From here
I do not want to set this thread off on a rabbit trail, but I would like to draw attention to one of the Curmudgeon’s comments regarding whether Mr. Tisdale was authorized to act on behalf of TEC, which goes back to the question of whether David Booth Beers is authorized to act as “Chancellor of TEC.”
[blockquote]No members of the Church, either acting on their own, or acting collectively through their triennial assembly called “General Convention”, have ever hired David Booth Beers to represent the whole Church, or to hire others to do so. Not only that, but there is no official [i]position[/i] that has ever been created and called “Chancellor of the Episcopal Church (USA)”. Thus, by definition, there cannot lawfully be any person who is entitled to claim that he is “South Carolina counsel for The Episcopal Church.” At best, Mr. Tisdale is acting as South Carolina counsel for the [i]Presiding Bishop’s personal chancellor[/i].[/blockquote]
There seems to me to be a common thread between this assumption of power by DBB and that of the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion.
Recently, Bp. Mouneer Anis resigned from “The Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion.” It is clear that Bp. Mouneer is not making up this title and its acronym (SCAC) but is reflecting the view of that group from which he resigned. This is confirmed by the (unpublished) Minutes of that group immediately before and after ACC-14 in Jamaica. Meeting on 29 April-1 May, 2009, the minutes speak of “The Joint Standing Committee of The Primates & The Anglican Consultative Council”; meeting after ACC-14 on 12 May, the minutes refer to “The Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion.”
This change of terminology is obliquely justified in ACC Resolutaion 14.39a, which states that “the former Joint Standing Committee” is named as the “Standing Committee” under the new constitution.” Interestingly, the new [unpublished] ACC constitution does not directly name its Standing Committee as “The Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion,” although it does refer to the “Secretary General of the Anglican Communion,” rather than the Secretary General of the ACC.
My question, following the lines of Mr. Haley’s argument, is this: can anyone produce documentation that the Lambeth Conference or the Primates’ Meeting or even the ACC (apart from the oblique reference in 14.39 above) has ever established the position of “The Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion” ”“ or for that matter, the Joint Standing Committee that preceded it ”“ much less given its terms of reference?
For instance, we know that the ACC admits five Primates to its new Standing Committee, but by what resolution of the Primates’ Meeting was the number five chosen, and was that number chosen intentionally to give the Primates a minority voice when compared to the nine members of the ACC Standing Committee. And how was it decided that these five should represent five particular regions, quite unequal in numbers?
The relevance is this: under the “final” Covenant, the Provinces are being asked to hand over primary oversight of the Covenant to a body that has no constitutional foundation and whose composition is unclear, apart perhaps from the (as yet unpublished) Constitution of one of the Instruments of Communion.
Back to the Curmudgeon and South Carolina. I think the assumption of power in TEC and the assumption of power in the Anglican Communion are similar. This is not strange, considering it is people with the same mindset pulling the strings in the national and the Communion bureaucracies.
I think Dr. Noll sees clearly.
Brilliant!
[blockquote]And how was it decided that these five should represent five particular regions, quite unequal in numbers?[/blockquote]I think this is an extraordinarily important point. This has been my understanding of how the Primates were chosen for the standing committee, but it has been like finding a needle in a hay stack to find any bit of official documentation that states this.
Recently, Bp. Graham Kings was stating over on Fulcrum that it was a sure thing that the Primates would remove KJS from the standing committee at their next meeting (assuming there is a next meeting) if the Glasspool nomination went forward. I think it reasonable to assume that had any sort of vote been taken as a committee of the whole, she never would have been elected to the standing committee (joint or otherwise) in the first place, since as bishop of Nevada she had both consented to VGR and approved SSBs. And under the agreement then in force- that TEC should withdraw from the councils of the Communion, should not have been at the Primates meeting in the first place.
But in a regional election, it is easy enough to see that West Indies and Southern Cone would be outvoted by US, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, etc.
Following on from the abve, I had the opportunity to ask Abp. Orombi today about the five members of the Primates Standing Committee. He confirmed that the number [i]five[/i] was already in place when he became a Primate six years ago. Since the “Joint SC” came about later, clearly the number five was not originally chosen in relation to the ACC Standing Committee of nine.
Abp. Orombi also confirmed that the idea of “one Primate per continent” (sort of) was already in place six years ago. I would be willing to bet that it was a proposal by the ABC or secretariat, whether innocent or devious. I am pretty sure that the one primate per continent rule has no written documentation but it part of the oral tradition of the Primates’ Meeting.
Finally Abp. Orombi confirmed my suspicion that the Primates’ SC has met very seldom on its own. The only occurrence I know for sure was in October 2004, when they “received” the Windsor Report. Maybe a better way to put it is that the Primates naturally gather collegially and have had little need for an executive body. Since the Secretary General “serves” them in all administrative and financial matters, their SC has little reason, and probably no funds, to gather.
+Tengatenga was at the hierarchy conference in Dallas (he’s the new chair of ACC). We discussed the matter of five and also representation. I did not have the sense that either were fixed in stone and believe I recollect him saying that 8 was a proposed number, with better representation. Obviously a SC with Aspinall, Schori and Morgan is not representative of the Communion. The Primates themselves should adopt a larger and more representative composition for its own SC.
Thank you for those clarifications, Dr. Noll. And thank you also to the Archbishop. I wonder if I might bother you for one further clarification. Are the standing committee primates chosen from among those of a geographic area by vote of all the Primates (that is, did all the Primates vote on Abp. Orombi to be the representative Primate from Africa) or did the Primates vote by region (in which case, the African Primates would have gathered and elected Abp. Orombi from among their number)?
I have a recollection that +Schori was elected at Dar, by the Americas…after she had been seated with the Primates at the ABC’s insistence. One would have to do a search to find the information, probably on the blogs or ACC site for the reports at the time by +Aspinall.
Here we go:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/2268
Chris (#5), the new (secret) Articles of Association read as follows (sec. 2.3.1):
So the “Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion” is fixed in UK Charity law. If one does not like this arrangement or wants to change it, how on earth would one go about it?
The only option that I see is to restore the Primates to their due place in Communion governance and that means replacing the role of the Standing Committee with that of the Primates’ Meeting in the Covenant, sec. 4. The Covenant text is not fixed in any law or infallible authority of the Communion; it is merely commended by (surprise!) the SCAC and the ABC. I do not see why the Provinces, preferably collectively, should not adopt an amended version.
Thanks for revealing the secret Articles, Steve!
You will be aware of our own thoughts on the status of the soi-disant ‘Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion’ from what we have posted, so I won’t bore anyone with a repetition of that.
We have made our views known and have pressed our case, so we shall see.
The modest point of #5 I thought was clear. The Primates ought to press for better geographical/theological representation on their own SC and ought to press for a better proportion vis-a-vis the ACC in the committee–whatever it is to be called and however it shakes out–serving in relationship to the Covenant.
Thanks, Dr. Noll, for these incisive observations. Right on and timely.
I’ll just register again here my frequently made point that the current Instruments of the AC are hopelessly compromised and RADICAL, revolutionary change is needed, not merely gradual, incremental, evolutionary change. Thus, e.g., the ACC should be totally overhauled to make it TRULY representative, with the various provinces being allotted representation on the basis of actual size (ASA), not on merely nominal membership figures. If representation in the ACC were determined on the basis of size, as in the US House of Repressentatives instead of the US Senate, then the Global South would be left totally in the driver’s seat. Of course, that would create some new problems of its own, but at least they’d be vastly different problems, and maintaining the orthodoxy of Anglicanism wouldn’t be one of them.
Of course, the liberal western provinces would never willingly agree to this, especially the smallest ones, like Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. But miniscule Global South provinces like Korea or Japan might easily balk too. So a bicameral legistlature might well be necessary.
Likewise, something like an international Anglican Supreme Court is now necessary that can render binding decisions on the constitutionality of provincial actions, with plainly unbiblical actions such as those of TEC or the ACoC being declared null and void, and with the power to make those decisions stick. As I never tire of repeating (though some T19 readers may well be tired of reading), Anglicanism is in no realistic danger of falling into the trap of papal style tyranny, but it’s already fallen into the opposite trap of Protestant anarchy (ala Judges 21:25).
More importantly, it’s essential that Anglicanism be reconstituted on a confessional basis, instead of on the basis of mere polity arrangements. GAFCON with its Jerusalem Declaration was an essential step in the right direction there. Whereas the Covenant utterly fails in that regard.
I’m well aware that many fine, orthodox leaders, such as Dr. Seitz above, would regard that as utter idealistic nonsense, and dangerous nonsense at that. But that doesn’t faze me in the least.
David Handy+
Fervently anti-Antidogmatism
David, just speak for yourself please. Thank you.
PS, of course, I’m well aware that the liberal western provinces of the AC would never willingly agree to a vastly diminished voice and vote in a radically restructured ACC, or to an Anglican Supreme Court that could clip the wings of the total, unlimited autonomy that they are so determined to uphold. Well, so what??
That’s been the essentail problem with the whole Windsor/Covenant approach from the start. Hoping to find a solution that would gain maximum consensus within the AC is a vain delusion. It’s like asking a rebellious teenager to agree to a household plan for their voluntary discipline, and giving them veto power over its implementation. Or like asking an alcoholic or philandeering husband to agree to a plan that subjects them to disciplline when they are still deep in the throes of addiction, and not proceeding without their consent.
Trying to solve a problem like this by consensual means is sheer folly. Discipline must be IMPOSED. And in the Christian tradition, we do that by excommunication and shunning those who refuse to submit to church discipline. That is what the giant provinces like Nigeria, Uganda, and Kenya have done, and rightly so. And it is what the rest of the AC should do as well.
David Handy+
Dr. Seitz (#12),
OK, I’m sorry. Mentioning names was probably gratuitous.
David Handy+
Why don’t the Primates call their own meeting? They don’t need the ABC. Let him go the way of Judas.
#15. The short answer is, a great many of the conservative Primates actually do not believe, as you do, that +Canterbury is Judas. Not +Mouneer, not +Chew, not +Kenya, +Burundi, +Tanzania, +W Africa, +Congo, +Central Africa, +Indian Ocean, etc. Probably not +Uganda or +Nigeria either. At issue is not name calling or blog ire, but effective Primatial resolve that moves the Primates Meeting into a more robust position. No reason that cannot transpire. We have a lot of new Primatial leaders, a new dynamic, and the changing landscape is an opportunity to revisit and revise. Tearing everything down or hoping for a collapse so that on the other side we will get something sexier may be an exciting idea, and maybe it might even be idea that would ‘work’ (whatever that means). The problem is reality: Br Michael and David Handy want something that the bulk of conservative Primates themselves do not want.
16, and your Covenant too.
Elves, that was rude. Please delete my 17.
Dr. Seitz,
“The short answer is, a great many of the conservative Primates actually do not believe, as you do, that +Canterbury is Judas.”
For the record, I think it would also be fair to say that the bulk of people in ACNA do not believe it either, certainly not among those I know. I suppose it would be fair to say that we do not agree with several of Archbishop Rowan’s actions or inactions, but we continue to keep him in our prayers both in the sense of formal intercessions in services and in our private prayers.
On of the things I have discovered in the last couple weeks, in conversations with my English friends, is that all too often, they see a comment like #15, and take that as an indication of the feeling of conservative Anglicans in the US, because they see it on T19 or StandFirm. And I suspect this is true in places beyond England.
[May we ask commenters to reflect on their comments before posting, particularly if belicose or repetitious and allow an interesting thread to continue – thanks – Elf]
#17. Doubtless you are right (I lived in the UK for ten years and so sense the logic of your comment). I was not commending the ABC because I believe we should pray for him (we do that, properly, in our Common Worship) and so model patience for its own sake. My response was more directed at the idea that the “New World” is seamless with the Commonwealth when it comes to Anglicanism. No one is/should be a ‘pawn’ to English Prelacy, but the fact is that in the history of Anglican Christianity, ECUSA has had one expression and ‘Commonwealth Anglicanism’ has had another. For ‘New World/US anglicanism’ to announce that ‘GS anglicanism’ is rejoicing in a ‘Canterbury Free anglicanism’ threatens to be another form of Americanism. American Anglicanism needs to understand where its complaints cannnot merge immediately with Commonwealth Anglicanism — lest it look like its liberal opposite.
The question that got lost in the latest comments is whether there has been a change in the balance of the authorities (the Instruments, if you will) in the Communion. It seems to me that Bp. Mouneer’s letter makes clear that he thinks there has been a departure from the “enhanced authority†of the Primates’ Meeting following the Dar meeting and that the recent development of the SCAC is an attempt to “de-enhance†the Primates and enhance the power of the central bureaucracy. It is hard not to see the ABC to be, at the least, consenting in this process.
The idea that the Primates need to address a present imbalance, or an evolution (‘SCAC’) that was not consistent with the Covenant’s construction, has not got lost. One sincerely hopes they will. The Covenant was not designed to create a central bureaucracy (though liberals worry this is so) but to give the Instruments balanced authority in respect of the Communion and a way to oversee accountability. The ‘SCAC’ — as we have argued — ought to be challenged in terms of its composition, its linkage to UK law, and its representation, from the Primates. One can hope the Primates Meeting faces into this challenge.
[blockquote]I think the assumption of power in TEC and the assumption of power in the Anglican Communion are similar. This is not strange, considering it is people with the same mindset pulling the strings in the national and the Communion bureaucracies.[/blockquote]
OK, so what? You and seitz have spent a good deal of ink explaining the problem as a structural imbalance. Yet you conclude that “…it is people with the same mindset pulling the strings in the national and Communion bureaucracies.” Do you honestly think those same people are going to reform the system and redress the imbalances? I assume you don’t see the problem as people thinking alike (same mindset) for the early Christians “..were with one accord”. These structures are imbalanced because they represent colonial Anglicanism and do not represent Anglicanism in the 21st century. The instruments of unity and the Covenant represent traditional power centers based on history and finances. They do not represent Anglicanism based on population centers and cultural perspectives. The people at the top no longer represent the mind of the communion.
Elves (#18),
I regret if my earlier comments seemed bellicose, repetitious, or otherwise inappropriate. I freely acknowledge that Dr. Seitz is quite correct (#16), “the bulk of conservative Primates” don’t want to adopt the same radical, revolutionary approach to the AC’s ills and travails that I do. So I’ll back off, and allow this indeed interesting thread to continue without undue detours.
David Handy+
[No reference to any particular commenter was made or intended, but we appreciate all commenters’ assistance with keeping this thread on track and thank you for backing us up NRA – Elf]
“The short answer is, a great many of the conservative Primates actually do not believe, as you do, that +Canterbury is Judas”.
I’d submit that possibly, what they “say” as opposed to what they “believe” may be two entirely different things, as is usually true in a polite, conflict-avoiding, codependent environment.
“One can hope the Primates Meeting faces into this challenge”.
They certainly could if a meeting was called by the one with authority to call it. But, if it was called, then said “one” might actually have to, again, deal with conflict and things like the KJS-elephant-in-the-middle-of-the-room, or SC, as the case may be.
“Likewise, something like an international Anglican Supreme Court is now necessary that can render binding decisions on the constitutionality of provincial actions, with plainly unbiblical actions such as those of TEC or the ACoC being declared null and void, and with the power to make those decisions stick”.
This probably looks too much like a Magisterium for the Anglican hierarchy to go for it. But this
“It seems to me that Bp. Mouneer’s letter makes clear that he thinks there has been a departure from the “enhanced authority†of the Primates’ Meeting following the Dar meeting and that the recent development of the SCAC is an attempt to “de-enhance†the Primates and enhance the power of the central bureaucracy. It is hard not to see the ABC to be, at the least, consenting in this process”
might illustrate a covert “enhancing the power of the central bureaucracy” and if that does not make it “papal”, then I don’t know what does; so much for selective Anglican RCphobia.
At least I have not seen the Holy Father act with anything other than Christian integrity.
Re: Anglican hierarchical machinations I cannot say the same.
#9 Dr Noll
I think anyone who put the new [secret] Memorandum and Articles into the public domain would be doing everybody a favor.
I don’t see how one can make any assessment of the Covenant with a view to approving it, without understanding what is going on with this committee which is so central to its operation.