to English diocese depending on the view of the present incumbent.
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
#4 Jeremy Bonner
[blockquote]While I am sure that this is included to conciliate moderate members of Synod, I actually think it attests to a truth. ACNA isn’t perfect; it’s just better than the alternative. Some of should really start internalizing that, not just pay it lip service[/blockquote]
Not sure I understand your point. Only God is perfect and without sin, although some RC’s reckon that the same is true of Mary. ACNA is what it is – a coming together of 100,000 Anglicans and larger than the Provincial Churches of Wales [47,000] and Scotland [38,000] combined.
[blockquote]On a practical level, does it really matter? Since the resolution doesn’t propose to disfellowship TEC, it leaves the initiative very much in the hands of members of the House of Bishops (who themselves represent a wide spectrum of opinion).[/blockquote]
The resolution is not about disfellowshipping TEC. The CofE House of Bishops is a constituent part of the CofE General Synod and will have their say in this resolution. The resolution matters as [1] an expression of solidarity among Anglican Christians in England with their faithful brothers and sisters in the United States and Canada who have been subject to vicious persecution there; and [2] our acknowledgement that we acknowledge them as fellow Anglicans, and reckognise their sacraments, doctrine and orders and welcome their continuing interchangeability with ours.
[blockquote]It’s also unlikely to stop the litigation in North America; ultimately, I suspect it will have to be ACNA who does that by conceding the point.[/blockquote]
What it will do is stop the CofE and AC being used as ammunition by TEC and ACoC in its litigation, as well as some rather foolish and undermining remarks by Rowan Williams which I was disgusted to see used agaist them in Court proceedings.
[blockquote]What the resolution – whether it passes or fails – will do is to emphasize that a sizable part of the Church of England identifies with the expressed desire of the Global South for a covenant with teeth[/blockquote]
Whether it is a good idea or not the resolution has nothing to do with the issue of the Covenant. There will be a separate series of debates about that at Synod where we will no doubt express our solidarity with both the Covenant and the Global South.
[blockquote]It will also, as the Ashworth briefing paper suggests, provide those in ACNA with some reassurance that they are not “out on a limb†as Anglican splinters.[/blockquote]
ACNA is not out on a limb as you put it. The vast majority of the Communion has acknowledged this. The resolution gives us the opportunity to formally state this.
[blockquote]Such matters as the interchangeability and/or validity of Orders and Sacraments will, in the short term, continue to vary from English diocese to English diocese depending on the view of the present incumbent.[/blockquote]
As it does with other churches with whom we are in communion.
I welcome this resolution and hope that it will be seriously debated and I look forward to listening to that very much – without any more shenanigans from Rowan Williams.
I should really have made two posts, since only the second was meant directly for you. As someone nominally within ACNA, I do find some of the current triumphalism distasteful (including the basically institutionalist decision to press on with legal appeals) and I know I’m not the only one (though I’m probably in a minority).
For example, while I am sure that those who advocated the strategy of continuing to insist that we were “the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh” up until last November for legal purposes sincerely believed they were doing the right thing, I believe that it was ultimately disingenuous and ended up doing the “come outer” cause more harm than good.
As to the second point, let me be clear. I also hope the resolution will pass, but I don’t see how it will dramatically change the nature of the relationship between the English and American provinces. I think that many members of ACNA do still [i]feel[/i] “out on a limb” from an ecclesial point of view and to have the Mother Church state otherwise will be very reassuring (and is therefore to be desired).
However, unless and until either the Covenant causes a formal rupture (whether of dissatisfied liberals or conservatives), a new Archbishop of Canterbury is appointed, or – I suppose – the House of Bishops insists on Rowan Williams taking a more forthright stand – and why should he change at this point – I don’t really what further pressure General Synod can apply. I do, of course, defer to your greater local knowledge.
#6 Jeremy Bonner
Thanks for the background.
As far as I can see it TEC in particular, and to a lesser extent ACoC are going for the jugular wrt ACNA. They want, not only all your property, but to keep you out of the Communion. They also want their second gay partnered bishop, and probably sometime Genpo as their first Buddhist bishop, and they also want it not only for themselves, but for the Anglican Communion.
I do not criticise ACNA for standing up to the bullies of the Brat Church on any of these fronts, whether it is by defending the property they bought and paid for, for maintaining against rampant litigation that has crippled TEC’s finances the most vicious litigation, or for insisting on their Anglican credentials, in the face of the undermining by the TEC funded and controlled ACO or the machinations of Rowan Williams.
Williams is conflicted in his roles as ABC in the CofE and in his other Communion role, and in this he is allowing his Communion view to interfere in his duties to the CofE.
This is our decision in the CofE – not Rowan Williams, not the Welsh bishop of St Asaph’s, not Canon Kearon’s, not any of the TECnocrats in the ACO’s and not that of any of their toadies egged on by 815.
We welcome the opportunity to show our support for ACNA in this resolution as we do all faithful Anglicans in the US, including those in TEC, and in particular the Communion Partners, Windsor and Camp Allen groups, or what is left of them.
Has any paper come out publicly explaining reasons for opposing the motion? The real reason is, after all, plain to see – TEC believes it is threatened, in members and money, by a growing Anglican orthodox province in formation. They believe they must have the ACNA expressly not recognized as part of the communion in hopes of eliminating their competition, even at the cost of eliminating the global south provinces as well. It will be interesting to see if they say that publicly, but I suspect they will try to avoid it.
Undoubtedly, TEC is already using Washington-style lobbying tactics to stop the motion, leaning on those beholden to it financially, trying to threaten or confuse others.
Whether that works or not I suppose will eventually depend upon whether synod is desirous of expanding or shrinking the communion.
Incidentally, I assume Pageantmaster is referring to the following curious provision:
[blockquote] 17. In practice the final decision about whether or not a church is in communion with the Church of England belongs to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, since they have power legally to determine any questions relating to the interchangeability of ministers of the kind referred to in paragraph 13 above. Section 6(2) of the Overseas and Other Clergy (Ministry and Ordination) Measure 1967 provides that:
‘If any question arises whether, for the purposes of this Measure, a Church is in Communion with the Church of England or whether the Orders of any Church are recognised and accepted by the Church of England, it shall be determined by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, whose decision shall be conclusive.’ [/blockquote]
That Measure, however, is solely a “Measure passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England to make better provision for permitting overseas clergymen and certain other clergymen to exercise their ministry in the provinces of Canterbury and York, for enabling overseas bishops and certain other bishops to exercise episcopal functions in the said provinces, for the ordination of clergymen for ministry overseas, and for matters connected with the matters aforesaid.”
Thus, the power of the Archbishop under that Measure would seem somewhat circumscribed vis-a-vis what churches the CoE is in communion with.
Incidentally, here is another inside view of what happened in the Diocese of Virginia from a parish priest who was originally, I believe, in the Church of Ireland: http://www.churchoftheword.net/tec_to_nigeria.html
On a simpler note, it would certainly be a boost to ACNA to receive any recognition or endorsement from the C of E. The TEC hegemony on this continent would also be shaken, at least a little, and this also, would be good for the orthodox. I pray that it will be passed.
[i]This is our decision in the CofE – not Rowan Williams, not the Welsh bishop of St Asaph’s, not Canon Kearon’s, not any of the TECnocrats in the ACO’s and not that of any of their toadies egged on by 815.[/i]
Pageantmaster (#7),
I’m not necessarily saying that you’re mistaken, but the above statement is interesting because it is couched in very much the same language that General Convention has been using to assert the autonomy of the North American province (and the sanctity of ‘democratic’ church government).
Are you saying that a General Synod majority in the lower houses trumps majority feeling in the House of Bishops? In light of last year’s General Synod proceedings on the ordination of women to the episcopate, I rather hope you’re not.
I’ve always understood the conservative position to be that at least in matters of doctrine the bishops enjoy a peculiar authority, which is why the reasserter/reappraiser divide over the Lambeth Conference tends to be most apparent in disagreements over how synodical a body it actually is. Being in or out of communion, I happen to think, is preeminently a doctrinal matter. Therefore, the General Synod vote is important for the reasons already stated, but it doesn’t make it ultimately any more authoritative on this issue than is the ACC (whose representativeness is certainly open to question). At some point, what the English bishops decide to do becomes extremely pertinent.
I support the idea of the Covenant and the scheme set out in “The Challenge and Hope of being an Anglican” http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/689?q=challenge+and+hope
However, somewhere along the way Archbishop Rowan has lost his way and I think what will scupper the Covenant and indeed his office in the Communion is his insistence on dealing with matters in an underhand and secretive and manipulative fashion. Perhaps he is incapable of dealing with anything in a straight fashion? Shades of Lloyd George.
Enough of this shabby treatment of Synod whose servant you are, Rowan Williams, not the other way round. It is worth you remembering in your machinations with William Fittall, the exhortation and instruction of the Global South Primates:
“We urge the Archbishop of Canterbury to work in close collegial consultation with fellow Primates in the Communion, act decisively on already agreed measures in the Primates’ Meetings, and exercise effective leadership in nourishing the flock under our charge, so that none would be left wandering and bereft of spiritual oversight.” http://www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/comments/pastoral_exhortation/
Do the right thing Rowan Williams – away with the underhand, secretive and the downright dishonest which we increasingly see in what you do, and do your pastoral duty….or go.
#11 Jeremy Bonner
Thanks – General Synod consists of three separate groups composed jointly of members of the Convocations of the sees of York and of Canterbury. There are some more details here: http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/gensynod/
“Relations with other Churches
To regulate the Church of England’s relations with other churches and to make provisions for matters relating to worship and doctrine. It can make provision by Act of Synod, regulation or other instrument in cases where legislation by or under a Measure or Canon is not necessary”
Thus for this resolution to pass it will be with the consent not only of the houses of laity and clergy but also of the house of bishops. The decision made will be made by all three houses, whichever way it goes.
What is not in order is for either of the Archbishops, or William Fittall to tell Synod that it does not have the authority to make a decision on this issue, nor that it won’t matter, because the decision is that of the Archbishops, which it is not. The decision of who the Church of England is in communion with belongs to Synod and is specifically within its remit, and that includes the Bishops.
The ACC can make such decisions as are within its remit, which if you look at its remit is to be consultated, not to make decisions for the other instruments, and certainly not to make decision on relations between the Church of England and other churches.
Oh I agree. After all was that not the rationale for replacing the Church Assembly; because it was always viewed as subordinate to the clergy convocations and the bishops?
I was less questioning the necessity of concurrent majorities (and hence the ability of the bishops to exercise a veto if they chose) than raising the more philosophical question of whether General Synod is now to be the source of all ecclesiastical authority, particularly on matters doctrinal. It is certainly more conservative in temper than its American counterpart, but I wouldn’t have thought that ought to be the only justification for such a stance.
Don’t mind me. Just a historian indulging in a little reflection.
#15 Thanks Jeremy. I think in any discussion of the Church of England, its established nature needs to be taken into account. Thus whatever decision-making arrangements it has, are always under its responsibility of answering to its Supreme Governor through her Parliament. She of course on coronation, promises to uphold the church, so it is a symbiotic arrangement. This separates us from any other unestablished church.
In practice, it works quite well, and our inability to persuade government or Parliament of changes we want to make has in the past stopped us from going off the deep end.
I suspect in General Synod’s decision making by joint decisions of its various houses, including the bishops that you may trace the pattern adopted by General Convention. As for being more conservative than the American body, perhaps, but we are just very different, as indeed are our people and our concerns. However many of us would like to express our continued relationship with the people in ACNA in this resolution.
As one born into and baptized and confirmed in the Church of England, but resident in the US for the last eighteen years and the Diocese of Pittsburgh for the last six, I concur.
With regard to your point on doctrine:
“raising the more philosophical question of whether General Synod is now to be the source of all ecclesiastical authority, particularly on matters doctrinal.”
I don’t think anyone is saying that, although changes do tend to get debated in Synod, firstly as to whether changes fall within “doctrine” and secondly for any necessary legislative changes that may need to be made. An example is the issue of women in ministry and the episcopate. Some think it is a doctrinal matter, although the reasons for that vary; but this relies on the underlying question of what are holy orders, and again there are differing views on this, which is why we get in a muddle.
However we are not just reliant on General Synod, doctrine comes from Jesus Christ as expressed in the Holy Bible, and as our church has received it through its Articles and Prayer Book [1662] which are still enshrined in the law of the land for us, and this has not been changed, although alternative Common Worship services are also approved in the alternative. We also listen carefully to our bishops, who promise to uphold it, and to our Supreme Governor through her Parliament, who has also promised to uphold it.
In that peculiarly English way, we remain consensual at heart. The institutions do not always make sense, and no one would design things that way if starting from scratch. But in a curious way, having been adapted over the years they do work together by and large and in a comfortable manner, much like an old pair of shoes which have been ‘worn in’.
Turns out that the HOB summary of decisions at #14 above is less than full and frank. Turns out that there is sekrit decision just reported thanks to Simon Sarmiento:
[blockquote]We learned two things about this at the press briefing on Monday.
One was that the House of Bishops discussed this forthcoming motion recently and decided it would propose an amendment to this motion. The text is not yet available, but should be soon.
The other was that in relation to the first, the HoB had not consulted either the Canadian or the American provinces of the Anglican Communion.[/blockquote] http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/gensynod/houseofbishops/decisions/dec2009.doc
I wonder what the fix is from Rowan this time? Having read Fittall’s piece one can get a pretty good idea what is being cooked up.
I think the thing which disturbs me most is the complete failure of pastoral care for North American conservative Anglicans from Rowan Williams; the Pope and others put him and us to shame. Shame on you Rowan Williams.
Congratulations to Lorna Ashworth for bringing this motion before General Synod. Regardless of the eventual outcome, she has succeeded in bringing many aspects of TEC’s treatment of faithful Anglicans up for consideration and debate throughout the Church of England.
Her background paper is a detailed and damning indictment of the vicious and unprincipled treatment accorded to faithful Anglicans in USA and Canada by TEC and ACOC. It also represents an implied rebuke to ABC for his failure to give any real support to those faithful Anglicans.
My understanding (respectfully contra some posts above) is that if General Synod passes the motion, it will not place any legal obligation on the primates of the Church of England to establish communion with ACNA. It will, however, place a great deal of public moral pressure on them to do so.
Pray for +Scott-Joynt, +Langrish and +Reade who are hosting the public meeting with orthodox Anglicans from North America on 9 February 2010. These faithful men have already earned liberal ire (both from fellow members of COE and the media) for their past orthodox stance, and its likely to get even more intense.
The background paper by Wm Fittall, Secretary General to General Synod is disingenuous in several areas:
1. “To date the Church of Nigeria, the House of Bishops of the Church of Uganda and the Synod of the Diocese of Sydney have declared themselves to be in full communion with ACNA.”
This leaves out much relevant information – it is a pity the Secretary General was not more frank with his members:
Firstly, ACNA was very recently formed from a number of constituent parts, which between them are recognised by a large number of dioceses and provinces: e.g. Southern Cone, West Africa, Kenya, Rwanda. It is clear that formal recognition of the whole of ACNA by each of these is only a matter of time.
Secondly, 291 bishops from 17 provinces attended the Jerusalem Conference in June 2008, which approved the formation of ACNA. It can safely be presumed that they continue to approve it.
Thirdly, the Secretary-General’s paper is deafeningly silent about the Primates Council. The Archbishop of Canterbury failed to call a Primates Conference in 2009, when it was due, and when he had assured the Lambeth Conference that it would be called. It is highly likely that the Primates Council (if it is ever called) will endorse full communion for ACNA.
2. “The Anglican Communion has no legal personality and no codified set of rules as to membership.”
This is true, in a strict legal sense. However, the Communion is a very real and important concept in the minds of millions of Anglicans all over the world, including in England and America. Trying to play strict legalities is likely to backfire on those attempting it.
3. “If Synod were to pass Lorna Ashworth’s private member’s motion it would be initiating, not concluding, a process leading to its consideration of a formal resolution for the establishment of communion with ACNA.”
Which invites the response: So what? There is nothing in the customs or traditions of the Church of England that prevents General Synod from making a recommendation to its primates. Even more importantly, General Synod will *debate* the issue in detail. As the orthodox +Reade of Blackburn has observed, it is the process of debate by clergy and lay from across the COE in General Synod that is so important to the life of the COE, and Lorna Ashworth’s motion will cause that to happen.
Mr Fittall appears to be arguing that the General Synod can never consider such an issue unless the House of Bishops decides that it should. His true colours thereby emerge – he does not want informed debate to take place on the issue of how TEC is treating faithful Anglicans in America. Well, too bad – that debate is going to take place, both formally within General Synod and informally across England.
#21 Michael A
[blockquote]My understanding (respectfully contra some posts above) is that if General Synod passes the motion, it will not place any legal obligation on the primates of the Church of England to establish communion with ACNA.[/blockquote]
Please explain.
My point is that whether or not the motion requires this or not, Wm. Fittall’s [or his puppet-master’s] suggestion that it is outwith the powers of General Synod to declare communion with any province or church is plain wrong and disingenuous. Further that that decision, if it were to be made, would without more have the effect of being the end of the decision, rather than a start of that process. Now I am not saying that that is in fact the effect of the resolution as currently drafted, or as bowdlerised at the prompting of the puppet-master, but that in principle that it is in the power of General Synod to do so, without the agreement or action of the Archbishops.
I wish the ACNA team and their sponsoring bishops well and pray that we will send a clear message of support for ACNA and a declaration of our continuing communion with them.
Yes, I know you disagree with it but isn’t it apparent that the HOB don’t. Thus we don’t need to suppose this is a conspiracy, they’re simply attempting to take into account legal advice they have been given and look as if they want to treat ACNA in a similar way to the churches of the Porvoo Agreement.
#24
“they’re simply attempting to take into account legal advice they have been given”
I have no idea if they have been given legal advice or not, all I am saying is that it is within the [legal] competence of the General Synod to pass motions of communion with other churches, or [in the case of the instant motion] to express a “desire” to be in communion. To suggest otherwise is misleading. That is just the way that Synod’s powers work. Now if you decide that you don’t want to use those powers but delegate them to Archbishops or anyone else that is another thing, but you can’t claim that Synod are not permitted to make such a decision legally.
There may be some particularly English aspects of the papers that I miss but they seem fair and reasonable. Perhaps this will be a test of the relative strength of the Evangelical and Liberal parties in General Synod.
Well isn’t that just typical. William Fittall is an excellent Secretary-General and this is a well prepared paper.
However…it has all the pawprints of Lambeth Palace and one or more of its canon lawyers all over it. It confuses the ability which Synod has previously used to make regulations delegating particular duties on behalf of the Church of England to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York over matters such as recognition of foreign clergy with the primary authority of recognition which is in the control of Synod itself.
In the Church of England changes to legislation is made by Parliament after adoption of a measure by General Synod and further in the cases of matters which do not require legislation, those decisions are also made by General Synod, who may, if they so wish, delegate authority to whomsoever they wish, including if thought fit one or both of the Archbishops.
What the paper which bears William Fittall’s mark suggests, is that the Church of England General Synod has no authority to make decisions, but may only “advise” the Archbishops, which decision the Archbishops are at liberty to take or ignore at their whim.
This is not the case. In the same way that authority delegated by Synod to particular Archbishops has been granted in the past over particular issues, Synod also has the authority to make its own decisions including on the recognition or not of ACNA, in the same way as it has to adopt the Covenant or open the episcopate to women or any of the other aspects of the control of the CofE it has subject always to the laws of the land and the prerogatives of Parliament to legislate for it as the established church.
Decision making in the Church of England is absolutely the preserve of the General Synod consisting of the bishops, clergy and laity of the Convocations of Canterbury and York. It is not in any way the preserve of the personal fiat of Rowan Williams or John Sentamu, whatever William Fittall would appear to have been leaned on to brief Synod.
You may think, as I begin to, that this has all the hallmarks of the passive-aggresive and sneaky approach of Rowan Williams and his cronies in Wales and St Andrew’s House. Never opposing directly, but setting up situations and reports behind the scenes through his appointments and appointees, but keeping plausible deniability and a veneer of process.
We see the same thing in the JSC manipulated constitution as we have at the Lambeth Conference, Jamaica ACC meeting and now the “secret constitution” and grab for power by the JSC which we will get to the bottom of in due course.
If you see secrecy, behind the scenes manipulation, appointments and reports and committees being conjured out of thin air and sleight of hand, you can be pretty certain that Rowan Williams is behind it.
If Synod makes a decision on any matter as Parliament has granted it delegated authority to do, including the issue of recognition of communion with any church such as ACNA, then Rowan Williams will obey that decision. He will do so in accordance with the terms of his office, His duty to obey English [and Welsh] law and the oath of obedience which Rowan Williams took to the Queen and Supreme Governor of the Church of England and which includes obedience to the laws made for the Church of England by HM’s Parliament and the unfettered decision-making authority held under those laws by the General Synod of the Church of England.
Mind you – it shows how worried they are by this motion that they feel it necessary to resort to this…don’t you think?
[i]In asking Synod to express a desire to be in communion with ACNA, there is therefore no suggestion that we should not remain in communion with TEC or ACoC, [b]nor am I suggesting that everyone in ACNA is a paragon of perfection.[/b] Rather, it is a recognition that there is a considerable and growing body of faithful Anglicans representing a wide range of church traditions, many of whom have been hurt, who are now members of ACNA. They would be grateful to be in communion with the Church of England as the Windsor/Covenant process works through.[/i]
While I am sure that this is included to conciliate moderate members of Synod, I actually think it attests to a truth. ACNA isn’t perfect; it’s just better than the alternative. Some of should really start internalizing that, not just pay it lip service.
Pageantmaster,
On a practical level, does it really matter? Since the resolution doesn’t propose to disfellowship TEC, it leaves the initiative very much in the hands of members of the House of Bishops (who themselves represent a wide spectrum of opinion). It’s also unlikely to stop the litigation in North America; ultimately, I suspect it will have to be ACNA who does that by conceding the point.
What the resolution – whether it passes or fails – will do is to emphasize that a sizable part of the Church of England identifies with the expressed desire of the Global South for a covenant with teeth. It will also, as the Ashworth briefing paper suggests, provide those in ACNA with some reassurance that they are not “out on a limb” as Anglican splinters. Such matters as the interchangeability and/or validity of Orders and Sacraments will, in the short term, continue to vary from English diocese to English diocese depending on the view of the present incumbent.
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
#4 Jeremy Bonner
[blockquote]While I am sure that this is included to conciliate moderate members of Synod, I actually think it attests to a truth. ACNA isn’t perfect; it’s just better than the alternative. Some of should really start internalizing that, not just pay it lip service[/blockquote]
Not sure I understand your point. Only God is perfect and without sin, although some RC’s reckon that the same is true of Mary. ACNA is what it is – a coming together of 100,000 Anglicans and larger than the Provincial Churches of Wales [47,000] and Scotland [38,000] combined.
[blockquote]On a practical level, does it really matter? Since the resolution doesn’t propose to disfellowship TEC, it leaves the initiative very much in the hands of members of the House of Bishops (who themselves represent a wide spectrum of opinion).[/blockquote]
The resolution is not about disfellowshipping TEC. The CofE House of Bishops is a constituent part of the CofE General Synod and will have their say in this resolution. The resolution matters as [1] an expression of solidarity among Anglican Christians in England with their faithful brothers and sisters in the United States and Canada who have been subject to vicious persecution there; and [2] our acknowledgement that we acknowledge them as fellow Anglicans, and reckognise their sacraments, doctrine and orders and welcome their continuing interchangeability with ours.
[blockquote]It’s also unlikely to stop the litigation in North America; ultimately, I suspect it will have to be ACNA who does that by conceding the point.[/blockquote]
What it will do is stop the CofE and AC being used as ammunition by TEC and ACoC in its litigation, as well as some rather foolish and undermining remarks by Rowan Williams which I was disgusted to see used agaist them in Court proceedings.
[blockquote]What the resolution – whether it passes or fails – will do is to emphasize that a sizable part of the Church of England identifies with the expressed desire of the Global South for a covenant with teeth[/blockquote]
Whether it is a good idea or not the resolution has nothing to do with the issue of the Covenant. There will be a separate series of debates about that at Synod where we will no doubt express our solidarity with both the Covenant and the Global South.
[blockquote]It will also, as the Ashworth briefing paper suggests, provide those in ACNA with some reassurance that they are not “out on a limb†as Anglican splinters.[/blockquote]
ACNA is not out on a limb as you put it. The vast majority of the Communion has acknowledged this. The resolution gives us the opportunity to formally state this.
[blockquote]Such matters as the interchangeability and/or validity of Orders and Sacraments will, in the short term, continue to vary from English diocese to English diocese depending on the view of the present incumbent.[/blockquote]
As it does with other churches with whom we are in communion.
I welcome this resolution and hope that it will be seriously debated and I look forward to listening to that very much – without any more shenanigans from Rowan Williams.
Pageantmaster,
I should really have made two posts, since only the second was meant directly for you. As someone nominally within ACNA, I do find some of the current triumphalism distasteful (including the basically institutionalist decision to press on with legal appeals) and I know I’m not the only one (though I’m probably in a minority).
For example, while I am sure that those who advocated the strategy of continuing to insist that we were “the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh” up until last November for legal purposes sincerely believed they were doing the right thing, I believe that it was ultimately disingenuous and ended up doing the “come outer” cause more harm than good.
As to the second point, let me be clear. I also hope the resolution will pass, but I don’t see how it will dramatically change the nature of the relationship between the English and American provinces. I think that many members of ACNA do still [i]feel[/i] “out on a limb” from an ecclesial point of view and to have the Mother Church state otherwise will be very reassuring (and is therefore to be desired).
However, unless and until either the Covenant causes a formal rupture (whether of dissatisfied liberals or conservatives), a new Archbishop of Canterbury is appointed, or – I suppose – the House of Bishops insists on Rowan Williams taking a more forthright stand – and why should he change at this point – I don’t really what further pressure General Synod can apply. I do, of course, defer to your greater local knowledge.
#6 Jeremy Bonner
Thanks for the background.
As far as I can see it TEC in particular, and to a lesser extent ACoC are going for the jugular wrt ACNA. They want, not only all your property, but to keep you out of the Communion. They also want their second gay partnered bishop, and probably sometime Genpo as their first Buddhist bishop, and they also want it not only for themselves, but for the Anglican Communion.
I do not criticise ACNA for standing up to the bullies of the Brat Church on any of these fronts, whether it is by defending the property they bought and paid for, for maintaining against rampant litigation that has crippled TEC’s finances the most vicious litigation, or for insisting on their Anglican credentials, in the face of the undermining by the TEC funded and controlled ACO or the machinations of Rowan Williams.
Williams is conflicted in his roles as ABC in the CofE and in his other Communion role, and in this he is allowing his Communion view to interfere in his duties to the CofE.
This is our decision in the CofE – not Rowan Williams, not the Welsh bishop of St Asaph’s, not Canon Kearon’s, not any of the TECnocrats in the ACO’s and not that of any of their toadies egged on by 815.
We welcome the opportunity to show our support for ACNA in this resolution as we do all faithful Anglicans in the US, including those in TEC, and in particular the Communion Partners, Windsor and Camp Allen groups, or what is left of them.
Has any paper come out publicly explaining reasons for opposing the motion? The real reason is, after all, plain to see – TEC believes it is threatened, in members and money, by a growing Anglican orthodox province in formation. They believe they must have the ACNA expressly not recognized as part of the communion in hopes of eliminating their competition, even at the cost of eliminating the global south provinces as well. It will be interesting to see if they say that publicly, but I suspect they will try to avoid it.
Undoubtedly, TEC is already using Washington-style lobbying tactics to stop the motion, leaning on those beholden to it financially, trying to threaten or confuse others.
Whether that works or not I suppose will eventually depend upon whether synod is desirous of expanding or shrinking the communion.
Incidentally, I assume Pageantmaster is referring to the following curious provision:
[blockquote] 17. In practice the final decision about whether or not a church is in communion with the Church of England belongs to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, since they have power legally to determine any questions relating to the interchangeability of ministers of the kind referred to in paragraph 13 above. Section 6(2) of the Overseas and Other Clergy (Ministry and Ordination) Measure 1967 provides that:
‘If any question arises whether, for the purposes of this Measure, a Church is in Communion with the Church of England or whether the Orders of any Church are recognised and accepted by the Church of England, it shall be determined by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, whose decision shall be conclusive.’ [/blockquote]
That Measure, however, is solely a “Measure passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England to make better provision for permitting overseas clergymen and certain other clergymen to exercise their ministry in the provinces of Canterbury and York, for enabling overseas bishops and certain other bishops to exercise episcopal functions in the said provinces, for the ordination of clergymen for ministry overseas, and for matters connected with the matters aforesaid.”
Thus, the power of the Archbishop under that Measure would seem somewhat circumscribed vis-a-vis what churches the CoE is in communion with.
Incidentally, here is another inside view of what happened in the Diocese of Virginia from a parish priest who was originally, I believe, in the Church of Ireland:
http://www.churchoftheword.net/tec_to_nigeria.html
#7 Here here! Excellent post… and shows your knowledge both of events over here in the North America and at your home in the CoE!!
On a simpler note, it would certainly be a boost to ACNA to receive any recognition or endorsement from the C of E. The TEC hegemony on this continent would also be shaken, at least a little, and this also, would be good for the orthodox. I pray that it will be passed.
[i]This is our decision in the CofE – not Rowan Williams, not the Welsh bishop of St Asaph’s, not Canon Kearon’s, not any of the TECnocrats in the ACO’s and not that of any of their toadies egged on by 815.[/i]
Pageantmaster (#7),
I’m not necessarily saying that you’re mistaken, but the above statement is interesting because it is couched in very much the same language that General Convention has been using to assert the autonomy of the North American province (and the sanctity of ‘democratic’ church government).
Are you saying that a General Synod majority in the lower houses trumps majority feeling in the House of Bishops? In light of last year’s General Synod proceedings on the ordination of women to the episcopate, I rather hope you’re not.
I’ve always understood the conservative position to be that at least in matters of doctrine the bishops enjoy a peculiar authority, which is why the reasserter/reappraiser divide over the Lambeth Conference tends to be most apparent in disagreements over how synodical a body it actually is. Being in or out of communion, I happen to think, is preeminently a doctrinal matter. Therefore, the General Synod vote is important for the reasons already stated, but it doesn’t make it ultimately any more authoritative on this issue than is the ACC (whose representativeness is certainly open to question). At some point, what the English bishops decide to do becomes extremely pertinent.
I support the idea of the Covenant and the scheme set out in “The Challenge and Hope of being an Anglican”
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/689?q=challenge+and+hope
However, somewhere along the way Archbishop Rowan has lost his way and I think what will scupper the Covenant and indeed his office in the Communion is his insistence on dealing with matters in an underhand and secretive and manipulative fashion. Perhaps he is incapable of dealing with anything in a straight fashion? Shades of Lloyd George.
Enough of this shabby treatment of Synod whose servant you are, Rowan Williams, not the other way round. It is worth you remembering in your machinations with William Fittall, the exhortation and instruction of the Global South Primates:
“We urge the Archbishop of Canterbury to work in close collegial consultation with fellow Primates in the Communion, act decisively on already agreed measures in the Primates’ Meetings, and exercise effective leadership in nourishing the flock under our charge, so that none would be left wandering and bereft of spiritual oversight.”
http://www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/comments/pastoral_exhortation/
Do the right thing Rowan Williams – away with the underhand, secretive and the downright dishonest which we increasingly see in what you do, and do your pastoral duty….or go.
#11 Jeremy Bonner
Thanks – General Synod consists of three separate groups composed jointly of members of the Convocations of the sees of York and of Canterbury. There are some more details here:
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/gensynod/
“Relations with other Churches
To regulate the Church of England’s relations with other churches and to make provisions for matters relating to worship and doctrine. It can make provision by Act of Synod, regulation or other instrument in cases where legislation by or under a Measure or Canon is not necessary”
Thus for this resolution to pass it will be with the consent not only of the houses of laity and clergy but also of the house of bishops. The decision made will be made by all three houses, whichever way it goes.
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/gensynod/convocations/
What is not in order is for either of the Archbishops, or William Fittall to tell Synod that it does not have the authority to make a decision on this issue, nor that it won’t matter, because the decision is that of the Archbishops, which it is not. The decision of who the Church of England is in communion with belongs to Synod and is specifically within its remit, and that includes the Bishops.
The ACC can make such decisions as are within its remit, which if you look at its remit is to be consultated, not to make decisions for the other instruments, and certainly not to make decision on relations between the Church of England and other churches.
Hope this helps.
Interestingly the House of Bishops have declined to give any view on the issue of recognition of ACNA in either their pre-Synod meeting in December:
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/gensynod/houseofbishops/decisions/dec2009.doc
or in their May Meeting:
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/gensynod/houseofbishops/decisions/may2009.doc
So one must assume they are open to the motion as they have given no guidance to Synod.
Oh I agree. After all was that not the rationale for replacing the Church Assembly; because it was always viewed as subordinate to the clergy convocations and the bishops?
I was less questioning the necessity of concurrent majorities (and hence the ability of the bishops to exercise a veto if they chose) than raising the more philosophical question of whether General Synod is now to be the source of all ecclesiastical authority, particularly on matters doctrinal. It is certainly more conservative in temper than its American counterpart, but I wouldn’t have thought that ought to be the only justification for such a stance.
Don’t mind me. Just a historian indulging in a little reflection.
#15 Thanks Jeremy. I think in any discussion of the Church of England, its established nature needs to be taken into account. Thus whatever decision-making arrangements it has, are always under its responsibility of answering to its Supreme Governor through her Parliament. She of course on coronation, promises to uphold the church, so it is a symbiotic arrangement. This separates us from any other unestablished church.
In practice, it works quite well, and our inability to persuade government or Parliament of changes we want to make has in the past stopped us from going off the deep end.
I suspect in General Synod’s decision making by joint decisions of its various houses, including the bishops that you may trace the pattern adopted by General Convention. As for being more conservative than the American body, perhaps, but we are just very different, as indeed are our people and our concerns. However many of us would like to express our continued relationship with the people in ACNA in this resolution.
As one born into and baptized and confirmed in the Church of England, but resident in the US for the last eighteen years and the Diocese of Pittsburgh for the last six, I concur.
Good – prayers then for that, and for your excellent diocese and Archbishop.
I also thought Lorna Ashworth’s briefing paper very good.
With regard to your point on doctrine:
“raising the more philosophical question of whether General Synod is now to be the source of all ecclesiastical authority, particularly on matters doctrinal.”
I don’t think anyone is saying that, although changes do tend to get debated in Synod, firstly as to whether changes fall within “doctrine” and secondly for any necessary legislative changes that may need to be made. An example is the issue of women in ministry and the episcopate. Some think it is a doctrinal matter, although the reasons for that vary; but this relies on the underlying question of what are holy orders, and again there are differing views on this, which is why we get in a muddle.
However we are not just reliant on General Synod, doctrine comes from Jesus Christ as expressed in the Holy Bible, and as our church has received it through its Articles and Prayer Book [1662] which are still enshrined in the law of the land for us, and this has not been changed, although alternative Common Worship services are also approved in the alternative. We also listen carefully to our bishops, who promise to uphold it, and to our Supreme Governor through her Parliament, who has also promised to uphold it.
In that peculiarly English way, we remain consensual at heart. The institutions do not always make sense, and no one would design things that way if starting from scratch. But in a curious way, having been adapted over the years they do work together by and large and in a comfortable manner, much like an old pair of shoes which have been ‘worn in’.
Turns out that the HOB summary of decisions at #14 above is less than full and frank. Turns out that there is sekrit decision just reported thanks to Simon Sarmiento:
[blockquote]We learned two things about this at the press briefing on Monday.
One was that the House of Bishops discussed this forthcoming motion recently and decided it would propose an amendment to this motion. The text is not yet available, but should be soon.
The other was that in relation to the first, the HoB had not consulted either the Canadian or the American provinces of the Anglican Communion.[/blockquote]
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/gensynod/houseofbishops/decisions/dec2009.doc
I wonder what the fix is from Rowan this time? Having read Fittall’s piece one can get a pretty good idea what is being cooked up.
‘Official’ Summary of HOB decisions is here:
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/gensynod/houseofbishops/decisions/dec2009.doc
I think the thing which disturbs me most is the complete failure of pastoral care for North American conservative Anglicans from Rowan Williams; the Pope and others put him and us to shame. Shame on you Rowan Williams.
Congratulations to Lorna Ashworth for bringing this motion before General Synod. Regardless of the eventual outcome, she has succeeded in bringing many aspects of TEC’s treatment of faithful Anglicans up for consideration and debate throughout the Church of England.
Her background paper is a detailed and damning indictment of the vicious and unprincipled treatment accorded to faithful Anglicans in USA and Canada by TEC and ACOC. It also represents an implied rebuke to ABC for his failure to give any real support to those faithful Anglicans.
My understanding (respectfully contra some posts above) is that if General Synod passes the motion, it will not place any legal obligation on the primates of the Church of England to establish communion with ACNA. It will, however, place a great deal of public moral pressure on them to do so.
Pray for +Scott-Joynt, +Langrish and +Reade who are hosting the public meeting with orthodox Anglicans from North America on 9 February 2010. These faithful men have already earned liberal ire (both from fellow members of COE and the media) for their past orthodox stance, and its likely to get even more intense.
The background paper by Wm Fittall, Secretary General to General Synod is disingenuous in several areas:
1. “To date the Church of Nigeria, the House of Bishops of the Church of Uganda and the Synod of the Diocese of Sydney have declared themselves to be in full communion with ACNA.”
This leaves out much relevant information – it is a pity the Secretary General was not more frank with his members:
Firstly, ACNA was very recently formed from a number of constituent parts, which between them are recognised by a large number of dioceses and provinces: e.g. Southern Cone, West Africa, Kenya, Rwanda. It is clear that formal recognition of the whole of ACNA by each of these is only a matter of time.
Secondly, 291 bishops from 17 provinces attended the Jerusalem Conference in June 2008, which approved the formation of ACNA. It can safely be presumed that they continue to approve it.
Thirdly, the Secretary-General’s paper is deafeningly silent about the Primates Council. The Archbishop of Canterbury failed to call a Primates Conference in 2009, when it was due, and when he had assured the Lambeth Conference that it would be called. It is highly likely that the Primates Council (if it is ever called) will endorse full communion for ACNA.
2. “The Anglican Communion has no legal personality and no codified set of rules as to membership.”
This is true, in a strict legal sense. However, the Communion is a very real and important concept in the minds of millions of Anglicans all over the world, including in England and America. Trying to play strict legalities is likely to backfire on those attempting it.
3. “If Synod were to pass Lorna Ashworth’s private member’s motion it would be initiating, not concluding, a process leading to its consideration of a formal resolution for the establishment of communion with ACNA.”
Which invites the response: So what? There is nothing in the customs or traditions of the Church of England that prevents General Synod from making a recommendation to its primates. Even more importantly, General Synod will *debate* the issue in detail. As the orthodox +Reade of Blackburn has observed, it is the process of debate by clergy and lay from across the COE in General Synod that is so important to the life of the COE, and Lorna Ashworth’s motion will cause that to happen.
Mr Fittall appears to be arguing that the General Synod can never consider such an issue unless the House of Bishops decides that it should. His true colours thereby emerge – he does not want informed debate to take place on the issue of how TEC is treating faithful Anglicans in America. Well, too bad – that debate is going to take place, both formally within General Synod and informally across England.
#21 Michael A
[blockquote]My understanding (respectfully contra some posts above) is that if General Synod passes the motion, it will not place any legal obligation on the primates of the Church of England to establish communion with ACNA.[/blockquote]
Please explain.
My point is that whether or not the motion requires this or not, Wm. Fittall’s [or his puppet-master’s] suggestion that it is outwith the powers of General Synod to declare communion with any province or church is plain wrong and disingenuous. Further that that decision, if it were to be made, would without more have the effect of being the end of the decision, rather than a start of that process. Now I am not saying that that is in fact the effect of the resolution as currently drafted, or as bowdlerised at the prompting of the puppet-master, but that in principle that it is in the power of General Synod to do so, without the agreement or action of the Archbishops.
I wish the ACNA team and their sponsoring bishops well and pray that we will send a clear message of support for ACNA and a declaration of our continuing communion with them.
Yes, I know you disagree with it but isn’t it apparent that the HOB don’t. Thus we don’t need to suppose this is a conspiracy, they’re simply attempting to take into account legal advice they have been given and look as if they want to treat ACNA in a similar way to the churches of the Porvoo Agreement.
#24
“they’re simply attempting to take into account legal advice they have been given”
I have no idea if they have been given legal advice or not, all I am saying is that it is within the [legal] competence of the General Synod to pass motions of communion with other churches, or [in the case of the instant motion] to express a “desire” to be in communion. To suggest otherwise is misleading. That is just the way that Synod’s powers work. Now if you decide that you don’t want to use those powers but delegate them to Archbishops or anyone else that is another thing, but you can’t claim that Synod are not permitted to make such a decision legally.