There is general agreement, I would guess, amongst more traditional Anglicans, that the current set-up for the implementation of the Covenant is flawed….That is what ACI has argued….
What we have not argued is that we need to start the whole process of writing a Covenant over again; or that some party must convene its own adjudicating group of its own initiative to work from the ground up, independently of all the existing structures of the Anglican Communion. Such a path, in my own view, would be disastrous. The Covenant has come to its final text through a relatively regularized process, with relatively wide Communion representation behind its formulation, and has been commended and sent out by two recognized Instruments of the Communion (the ACC and Canterbury), and with at least some primatial endorsement (via the Joint Standing Committee of Primates and ACC, with, by the way, Abp Mouneer still present and participant before his resignation from that group). Furthermore, the Covenant itself, in its formal declarations, provides a means forward for dealing with the current confusions, and we have suggested a way this might work that maintains legitimate continuity with the structures that have themselves given birth to the Covenant, ordered it, received it, and commended it.
Let me now speak personally about my own view of the other alternatives here ”“ that is, other than the kind of proposal that ACI has put forward. These alternatives to our proposal are being touted, with varying degrees of hostility, by one group or another on the blogs at the present, and I believe them to be options that must be avoided….
Thank God for Fr. Radner! Sometimes I think he’s the only one willing to be honest with us about where we are as a church.
“with, by the way, Abp Mouneer still present and participant before his resignation ” Yes, his presence validates the authenticity of the process, regardless of how vehemently he repudiates it. It’s nice to see that pointed out–that is, since it tells me all I need to know about this missive.
A brief comment:
On FCA. It is true that there are some “autonomists†in FCA who are opposed in principle to a covenantal superstructure. There are more who are believe the Covenant is a good idea but the Ridley Cambridge or “final†drafts are too weak to effect the kind of discipline and reform needed in the Communion. However, it is not correct to say the FCA has been obstructing the Covenant. The FCA churches all supported the adoption of the Ridley draft in Jamaica, flawed though it may have been.
As for “absenting themselves†from Lambeth and ACC-14, FCA members have been very clear from “The Road to Lambeth†that their non-involvement is a principled response to the high-handed actions of the Archbishop of Canterbury in overriding of the consensual decisions of the Primates’ Meeting at Dar es Salaam. Bp. Mouneer’s resignation letter confirms that this action by Canterbury – resolutely avoided by Rowan Williams himself and minimized by the ACI – continues to be an obstacle that must be confronted before any real harmony can be restored. One could argue that it was Bp. Mouneer who was gulled into attending the New Orleans HOB meeting, and whose resignation is now roughly equivalent of Henry Orombi’s “absenting himself “from the (Joint) Standing Committee meetings since Dar.
Ephraim Radner appears to insist that faithful Anglicans must observe the “continuities of the Communion’s structures†by approving the “final†Covenant and then working to reform it from within. This would presumably include clarifying and reforming the composition and character of the “Standing Committee.†But the advent of the “Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion†as a de facto fifth Instrument is in itself a blatant “discontinuity†which confuses the relative roles of the other Instruments, and for many it represents a power grab by the Communion bureaucracy and a marginalizing of the Primates’ Meeting and Lambeth Conference. I find it hard to understand how a conciliarist like Ephraim Radner can think that the presence of a few Primates on the (Joint) Standing Committee of the (Communion/ACC) is equivalent to “some primatial endorsement†of the Covenant or anything else.
Personally, I am a pragmatist in the sense that I favour the overall direction of the Covenant and I do not advocate simply going back to the drawing board and rewriting it. But in my view the pivotal role of the (Joint) Standing Committee in the Covenant (sec. 4) must be changed before a church can responsibly adopt the Covenant. It may be irregular but not illegitimate for the several churches of the Communion to take on this work, since the Communion hierarchy has lost its credibility.
Bp. Mouneer has been behind the curtain of the Lambeth bureaucracy and seen the wizard manipulating the bells and whistles, and he has concluded it is a sham. Ephraim Radner apparently wants us to redraw the curtain and continue talking with and putting our hopes in the image projected on the wall.
While I admire Ephraim Radner’s tenacity, he starts with a premise not supported by everyone: The notion that this Covenant would truly be a “covenant,” and the supposition it is needed in the first place. Can we go back to this: If people can’t keep their word under the present structure, how does a new and untested “covenant” help? To the comment that people who wish to travel a different road are “self-declared structures” which seems to insinuate they are somehow illegitimate, I say they are no less legitimate than the self-declared structures of the so-called Anglican Communion, whatever that is, or was. I did not always feel that way. But, to cut to the chase, doesn’t it seem like something that takes this much explaining is quite possibly a major distraction?
[blockquote]But the advent of the “Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion†as a de facto fifth Instrument is in itself a blatant “discontinuity†which confuses the relative roles of the other Instruments, and for many it represents a power grab by the Communion bureaucracy and a marginalizing of the Primates’ Meeting and Lambeth Conference. I find it hard to understand how a conciliarist like Ephraim Radner can think that the presence of a few Primates on the (Joint) Standing Committee of the (Communion/ACC) is equivalent to “some primatial endorsement†of the Covenant or anything else.[/blockquote]
Well put, Dr Noll.
We await a draft of the Covenant that espouses a robust conciliarism of the sort that will enable and express a vigorous and united Communion of Churches.
Lots of things wrong with this essay.
As I said in a different thread, the Covenant [i]process[/i] (I have come to hate “[i]processes[/i]”) is comparable to a rigged card game with the dealer in cahoots with one of the other players. Telling a friend not to play at that table and not playing oneself is [i]not[/i] “abandoning” one’s friend. ABp Anis’ letter of resignation confirms the reality of the rigged nature of the [i]process[/i]. The addition of one more honest player at the rigged card game wouldn’t have made the game legitimate but would have added somewhat to the air of legitimacy – hardly a desired outcome.
[url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/25419#418009 ]TJ McMahon[/url] and [url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/25419#418014 ]Pageantmaster[/url], at SF, rightly questions the surprise of the ACI folks at the centrality of the “Standing Committee” when the Ridley Draft made the JSC “or any body that succeeds it” to be the ultimate arbiter. Many people, myself included, have pointed out glaring deficiencies in the JSC with the post New Orleans HOB report being the most egregious example – intentionarlly drafted without ABp Anis. The JSC had no credibility after that. The slightly altered “Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion” is only worse. This begs the question:
Why in the world sign on to a Covenant that makes the JSC or the SCAC the ultimate arbiters of all things Anglican???
[url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/25419#418019]Another reader[/url] points out, signing on and hoping to immediately amend it is simply engaging in fantasy. When it becomes a [i]process[/i], and it most certainly has, the orthodox get their heads dished up on a platter by the scheming Kearon, etc.
How long has this Covenant drafting [i]process[/i] gone on? The final draft’s ink is hardly dry and glaring deficiencies are…well, they are glaringly obvious. Why sign on to such a document? The Jerusalem declaration was crafted in less than two weeks. The upcoming Global South meeting could easily come with a better document. The sheer numbers that they represent and their faithfulness would give it all the required legitimacy needed. That it is not a “communion wide” derived document is a feature not a fault.
I suspect that the ACI has so much energy and time invested in the Covenant that, for them it is the only solution. I see it as a total waste of time. It is going nowhere. The liberal faction and the ABC will make absolutely certain that the AC will continue to do nothing, covenant or not.
Does it even make sense to imagine that either good faith or good will can be, so to speak, “policed”?
#5 Dr Dr Rob Roy – I think the point of my two posts was that the radical change in the status of the JSC was contemplated by the draftsman of the Ridley Covenant. The question I would like to ask Dr Radner, since he was present and if he feels able to tell us, is:
Was the reasoning and purpose of the very specific wording in Clause 4.2.1 of the Ridley Covenant and in particular the provision for a successor to the JSC, such as the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion explained to the CDG including himself and Archbishop Chew at that time?
The background to my question is set out in the other thread:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/25419#418014
[blockquote] ..I hadn’t looked at the Ridley draft for a while:
[blockquote](4.2.1) The Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and of the Primates’ Meeting, [b]or any body that succeeds it[/b], shall have the duty of overseeing the functioning of the Covenant in the life of the Anglican Communion. [b]The Joint Standing Committee may nominate or appoint another committee or commission[/b] to assist in carrying out this function and to advise it on questions relating to the Covenant.[/blockquote]
Even that far back, someone had in mind some of the moves we have seen with the Standing Committee, and drafted language to cover it. Language which on the face of it looks innocuous, but is laying the specific groundwork for the next move he or they had in mind. Someone who is always two steps or more ahead in his game.
Of course the Ridley Draft was predicated on the Joint Standing Committee with its powers and make up which is transparently visible from the ACC constitution and resolutions, not the “Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion†with its recently invented status and unknown powers, make up, authority and secret constitution.[/blockquote]
And following up on that I said this:
[blockquote]Contrast the Ridley Draft with the final draft here:
[blockquote](4.2.2) The Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion, responsible to the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting, shall monitor the functioning of the Covenant in the life of the Anglican Communion on behalf of the Instruments. In this regard, the Standing Committee shall be supported by such other committees or commissions as may be mandated to assist in carrying out this function and to advise it on questions relating to the Covenant.[/blockquote]
No need to make provision for a successor to the JSC because the successor has already been put in place.
And there is still provision to appoint committees and commissions to assist it, but instead of being appointed by the JSC it is to be “mandatedâ€, but it is not clear by whom, although one can probably guess.
I would be very interested to know if this provision and its purpose in the Ridley Draft were explained to Dr Radner and AB Chew when it was drafted and presented to them by presumably +Gregory Cameron?[/blockquote]
Clearly whoever was drafting the section knew exactly what he was about, the question is did he apprise the CDG at that time? Can you please tell us Dr Radner?
The other questions I have for Dr Radner are since it is clear that the secret constitution of the ACC [the “Articles”] were already extant at the time and presumably in the process of approval, and quite clearly Dr Radner has not seen them, is these:
[1] Was the CDG aprised at the time that the constitution, powers and position of the ACC and Joint Standing Committee were in the process of being changed?
[2] Were those changes and the new structure ever explained to the Covenant Design Group and if so by whom and in what way? [3] Or was the CDG kept in the dark?
Try again:
The other questions I have for Dr Radner are since it is clear that the secret constitution of the ACC [the “Articles”] were already extant at the time and presumably in the process of approval, and quite clearly Dr Radner has not seen them, are these:
[1] Was the CDG aprised at the time that the constitution, powers and position of the ACC and Joint Standing Committee were in the process of being changed?
[2] Were those changes and the new structure ever explained to the Covenant Design Group and if so by whom and in what way? [3] Or was the CDG kept in the dark?
Let me offer a couple clarifications.
First, it is important to note that the Covenant Design Group at Ridley discussed explicitly the question of the “standing committee†that would be involved in “overseeing†the Covenant in certain respect. 4.2.1 of the Ridley Draft speaks of the “Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative council and of the Primates’ Meeting, or any body that succeeds itâ€.
We discussed what this meant, responding to the fact that previous drafts had other mechanisms in place that various (not always the same) parts of the Communion were highly critical of. The JSC was decided upon because of two reasons:
a. it is representative of both the Primates’ Meeting and the ACC, and includes the Archbishop of Canterbury (hence a wide representation); it is thus also answerable to various instruments of the Communion, and not beholden to one or another, or able to act independently of them.
b. the likelihood of increased membership of Primates on the ACC was viewed as a positive steadying of ballast in this regard.
The CDG was informed, by Gregory Cameron, that there were possible changes afoot in how this would all be expressed. Abps. Chew and Gomez were aware of this direction. But no details seemed to have been known about new constitutions, articles, etc. already in place (id indeed they were in place, which they may not have been!), or about any such thing as a “Standing Committee of the Anglican Communionâ€. We were told that the JSC might be called something else. But it wasn’t clear what that might be. Hence, the addition of the phrase, in Ridley 4.2.1 “…or any body that succeeds itâ€.
The lack of clarity about this matter, and moving ahead despite that lack of clarity, it strikes me in retrospect, was a.) a mistake; b.) probably not deliberately devious. That is, various people – mentioned above – knew of changes taking place, but none seemed clear about what they were, and were under the impression that any such changes were aimed, in any case, at strengthening the representative and responsible nature of the JSC vis a vis the other Instruments. We should have had actual documents in front of us, and scrutinized details, such as they were. Certainly none of us considered the possibility of a new committee claiming to be the “Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion†coming to be, that would no longer be structurally answerable to the Primates and ACC memberships directly through an ordering of clear “representationâ€, but that would be legally answerable only to the ACC.
Since I was not a part of the Working Group that revised Ridley, and am not privy to the form of its discussions, I cannot say what information they were working with.
I think it is important to reiterate some of our own (ACI’s) concerns in light of developments over the past couple of months, not all of which directly bear upon or derive from the matter discussed above.
I. The issues discussed in our paper arise from the confluence of several factors that may seem innocuous when considered alone, but are explosive when taken together:
1. Adding Primates to the ACC and its standing committee to make it more representative.
2. Re-structuring the ACC and its standing committee under UK law with as yet unknown (or at least undisclosed) changes to the legal and fiduciary duties of the committee members.
3. Rapidly evolving UK and EU equality laws.
4. Diminishing trust in the ACC and its committee(s) as a result of the subgroup report prior to Dar, the JSC report after New Orleans, the Jamaica debacle, the perception that TEC has inordinate influence on the ACC and the SC, +Orombi’s refusal (right or wrong) to attend and now culminating in the resignation of +Mouneer and the repudiation of the SC that resignation constitutes.
5. Revision of Section 4 to give enhanced responsibility to a “SCAC†that is “responsible to†the ACC and PM and advises all Instruments and churches.
6. Continued intransigence of TEC (Glasspool).
It is not at all obvious that even the effects of ##1 and 2, which have been in the works separately for years, have been fully understood in the communion at large when taken together. (Clearly, as our experience at Ridley showed, even those engaged with some of these matters – Primates and Communion officers – did not have full knowledge of details, or were simply subject to details that were actually still evolving.) The understanding that the enlarged ACC standing committee would replace the old JSC simply because their individual members were the same occurred without any public examination of or debate on (i) the differing roles played by, on the one hand, two committees meeting jointly but whose constituent members are responsible to two different bodies and, on the other hand, a single committee answerable legally to the ACC; (ii) the extent to which this would change the responsibilities and legal duties of the Primatial members; (iii) the tendency this might have of making the ACC into a “super-Instrument†from which the others get their authority and legitimacy; or (iv) the effects of the legal transformation of the ACC. Whatever consideration may have been given to these issues in private they have not been considered in public, which is important given the related work done in the past years by groups like the CDG and WCG, who were not privy to all ACC or Primates’ discussions of the last decade. All this without regard to #3.
And it is certainly debatable whether this transformed ACC committee can fulfill the duties defined for the SCAC in Section 4—even leaving the trust issues aside. But the fact that ##1 and 2 have been (separately) in the works for years does not answer the question whether ##1, 2, 3 and 5 work when taken together—again even leaving the trust issues aside.
II. We recognize that the former JSC, the current SCACC and the new SCAC have continuity of membership and that most see the latter as the successor to the former. The point we are raising, however, is not continuity of membership, but rather the discontinuity of formal duties and responsibilities, as understood even in the Covenant text itself! This takes on added importance since the duties of those who are on the SCACC (now all of them) are defined by UK law.
#10 Thank you Dr Radner – much to ponder on there. I have to say that I am surprised as that these important documents were not made available to the CDG and WCG [if that is the case for the WCG].
The only clarification I have seen is a reply from Canon Kearon to an enquiry from Episcopal Cafe:
http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/anglican_communion/anglican_constitution_is_what.html
According to Canon Kearon, the draft memorandum and articles were approved by the “Standing Committee” [whatever that refers to] and then approved by ACC 13 in 2005 and that ACC 13 instructed they be sent out to the provinces for agreement. Then Canon Kearon claims that sufficient provinces signalled their approval of the draft memorandum and articles and that the ‘Standing Committee’ noted this prior to the ACC meeting in Jamaica from 1st to 13th May 2009. My understanding is that the CDG had met not long before the Jamaica meeting.
So it is pretty clear that the Memorandum and Articles of the proposed new vehicle for ACC had been in circulation for over five years, and that final changes to these were approved by the ‘Standing Committee’. They had been available since at least 2005 so it is astonishing that the CDG were not given copies. Since +Gregory Cameron sat on or attending all committees and meetings, and at the time was I believe deputy secretary general at the ACO it stretches credibility that he was not aware and did not have access to these documents, and that he was not able to supply copies to the CDG.
Since the Instruments, their relationships and roles, and this “successor” to the JSC are central to the working of the Covenant, I can’t see how the text of the Covenant can be considered in isolation and ignorance of changes to them. No fault on the part of the members of the CDG; it appears you just weren’t told and given access to the documents.
I thank you for your candour and appreciate it.
#11–yes, there are certainly matters here needing following up on. +Chew was also present at the meetings Radner describes, and in the final revision work. Doubtless he will be considering this matter carefully. The point of the ACI work was to underscore the difficulties inherent in the committee holding itself out to be the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion.
One tragedy in all this is the vilifying of +Mouneer by Naughton and others — one effort at explanation exonerated +Mouneer by saying he should know better than let others (ACI) put words in his mouth, though how that is meant as ameliorating is a mystery known only to the revisionist mind. Of course in our view this was a matter we believed would be best served by getting to the bottom of just those very issues you are referring to. +Mouneer was completely who he was, the Presiding Bishop and a saintly man, when he decided to resign from this post. Reasonable people within ACI or CP can disagree about what the best course of action is, but it is offensive to suggest that +Mouneer was only working off someone else’s play sheet. Naughton did not apologise. He just said +Mouneer was not-dignifying himself by allowing himself to be ‘used.’ That remains an offensive comment and it is also false.
#12 Thank you Dr Seitz – and I agree about +Mouneer. The slurs on him tell one more about Mr Naughton and official TEC publications which repeated them, than they do about the Archbishop. I think +Mouneer is not only saintly but has been an absolute saint and deserves our continuing thanks for the hard efforts he has put in for the Anglican Communion while faithfully serving one of the most challenging provinces in the world, always with good humor, charm and with grace. I am sure he will continue to do his best for us and his Lord.
I appreciate Ephraim Radner’s insider’s view of why the Covenant Drafting Group settled on way the “Joint Standing Committee†as the arbitrating body for the Covenant in the Ridley Cambridge Draft. However, to my mind the more interesting question is why, earlier, the CDG dropped section 6.5 of the Nassau Draft, which stated:
[blockquote]Each Church commits itself
(5) to seek the guidance of the Instruments of Communion in matters in serious dispute among churches that cannot be resolved by mutual admonition and counsel:
1. by submitting the matter to the Primates’ Meeting
2. if the Primates believe that the matter is not one for which a common mind has been articulated, they will seek it with the other instruments and their councils
3. finally, on this basis, the Primates will offer guidance and direction. [/blockquote]
I find a hint to answer this question in the Commentary to the St. Andrew’s Draft on clause 3.1.4, which states:
[blockquote]It is noted that in Appendix I(5) of the Windsor Report it was suggested that the Primates’ Meeting serve as a standing committee of the Lambeth Conference, but since this has not been received by the larger church, the Covenant Design Group decided not to include it in our description.[/blockquote]
It is hard not to interpret this note as politically motivated, i.e., that the Primates’ Meeting by their attempts at discipline at Dar es Salaam were considered dangerous to monitor the Covenant. The St. Andrew’s Draft just avoided the subject, and Ridley Cambridge then substituted the Joint Standing Committee.
Dr. Radner states two justifications for the turn to the JSC:
[blockquote]1. it is representative of both the Primates’ Meeting and the ACC, and includes the Archbishop of Canterbury (hence a wide representation); it is thus also answerable to various instruments of the Communion, and not beholden to one or another, or able to act independently of them.
2. the likelihood of increased membership of Primates on the ACC was viewed as a positive steadying of ballast in this regard.[/blockquote]
But surely when it comes to doctrine and discipline, there is no substitute for the Primates themselves, not just a few representatives (5 out of 14 as it turns out). As to the “increased†membership of the Primates on the ACC, the original proposal at ACC-13 for all the Primates to join the ACC was scuttled by the ACO, and the devil’s bargain was to let the five “Standing Committee†Primates sit on the ACC in return for the ACC Standing Committee becoming “[i]The[/i] Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion.â€
I cannot believe this is what Ephraim Radner wants in his heart of hearts. Rather , surely he agrees with the Covenant that
[blockquote](§3.1.3) the central role of bishops as guardians and teachers of faith, as leaders in mission, and as a visible sign of unity, representing the universal Church to the local, and the local Church to the universal and the local Churches to one another.[/blockquote]
And if he believes this, the logical body to oversee Communion doctrine and discipline is the Primates’ Meeting and behind them the Lambeth Conference itself.
Dr. Noll’s questions are good. He is right: the Nassau draft had the Primates Mtg as the adjudicating body; furthermore this has some theological/ecclesiological rationale, from within the Covenant itself. And yes, I was happy with this, and clearly the CDG was sufficiently of one mind on this to present it. But problems arose with this proposal that were both political and, shall we say, prudential.
However, this particular suggestion received enormous pushback once the draft was disseminated. Some of that pushback was predictable — i.e. from TEC, who have viewed the Primates’ Mtg as the mouthpiece of a bunch of angry homophobes bent on punishing pure-hearted American inclusivists. But, truth to tell, the pushback was not only from Americans, but from a number of churches around the world, mostly from more “western” cultures, but also a few from what we might call the “Global South”. So the political issue was, “how do we move forward with a proposed Covenant, designed for the faithful ordering of the Communion’s churches together, but whose formulation must engage the ideas of the entire Communion at this front-end stage, and so must be responsive to the concerns of the entire Communion?”. That is, the formulation of the Covenant was not a job for only one set of interests within the Communion, however “right” one might think they were; it was a job for all, so we had to take seriously what “all” of us thought. That’s the political issue.
The prudential issue was the witnessed interactions of the Primates themselves at some of their then-recent meetings: Ireland, and Tanzania. Like it or not, the press on these interactions was not positive, and there is every reason to give credence at least to some of the bad press: anger, cliques, posturing, sulking, pressures. To be fair, when the issues are so combustible and involve matters of enormous gravity for local areas and perceived questions of faith and morals, it would be unusual if gatherings to decide on such matters were NOT personally difficult. The problem was that the Primates’ meetings were well-publicized by journalists and now bloggers, with (often unsubstantiated) stories whizzing about as to this encounter and that conspiracy and so on. But the sum of it was that the Primates’ Meeting had been tarnished in the public eye. Again, this involved the perspectives of some in the Global South too, where not all people, clergy, and bishops trust their own Primates for a host of reasons (I am being honest here).
These two reasons — or sets of reasons — encouraged the CDG to try to find alternative mechanisms, leaving us in the present position of some warranted confusion. Speaking personally, I would be happy to go back to the Nassau draft, although I would, I think, still wish the final “directives” of the Primates to have some kind of mechanism of assent from elsewhere in the Communion, and that might involve a properly constituted JSC, and/or a delegated Faith and Order group. (I am very clear that the ACC has no business adjudicating matters of faith and morals; but proper “reception” is indeed a part of Anglican ecclesiology, in different ways.) And I have made my own personal proposals in the past about some ways all this could be done.
But I want to reiterate that this is not ultimately about MY views, or anybody else’s personal views. It is about finding a way to order all of this — and I am referring especially to the Covenant — in a manner that has the fullest support of the Communion’s churches as possible, recognizing, of course, that that is unlikely to be all of the churches and that unanimity in this case is precisely what is not going to be achieved. But I am also very sensitive to the fact that “unanimity” even in the Global South, among those we might all consider “traditional” or “orthodox” or what have you, is not currently in place either, and those who think it is are not seeing things accurately (as I understand the lay of the land). People frequently “go along” with this or that decision — I’ve been involved with church gatherings and decision-making bodies for a long time — without necessarily agreeing deeply; and later, these hidden fault-lines emerge with negative effects. That is in part why I really do believe it is very important — for the sake of traditional Anglican witness itself! — to maintain as broad a set of continuities in representation and decision-making as is possible, without of course compromising fundamental elements of faith and practice. And yes, just what this involves is a very trickly business, not given to simple formulae, which is why I believe “processes” do inded need to be flexible, even if they are not simply to be thrown overboard.
Many thanks to Dr. Radner for his lengthy explanations in #10 and 15 that provide very helpful background information. Also thanks to Dr. Noll for weighing in with his clarifying questions and incisive comments in #2 and #14. This kind of respectful interchange is essential and profitable for us all. I sincerely hope that my perhaps more incendiary and provocative comments that follow aren’t taken as disrespectful to the noble ACI leaders or other venerable, orthodox leaders (like the CP bishops and rectors) who have invested so much in the Covenant process.
Predictably perhaps, I wholeheartedly agree with the remarks of Todd (#4), Br. Michael (#6), and especially robroy (#5), who are extremely suspicious that the whole Covenant process is fatally flawed, because it is, as robroy aptly noted, “rigged” in an underhanded way to favor the revisionists/western colonialists. I would go farther. My own persistent criticism of the Covenant process (probably all too familiar by now) is of a different sort and more radical than theirs.
And a couple of telling lines in Dr. Radner’s #15 well illustrate the heart of my complaint. He states (and I think he speaks for a great many respected leaders in the AC in this regard):
The Covenant process must [i]”engage the ideas of the entire Communion…and be responsive to the concerns of the entire Communion.”[/i] As he goes on to elaborate, [i]”That is, the formulation of the Covenant was not a job for only one set of interests in the Conmmuion…it was a job for all.”[/i].
Well, that was implicit in the mandate that ++RW gave the CDG and the (Windsor) Lambeth Commission on Communion before it. The aim all along has been to try to preserve “the highest degree of communion possible.”
But including unrepentant revisionists in the process seems to beg the question of what in fact is that “highest degree of communion possible.” My point is: [b]they never should have been included in the first place![/b] Anyone who supports the unbiblical notion that homosexual behavior is permissible (contrary to Lambeth 1998 Resolution 1.10) is, ipso facto, automatically, outside the bounds of the Anglican Communion. Period. Q.E.D. Discussion over.
The Gordian Knot doesn’t need to be untied. Let it simply be cut. And if that means consigning hundreds of thousands or millions of liberal Anglicans to the outer darkness, well, so be it!!
And I mean that literally.
To be continued shortly…
David Handy+
Dr. Radner,
Many thanks for your several detailed clarifications above. I do, however, remain very confused on one rather crucial point. I can see that after Dar, some might have legitimate concerns over whether the Covenant could be administered by the Primates when there was considerable contention in (then) recent meetings, and indeed many were excommunicate from others. Although this latter state, of course, is also true of the JSC or SCAC.
But if the Primates were not “trusted” to administer the Covenant, how could the JSC- the producers of the “compliance” reports at Dar and NO- the first of which as I recall had the signature of a Primate attached when said Primate had never seen it, much less agreed, and which a dozen or more churches found to be complete fabrications? Particularly considering the dominant role played by TEC on the JSC- and that the gerrymandered method of selecting Primates for it guarantees under-representation of the GS.
Continuing the argument in my #16,
Going back to Dr. Radner’s #15, toward the end he asserts (and again, he isn’t idiosyncratic but representative of many fine orthodox leaders in saying so), [i]”It is about finding a way to order all of this (i.e., the Covenant process) in a manner that has the fulluest support of the Communion churches as possible…”[/i]
Then he adds the all important qualifying phrase,
“[i]without of course compromising fundamental elements of faith and practice.[/i]”
Ah, yes, there’s the rub, naturally.
[b]And who gets to decide what constitutes such fundamental elements?[/b] In the end, it all comes down to the question of authority, doesn’t it? [b]Who gets to decide what constitutes core doctrine?[/b]
Or perhaps to rephrase the question in the terms in which it’s been formulated, [b]Who gets to decide what is the highest degree of communion possible anyway?[/b] Who gets to decide what is possible and what is impossible, because it unacceptably compromises core doctrine, or perverts “fundamental elements of faith and practice?”
My answer: the various provincial churches get to decide. For now anyway.
But in the end, that kind of unlimited provincial autonomy leaves Anglicanism fatally vulnerable to utter anarchy, ala the situation at the end of the period in Judges, when because there was no king, no centralized authority, “every man did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25)
And my point in raising the issue is quite simple. I continue to maintain that the whole Windsor/Covenant process was fatally flawed from the start, i.e., the game was rigged (to use robroy’s language) and the cards were stacked (whether deviously or not, and I’ll give Cantaur the benefit of the doubt here) because it was illegimately or unwisely assumed from the start that “the highest degree of communion possible” was defined in terms of polity instead of in terms of doctrine.
That has been the basic erroneous assumption underlying the whole vexed process. It was a natural, normal, predictable and charitable assumption, but a deadly one nonetheless. I firmly believe that it’s been the key strategic mistake that has doomed the whole Covenant process from the start. Precisely because unrepentant revisionists were allowed to be a part of the process and automatically not excluded from the start, as they should have been.
The bottom line is really quite simple, after all. Anglicans of all stripes worthy of the name can at least agree that the authority of Holy Scripture is among the CORE doctrines in Anglicanism that can never be compromised. It’s not only enshrined in the old 39 Articles, but much more importantly, it’s enshrined in the ordination oaths that all Anglican clergy take (whether high church, low church, broad church, or non-partisan), it’s enshrined in the Lambeth Quadrilateral, and it’s implicit in our whole system of doctrien doctrine and discipline.
And the FACT remains, and it’s absolutely indisputable in my mind, that there simply is NO WAY WHATSOEVER to justify on a biblical basis homosexual behavior, or abortion, or any number of other “progressive” causes in the Culture War. They are totally unwarranted and indefensible biblically. And I regard that as a point beyond reasonable doubt.
Of course, I recognize that ++RW himself would disagree. Well, so what? Who cares what he thinks?
I admit that I don’t anymore.
The point is that “fundamental elements of faith and practice” HAVE BEEN compromised and are continuing to be compromised in a way that completely inexcusable.
My solution? Well, regular T19 readers already know the basic answer to that. What Anglicanism needs is nothing less than a full scale, major New Reformation, one that will doubtless be equally divisive as the 16th century one. And equally fruitful and lifegiving.
Equally tragic and bitter. And equally necessary
This vexed crisis has revealed a fatal flaw within the classic structures of Anglicanism that we must now bite the bullet and seek to correct, no matter what the cost. And let there be no doubt, the cost will be a horrific schism on a massive scale.
So let’s face it, count the cost, and get on with it.
Anglicanism MUST be reformed so as to have a much clearer, more cohesive theological character, and a much more forceful means of enforcing theological and moral discipline. We MUST develop a new creed that will forthrightly declare theological relativism to be the utter heresy that it is and to rule out, once and for all, theological Liberalism.
Please note: I do mean “Liberalism” as an ism, mind you, as an ideology or worldview. In particular, I’m pointedly NOT ruling out all liberal tendencies in the process (such as the acceptance of modern biblical scholarship), which is a completely different matter entirely.
And we simply MUST develop a binding means of exercising discipline across provincial lines. The days when we could the luxury of operating without some such centralized authority are clearly over. Kiss them goodbye. Mourn them, as long as necessary.
But we simply have to have a way of cracking down on heresy in Anglicanism. And it’s high time to crack down hard. Very hard indeed.
No matter what the cost.
And again, I do mean that literally.
David Handy+
Passionate advocate of a radical New Reformation of Anglicanism, no matter how divisive it may prove
Of course, I agree with David+.
Part of the Dromantine Agreement in 2005 was that ECUSA and ACoC would voluntarily withdraw from the ACC till 2008. The arch-ditherer simply squelched any attempt to move forward towards resolution of the crisis from 2005-2008, then he, himself, put Ms Schori on the JSC. ECUSA and ACoC are now firmly back in control of the ACC which is certainly in violation of the spirit of Dromantine.
TJ’s fairly amicable question in his #17 to Dr. Radner prompts to make one more comment along similar lines (and then I’ll step aside, having vented enough of my spleen for now).
Who says that the JSC is more trustworthy than the PM?? Pardon me, Dr. Radner, but in the face of the ridiculous submission of the JSC panel at Dar, and the utterly craven capitulation of the JSC toward TEC evident in New Orleans, that is just downright stupid. It’s madness. Sheer madness. (Though well intentioned madness, to be sure).
If the Primates seemed to lose credibility after the squabbles, bickering, and powerplays behind the scenes at Dar es Salaam, hasn’t the ACC lost even MORE credibility after the OPEN hanky panky on public display in Jamaica?? How in the world could it be otherwise?
So again, I think it all comes down to whose opinion is thought to count and to be held as most important. [b]Who[/b] thinks the Primates have lost credibility? And [b]who[/b] thinks the ACC has lost even more credibility? And above all, [b]who in the end wins?[/b]
The point being that there is simply no realistic hope whatsoever of a consensus solution. Of course there isn’t. It was a foregone conclusion.
Bottom line: [i]”A house divided against itself cannot stand.”[/i]
Anglicanism, at least in terms of its outward polity structures, has been such an unstable house for long enough.
Anglicanism (which is NOT synonymous with the current AC) must be rebuilt on a firmer foundation. With unambiguous doctirnal and moral boundaries, and the power to enforce them, in the teeth of liberal western resistance. It’s high time to put the Doctrine and Discipline back in the classic Doctirne, Discipline, and Worship of the Anglican Church.
David Handy+
Concerns about the JSC in the past are, I would agree, justified. But it was a primate-strengthened JSC that the Design Group included in the Ridley Draft — or so we were led to believe, given the upcoming changes to its make-up — not simply the JSC as it had functioned in the past. And it was two GS Primates who thought this was a good way forward. I don’t think that the problem was primarily in the conception; it was rather in the confused outcome to this at the ACC and after, with perhaps elements of the confusion regarding the new constitution of the ACC etc. having already been at work.
I confess, furthermore — given the general occasion of these discussions with respect to Abp. Mouneer — that having strong Primates and their supporters not attend meetings didn’t help! The whole ACC business started out on the wrong foot with the conflict over Uganda’s representation: and, to my mind, both parties in this dispute make missteps as a result, although those who benefited from the dispute were clearly those opposed to an effectual covenanted future for the Communion. Traditional Anglicans in the Communion have got to begin facing our own mistakes and failures in all of this, and not just blaming everybody else.
Dr. Radner,
Thank you for the direct response. I will confess to no small culpability myself, being one of the untold number who really didn’t pay attention through the middle years of my life- or just figured it did not make any difference. What actually woke me up were inhibitions in the early part of the last decade- and TEC making clear about the same time that it was no longer going to tolerate Anglo Catholics and began attempting to undermine the ministry of the few remaining Anglo Catholic bishops.
Clearly, there have been “strategic blunders” by the orthodox as a group as well- I daresay that a better coordinated effort early on would likely have led to a more rational approach- something more along the lines of the Primatial Council suggested at Dar. We have suffered from not being a well organized group, and we have all tried to maintain TEC until the point where we reach a personal “last straw.” And we have not reached those last straws in the same way at the same time- so some are in TEC, some out, some Primates have broken communion with TEC altogether, others recognize some level of “impairment.”
However, it seems arguably the worst error has been to put trust into the very Communion structures we are trying to maintain and support. It seems we are now faced with a Catch 22- the Covenant will not work (in the sense of strengthening unity and communion) in the present Standing Committee structure, and the Standing Committee structure cannot be changed other than by the Standing Committee. Nor can the Covenant be amended to use another structure without the consent and cooperation of the Standing Committee. Clearly, the Covenant did not envision its signers being governed by the non-signers, but that will be the case for the next decade, by all appearances. Everyone recognizes the problem. Many, ACI included, indicate that something must be done to fix it. To date, no one has put forward a mechanism for repair. The idea that if enough provinces sign they will somehow come to control the process strains credulity when all the bishops who allow (in some cases, perform) same sex blessings were invited to Lambeth, and even after the hundreds or thousands of violations of moratorium on same sex blessings, continue in full communion with Canterbury. Bishop Mouneer has made very clear who is in control of the process.
What it comes down to is that neither the Covenant itself or the adoption process addresses the fundamental issue: the Churches of the Anglican Communion are not in communion. And no Covenant is possible between Churches which are not in communion. TEC can sink the Covenant tomorrow. All they need to do is sign it to insure that the GS will not.
Thank you to all who have contributed to this very helpful thread. Substantive issues, addressed with concern for clarification and explanation of reasoning behind various views.
I am especially intrigued by Dr Radner’s account regarding the ‘prudential’ realities in respect to the Primates Meetings. Good theology and ecclesiology does indeed underscore the importance of this ‘Instrument of Unity’, so it is a pity if it is in effect set aside when profound and weighty matters of faith and order are in view (especially when informed by appropriately scrutinised and debated Commissions/reports etc).
Like Dr Noll, I think this move away from the PM has occurred with little consultation or reflection. It seems to me-from a distance to be sure-that two different factors have been conflated: the notion of the PM as a significant Instrument of Unity (in relation to the Lambeth Conference and reflecting our commitment to episcopal oversight), and the [b]the way they have been conducted[/b]. Much of the frustration and the resultant tensions (if reports are to be believed) can be attributed to leaving such problematic issues accompanied by understandable passion to the tail-end of working business, with little time allocated, and pre-empted by ill-considered reports and evaluations that clearly did not sit well with the majority of Primates.
Surely one way forward is to consider how the PM’s are conducted, with greater input from the Primates themselves in preparing more constructive approaches to contentious issues. To dismiss the importance of PM’s on the basis of poorly convened experiences should lead to a re-thinking in terms of how they are approached, rather than giving up on them.
More to the point, I suspect recent Primates Meetings have revealed more candidly and clearly the irreconcilable differences [b]that are the reality of our ‘Communion'[/b] and the impasse we find ourselves within. The ‘prudential’ approaches of by-passing the Primates (or at least reducing their input to a more ‘manageable’ representation – and now seriously skewed), appear to me a tactical move to contrive an outcome with the appearance of consultation and consensus when in reality neither exists.
If we are committed to episcopal oversight, then lets have one of the key Instruments of Unity – the gathering of the Primates, in consultation with their House of Bishops and Provincial processes – come to agreement and being of one mind and resolve (one way or the other) on 1) the notion of a covenanted communion, and 2) an agreeable form.
If the Primates cannot agree on such a major initiative in bringing order to our Communion (and the mutual accountability it entails), then I believe the Covenant exercise is doomed.
Thanks to all for these helpful posts.
Dr. Seitz gets the gold star for eloquence:
“One tragedy in all this is the vilifying of +Mouneer by Naughton and others—one effort at explanation exonerated +Mouneer by saying he should know better than let others (ACI) put words in his mouth, though how that is meant as ameliorating is a mystery known only to the revisionist mind”.
I imagine there are lots of mysteries known only to revisionist minds.
“However, it seems arguably the worst error has been to put trust into the very Communion structures we are trying to maintain and support”.
This is precisely true. And why are the primates themselves, in the face of being marginalized and double-dealt, so quiet? BTW, thanks and blessings also to the courageous +Mouneer for actually calling it what it is.
“TEC can sink the Covenant tomorrow. All they need to do is sign it to insure that the GS will not”.
Most likely this was the goal all along…and why not sign it, if, with regards to anything looking like discipline, the fox is in charge of the henhouse?
None of us can surmount this sort of corruption at the top, unless we can cope with a “walking away”-type solution.
If the Pope(or anyone else with clout) ever conveys to HM QEII that she would be well-served by another Archbishop of Canterbury rather than the incumbent, it will be interesting to see whether or not she has that brand of guts.
I hope she does, or she can sit and watch her Church devolve or implode.
My 3 year old and 5 year old enjoy wrestling with me. They enjoy it the most when the fight seems fair, and when they’ve appeared to have the upper hand for most of the ‘match.’ To their chagrin, I somehow always seem to be able to avoid an 8 count.
One of my son’s friends who is over at the house from time to time doesn’t like to wrestle, but he does enjoy watching and ‘coaching’ my son. After a round, my son will head back to his corner and his friend will say, “Wow, you almost had him that time. Try this next…â€
My wife watches with an amused smile on her face.
Akinola, then Orombi, and now Anis have all wrestled with Lambeth and come to the conclusion that although the western powers-that-be put on a good show that looks fair, the fact of the matter is that Lambeth has more than enough power to achieve its ends. The key to the game for Lambeth is to make it look like an even struggle, and then use just enough power, applied at just the right time, to avoid an 8 count. Lambeth’s goal isn’t to ‘win,’ the goal is to keep people coming back and engaging.
First Akinola came to the conclusion that the game was rigged. Then Orombi. Now Anis. To their credit they entered the struggle in good faith, and got out when they realized that Lambeth, the ACO, and their liberal allies were not playing fair.
Anis has been the latest Primate to catalog the establishment’s duplicity, and yet Dr. Radner continues to miss the point, and blame the Orombis and Akinolas: “Wow, we almost had them that time (at that ACC meeting, JSC meeting, etc.) If only Orombi had been there…â€
Yes, Dr. Radner if Orombi had been there then Lambeth might have had to use both arms….
Somewhere Canon Kearon looks on with an amused smile on his face.
Further to my #23 – I also wonder whether something of the perceived difficulty with the Primates Mtgs is because this is the arena in which the AoC is most accountable for his decisions and actions (eg. invitations to Lambeth; follow through on previous PM’s etc). In a real sense, this is a context where Cantaur meets his match -in a [i]primus inter pares[/i] sense.
There was much talk in advance of the previous PM about the potential to question ++Rowan in this regard, and while much of such talk can sound like the proverbial ‘sabre rattling’, there is a dimension in which this is quite appropriate. Indeed, it would be a sign of healthy and confident leadership to seek such engagement and submit to a degree of accountability amongst peers, but given the political context and tensions of such meetings this is undoubtedly too much to expect.
I cannot but wonder, however, how much this setting aside of the PM to a minimal role is a reflection of a loss of respect and trust in the present incumbent’s capacity at precisely this [i]primus inter pares[/i] level of communion – and likewise with those choosing to stay away from the Lambeth Conference? We too easily underestimate the cost to the Communion on the significant disenchantment with the present incumbent’s leadership and choosing to adopt more bureaucratically managed processes (and indeed executive action without accountability), at the cost of relationships grounded in trust and respect.
Put bluntly, a number of the AoC’s ill-considered decisions and actions (alluded to by Dr Radner) have come at a significant cost to the Communion at multiple levels, and must be considered in relation to the consideration of the Covenant, for they are realities that significantly shape the present context. A growing loss of confidence in someone whom has been shown considerable goodwill (by the likes of ++Mouneer for example) does not make for a climate in which a voluntary mutual submission and accountability is so necessary.
I don’t dispute many of the problematic dynamics raised above, especially by tjmcmahon and Tim Harris. But I will dispute the seeming assumption that the Primates’ Meeting was somehow ALREADY in place as a supervisory council for the Communion, and that somehow it was then sidelined. And thus, that the solution is simply to “put it back where it was”. More liberal sectors of the Communion are correct when they point out that the PM is relatively recent and that its engagement in the oversight of contested matters of faith and practice even more recent. It was, to be sure, requested to take on this role buy Lambeth. But how it did so was therefore experimental and only engaged, frankly, in the midst of one of the most major crises Anglicanism has ever suffered (one, though; not the only or event he worst).
In itself that is not a problem; but there is no track record here, and the inability of the Primates to conduct their common life and direction convincingly when this crisis was thrust upon them was not a great persuasive witness. Tim is right, however, that this could just as easily be addressed through reordering of matters. However, the Primates Meeting itself has never existed in a vacuum, unrelated to the actual actions of the Primates who make it up. Obviously, TEC’s membership behavior has drawn deep disdain from many — seeming to agree to things, but then activey doing the opposite, for instance; but conservatives must (in my mind) admit that conservative Primates have, individually, not always acted in ways that persuade either, including among their own flock. So-called “boundary crossing” by Rwanda and SE Asia was never addressed back in 2000, and from that point the PM immediately looked not only weak, but dishonest in at least certain respects. This has bred mistrust that has grown deeper with every passing year.
And, obviously, such mistrust among and within the Instruments and the Communion’s churches makes the prospect of a Covenant both desirable but also practically very difficult to achieve. Personally, I don’t care HOW its implementation moves forward — whether it is through the Primates’ Meeting, or Canterbury, or the ACC or some other group — to me this is, in itself, unimportant. What is important is that those who are desirous and willing to live together in a certain way as Anglicans according to our vocation in faith, do so — right now! But however it is done, it must be done in a way that can be respected and garner trust, and that is consistent with the Covenant’s own substance and purpose, otherwise covenanted life in this sense is only a posturing, a kind of statement without evangelical meaning and force.
The ACC has thus far proven incapable of this honest implementation; Canterbury seems to be waiting, I am not sure for what; Lambeth was sidelined by both conservatives and liberal organizers; the Primates’ Meeting may well be useful once again, but it will have to change radically its way of doing business — and frankly, I cannot see how starting that process off by not inviting certain people and unilaterally declaring itself in charge of the Covenant is going to constitute putting its best foot forward. Remember, the purpose is not to disengage from communion with TEC! That has already been done by many! The purpose is to order a form of life that is faithful in Christ and healing in common bonds, as well as strengthening in mission, for those willing to submit to it. I continue to believe that covenanting churches moving ahead and, through their own provisional representative council, working with the Instruments for a stable transitional process of oversight, is the best way, and I have not heard alternatives yet that lead me to think otherwise.
Stepping back for the moment from the Covenant issue as such, it seems to me that the basic problem facing the Anglican Communion is that the logic of being a “Communion” is that all members are in communion with each other. When some are not — as is currently the case — this poses an intolerable stress on the very idea of being a Communion.
As I see it, there are three possible resolutions to this basic problem:
1) The members who are not in communion with each other could be reconciled and restore communion. This could happen by one faction convincing the other to its view, or by all factions agreeing that the disputed matters are not such as to impair communion.
2) The Communion could divide, whether by splitting into two or more “sub-Communions” or by some members departing (or being ejected) into independent status.
3) The Communion could transform into another kind of thing which is not dependent on all its members being in communion with each other.
I think most of us would agree that (1) is the most desirable outcome, but at this point seems… oh, let’s go with “unlikely,” in the sense of “unlikely” that means “the same chance as that of a snowball in Hell winning the lottery while being struck by lightning.”
Both the Covenant-promoters and “communion liberals” within TEC, as I see it, see (2) as inevitable and are concerned to manage it in such a way as to maximize the part of the Communion that splits on “their” side. TEC ComLibs, assuming that a split must happen, would prefer to see the strongly reasserting GS provinces on one side, with the Western, moderate GS, and all other provinces on the other. The Covenant people would prefer to see TEC and ACoC, and perhaps one or two others, on one side and everyone else on the other.
Speaking for myself, if I were forced to choose between the two options in the previous paragraph, I would hope for the TEC ComLib desired outcome. However, I think that insufficient attention has been given to the possibility (3); that of the Communion becoming something other than a Communion. Obviously this is less desirable than everyone remaining part of the Communion (option (1)) but, as I said, that option fell off the table long ago. Rather than various factions casting anathemas at each other, or contrariwise trying to pretend to a level of agreement that does not in fact exist, perhaps it would be simpler if we acknowledged that while we are not all in communion with each other, nor are likely to be again in the foreseeable future, we are still tied together by common heritage and history and that in itself is enough reason to sit down and talk from time to time.
I think that this is more or less what Rowan Williams envisions the “second track” of his two-track Communion idea as being like. But where he sees a covenanted “core” Communion track and a looser non-covenanted “federated” track, I’m thinking more of a federation that contains within it multiple, perhaps overlapping, tighter constituencies.
TEC’s opposition to the recognition of ACNA by the C of E comes, I believe, from people who see (2) as the inevitable outcome. One of the things about ACNA is that it is explicitly not in communion with TEC — if it were, there would be little reason for the two to exist as separate entities. As long as we are talking about being in a Communion, then in the long run (note that qualifier) TEC and ACNA cannot be in the same group because they cannot be in communion with each other. Since TEC ComLibs would prefer to keep the C of E in the divorce, they view the potential recognition of ACNA with alarm.
However, if we shift to thinking of some kind of looser model, an “Anglican Federation,” then there’s really no reason that TEC and ACNA could not both be part of it. Relations between the two would presumably range somewhere between “cool” to “antagonistic” for the foreseeable future — too much bad blood exists now for it to be otherwise — but both would naturally form closer ties with other members of the Federation and hopefully find fruitful results therefrom. In the meantime, the larger Federation would benefit from being in, if not communion, at least fellowship — or if not even that, then at least conversation — with each other.
#27 Dr Radner – thanks for explaining further.
I do wonder though about the Primates’ meeting. Each province is led by a Primate, often elected by a majority or with consensus by that church. An exception is the Archbishop of Canterbury, but he is appointed from names, now perhaps a name put forward by the Church of England.
I am not sure it is fair to assume that that a Primate does not carry the confidence of his or her Province, that the church has not discussed its policy and attitude among its bishops and its synods, and that that Primate does not faithfully convey the concerns and authority of that Province when he or she speaks or votes.
Now if there are tensions and disagreements aired at these meetings, perhaps they represent truly the disagreements not just between individual Primates, but also between their churches. Brushing this under the carpet by trying to find another and possibly less representative body seems to me to be perhaps hasty.
You may not like decisions taken by South East Asia or Rwanda, but there is no reason to suppose that the two Primates did not represent the decisions of their respective churches’ bishops and synods on these matters.
Is the ACC, consisting of a mixture of elected/selected and co-opted individuals or its supposed executive arm, the ACO or the standing committee, JSC or whatever it calls itself now more representative and are its proceedings more credible? It is worth remembering that the ACC in its constitution still regards its role as to be consulted and to advise, not to rule. Although arguably it is more representative of Communion interests than endless bodies and committees wholly appointed and whose agenda is determined by Lambeth Palace?
Frankly I see no prospect of any body being more representative of the churches who make up the Communion than those churches, represented by their Primates. After all, it is only because he holds the confidence of his church that the Archbishop of Canterbury holds his office as a Primate. Why should we be any less respectful of the other Primates’ ability to represent their churches?
Further, when it comes to implementing policy agreed upon, it is going to have to be taken back to the member churches, and who better to do so than their Primates? After all that is what Dr Williams is going to do at our Synod this coming week when he briefs the church on developments.
Sauce for the goose, and all that?
Further, it may be that the cause of the falling of of engagement by certain Primates and Provinces has been caused by the sidelining of the Primates, and a consequent feeling by their churches that they too have been brushed aside. There has been an absense of collegiality and consultation, can it be that this is at the root of the problems the Instruments have been having?
One can only bring up again the plea in this regard by the Global South Primates’ Steering Committee:
[blockquote]In view of the global nature of the Communion, matters of faith and order would inevitably have serious ramifications for the continuing well-being and coherence of the Communion as a whole, and not only for Provinces of the British Isles and The Episcopal Church in the USA. 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/%5B/blockquote%5D
Pageantmaster @ #29 and #30 – my thoughts exactly. The urging of the GSP Steering Committee is especially significant, and following the CoE GS, I think the ball will largely be in their court. Just what sort of direction and resolve emerges, particularly in view of ++Mouneer’s SCoAC decision, may well prove to be of historic moment in the shape of the ‘Communion’ relationships and approach to the type of options helpfully summarised by Ross @#28.
[offtopic – but let me pass on my appreciation for your comments here and at SF, which I consistently find helpful, especially in regard to matters in the CoE. Will be very interested in your thoughts on the GS, when you have time. Grace and peace]
I’m not lobbying for the PM to have more power than any other Instrument; I merely wondered why it/they is/are so quiet.
It’s not the only issue, but it is a large issue, and requires definition: Are gay blessings or “marriage”, or the ordination/consecration of practicing homosexuals an acceptable(to the entire Communion) expression of Anglicanism or not?
And, if not, what becomes of provinces that conduct either or both?
RE: “However, if we shift to thinking of some kind of looser model, an “Anglican Federation,†then there’s really no reason that TEC and ACNA could not both be part of it. Relations between the two would presumably range somewhere between “cool†to “antagonistic†for the foreseeable future—too much bad blood exists now for it to be otherwise—but both would naturally form closer ties with other members of the Federation and hopefully find fruitful results therefrom. In the meantime, the larger Federation would benefit from being in, if not communion, at least fellowship—or if not even that, then at least conversation—with each other.”
Hi Ross, I’ve enjoyed some of your comments recently.
So please accept my question as not-meaning-to-be-mean — but who would want to be a part of such a Federation?
Of course the ComLibs and the FoamingLibs would like it — after all, that’s essentially what they consider themselves a part of anyway and are working as much to create as possible — a loosely connected amalgm of Anglicanish entities with some fundamentalist primitivist provinces thrown in, where TECusa can do as it pleases but still maintain some “connections” and you know . . . go to Lambeth and consider themselves anglophiles only in a really cool lib way, of course.
But I don’t know of any conservatives who want that. They would see no point. I don’t want “fellowship” or “conversation” with the libs — other than the kind of pleasant conversation I have with man-on-the-street libs anyway. But I don’t need to be in a church to do that.
In my own TEC diocese, what that would essentially mean is that ultimately all but the most uninformed conservatives [and they’d *get* informed eventually, as I’ve found] would end up leaving, not seeing any reason to be a part of such a structure as Foaming TEC loosely connected in some Anglicanish Federation.
It would ultimately — on a Communion wide basis — mean that Option 2 would come about anyway.
I’m not so sure the ComLibs and FoamingLibs would be keen on an ‘Anglican Federation’ if it was formalised in any way – it would potentially open the door to ACNA, and they seem hellbent on maintaining enough of an official Anglican club for the clear exclusion (preferably all doors slammed shut in their face) of those they regard as illegitimate Anglican wannabees – hence the concern over the CoE GS motion. De facto federation maybe, but anything too loose and they lose the claim to be the rightful and sole Anglican incumbents in North America.
On the other hand, Dioceses such as Sydney already consider the AC a federation and operate on that basis, so I suspect option 3 (of Ross’s options) would sit pretty comfortably with them – they would just network and identify fellowship as it suits them.
[follow on from the above]… the Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia essentially enshrines a federation model (as does the Australian political landscape). The conservatives have lived within that for half a century, and it enables them to coexist to a degree with women priests and more recently women bishops (I have no problem with either, for the record).
Similarly, I get the impression Tikanga Maori and Tikanga Pacifika are strongly opposed to the concept of a covenant (for a range of reasons, including cultural), and even the conservatives within those Tikanga would prefer a federation model which is closer to their local Anglican mode of relationship. The General Synod of the Anglican Church of Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia meets in May, so that will give some indication of how desired modes of Communion are considered in my own context, but I don’t rate the Covenant a likely consideration, unless the likes of +Victoria Matthews can exert some influence (and I have no particular knowledge of her stance).