In the past the Archbishop of Canterbury has acknowledged indirectly that he has this authority. When he wrote the Primates in December 2006 concerning the upcoming meeting in Dar es Salaam, Archbishop Williams advised them that: “I have decided not to withhold an invitation to Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori as the elected Primate of the Episcopal Church to attend the forthcoming meeting. I believe it is important that she be given a chance both to hear and to speak and to discuss face to face the problems we are confronting together.” He indicated in this letter that this was his decision based on open questions about TEC’s response to the Windsor Report. Those questions have now been conclusively answered by TEC, and a different decision is now required if the Communion is to survive.
Separately, when Ian Douglas was consecrated bishop he was disqualified from membership in the ACC (and its standing committee) since that would give TEC two bishops among its three members, which is not permitted under the ACC constitution. As The Church of England Newspaper reports, both TEC and Douglas take the position that he can be elected in June to the episcopal seat of the retiring Catharine Roskam (who continues to serve under ACC rules until just before the next meeting) and thereby remain on the ACC standing committee. But this result would violate ACC rules, and this position entails in any event the recognition that his current clerical seat has been relinquished by his consecration to the episcopacy. In other words, his seat on the ACC standing committee is already vacant, and he cannot resume that seat if he is elected to Roskam’s seat, which would not take effect until the next ACC meeting in any event under ACC rules (Resolution 4:28). Under the ACC bylaws (Article 7) the standing committee is now required to appoint a clerical member to fill the seat on the standing committee formerly held by Douglas.
Indeed, there is a precisely analogous situation in Canada to that of Douglas and TEC. Stephen Andrews, like Douglas, went to ACC-14 in Jamaica as a clergy member for his first meeting. After ACC-14, Andrews was consecrated bishop by the Anglican Church of Canada. Canada understands that Andrews ceased to be a member of the ACC upon his consecration and therefore that he has now been replaced by his clerical alternate. Indeed, Andrews was elected bishop before ACC-14, but his consecration delayed until after the meeting in Jamaica (we are told) precisely because Canada understood the ACC implications of his consecration. If TEC is permitted to circumvent the ACC rules to keep Douglas on the ACC and its standing committee, especially after the decision to disqualify Uganda’s chosen ACC representative at Jamaica, any remaining trust in the ACC will be lost forever.
Dear ones: whatever remaining trust there had been in the ACC was, indeed, lost forever a long time ago when they so overtly used political shenanigans to keep TEC on top. That is, among all the people who were willing to keep their eyes open and face reality.
Brilliant. Just brilliant.
Thanks to the ACI gang for this lucid, compelling analysis. It shows them at their best, dissecting clearly and convincingly the flaws in this NZ resolution and laying out an alternative way of trying to make the Covenant work.
I loved the pithy statement that exposed the basic erroneous assumption behind the resolution. Profs. Seitz, Turner, Radner, and Counselor McCall lampoon it simply and starkly:
[i]”If the ACC standing committee cannot legally do what (Covenant section) 4.2.8 requires, it cannot act as the committee defined by section 4. But that doesn’t make 4.2.8 inappropriate or unlawful, it merely disqualifies the ACC standing committee from serving as the section 4 committee.”[/i]
Absolutely right. Clear as can be.
I must admit that I was unaware that Dr. Tony Fitchett served on the ACC standing committee and that he was the chairman of that fateful, devious committee that sabotaged the Coveant back at the Jamaica meeting of the ACC last summer. The very fact that such a fierce opponent of the Covenant serves in such a key role is damning. But at least, he’s been forced out into the open, explicitly denouncing the Covenant crucial section 4 as “punitive, controlling, and (best of all) completely unAnglican.” Whew! There’s no attempt at concealment there. His strident opposition is out in the open for all the world to see.
Well done, ACI. This is the kind of stuff you guys do best.
But unfortunately, I remain extremely skeptical that the Covenant approach will ever work. Not least because it can so easily be sabotaged by treacherous scumbags like Tony Fitchett. The good news is that this kind of move reveals the sheer desperation of colonialist liberals like him who are clutching at straws to retain what power they still have in the AC’s international bodies. Their days are clearly numbered, and I rejoice in that.
This NZ General Synod resolution could be a blessing in disguise, if it forces the AC leadership to confront headon the crucial issue of what group is capable of exercising the all-important role of the committee charged with enforcing section 4 of the Covenant. If the NZ resolution makes it plain that the ACC standing committee is in fact incapable of doing that (legally, politically, or otherwise), it would actually be a major and absolutely necessary step forward. For, of course, the Singapore meeting of Global South leaders last month made it very clear, unmistakably clear in fact, that they don’t trust the ACC SC. And rightly so. They shouldn’t. It’s plainly a completely untrustworthy group.
Congratulations, ACI. Job well done. But if you smart guys really think the Covenant is going to solve the problems of the AC, I have a bridge in Florida I’d love to sell you.
David Handy+
Had the Standing Committee been consistent in Jamaica, they would have been forced to unseat the entire TEC delegation. After all, if a Ugandan delegate is unseated for “border crossing” how does one not unseat the former bishop of Nevada for authorizing gay blessings during her tenure as well as consenting to the consecration of VGR? Not to mention not being in communion with most Anglicans. And what kind of machinations were required to get Douglas elected, when he was not in communion with 1/2 the people in the room? Another vote by region? (not constitutional, but who cares?)
So, I think removing Douglas is already off the table- Kearon will, no doubt, invent some procedural excuse for disobeying the rules, and +Rowan won’t do anything about it. Tomorrow, at least one, if not two members of the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion will participate in the Glasspool consecration, and the Communion bureaucracy is clearly 100% behind them. +Rowan’s probable reaction will be limited to not appearing himself, and sending only a lesser representative of his office. I am sure TEC is offering plane fare to any Southern Hemisphere bishop they can get to attend, even if that is limited to Brazil and South Africa. And no doubt there will be sufficient attendance from the CoE to make it look official, even if +Rowan doesn’t send any bishops, one or two are likely to appear on their own.
Hope Conger’s CEN piece will also appear. The status of the ACC, the Standing Committee, the ACO is tied up with whatever happens in the light of Glasspool, given the pressure coming from the Singapore meeting and the question of the Communion’s viability as such. The covenant is tied up with that as well, and so the mechanisms for seeing to its proper deployment become almost more important that its content, given how things have played out since Jamaica.
Dr. Seitz,
Thanks to you and your colleagues for your hard work, and please do not take my number 3 as a criticism of that work. I am very pessimistic for the Communion, given the clear distortion of authority by the ACO and JSC, but very much appreciate your efforts to straighten it out.
Have had some info that the CEN piece is quite revealing on the question of Douglas’ seat on the ACC and JSC, but I don’t have a subscription. One hopes that Fr. Conger will publish the article on his bog soon.
oops, make that “on his blog soon”
#3 — didn’t take it that way, and, ‘we shall see.’
[b][6] tjmcmahon[/b],
Considering the British usage of the word “bog” it was probably a very politic thing that you speedily acknowledged and corrected your typographic error.
🙂
Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer
#5 (and 6)
I assumed that “bog” was just a “fridian” slip :).
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
I wait about a week after my CEN stories have been printed or posted before I put them up on my archive—if they are behind the pay per view wall/subscription wall. However, other sites have posted already the full text of the ACC Standing Committee article from the newspaper.
George Conger
The article can be found here:
http://diocny.blogspot.com/2010/05/row-looms-over-vacant-acc-seat.html
And here is what the officer responsible is planning to do:
[blockquote]On April 14, ACC secretary general Canon Kenneth Kearon told CEN Bishop Douglas would continue to serve on the standing committee.
“With respect to Prof Ian Douglas’ changed order of ministry, the issue of duration of membership of the Standing Committee was dealt with in Resolution 28 of ACC-4. This states that members hold their position until such time as their successors take their place, or they retire for any other reason,” he wrote.
However, conservative critics of the ACC note that clause 4d of its Constitution states that members lose their seat when they change status: “Bishops and other clerical members shall cease to be members on retirement from ecclesiastical office.”
Article 2f of the ACC bylaws also requires members of the Standing Committee to be members of the ACC. However, they are “subject to earlier termination in the event that such elected member shall for any reason cease to be a member of the Council”.
Asked to explain the contradiction of Resolution 4:28 and the section 2f of the ACC’s bylaws which requires those who lose their seats to give up their standing committee membership, Canon Kearon’s spokesman said the ACC secretary general would seek advice.[/blockquote]Canon Kearon now has a “spokesman.” One would have thought the secretary general would be the person that one would seek advice from in regards to the ACC bylaws, but apparently not….
I do not think relying on ACC Constitution clause 4d to disqualify Ian Douglas is a very strong argument. When it speaks of “retirement from ecclesiastical office,†clearly it means retirement as sitting bishop. By contrast, when ACC 4 Resolution 28 refers to “retirement for any other reason,†it is referring more loosely to leaving the ACC. So unless he “retires†by resigning, I think Ian Douglas has a case to stay, both on the ACC and Standing Committee, even if it temporarily upsets the Membership Schedule. Frankly, I do not see why Catherine Roskam does not voluntarily step down a couple months early and be replaced by Ian Douglas, but TEC is always ready to have its sacred polity trump everyone else’s.
A final note. In looking up the ACC Constitution online, I realized that it had been updated since December 2009. Some of this updating seems to be stylistic, e.g., changing the American “Bylaws†for British “Bye-laws.†Based on ACC 13 Resolution 4c and ACC 14 Resolution 38, it amends the Constitution sec. 7a to increase the membership of the Standing Committee from nine to fourteen. It has added section 2c to the Bye-laws, which stipulates that the Chairman of the Standing Committee break any tie votes. I can find no ACC Resolution adding this clause. My first thought was that this is added because the membership went from an odd number to an even number, but on second thought that doesn’t work.
What is interesting is that the ACO continues to update the “old†constitution, even as it speaks of Memorandum and Articles of Association of a new company (e.g., ACC 13, Resolution 3). The most benign interpretation of this is that the new Memorandum and Articles have not yet been approved by the UK Government. Of course, it hardly reasonable to suppose the Secretary General might simply clarify this matter.
I was a participant in the recent ACANZP General Synod, and can report that generally speaking it was a remarkably positive and gospel-focused occasion. We faced a number of challenging, culturally sensitive and painful internal issues that were handled constructively, and with a notable growing unity between Pakeha (western) and Maori Tikanga. There is a sense that we are moving from being three Tikanga churches existing largely independently with occasional joint meetings, to being one Church expressed through the three cultural streams (Tikanga).
I think it would also be fair to say that with the recent elections since last General Synod (Christchurch, Dunedin and Auckland), Tikanga Pakeha is more conservative and orthodox in its leadership, although that is likely to come under significant internal pressure in coming years. Issues of sexuality were not on the agenda, and the resultant capacity of the GS to sit down, share perspectives and find ways forward that honoured the gospel of Christ was heartening. There were no discussions or outcomes that troubled my conscience, and I came away with a sense that we had done much that would advance the work of the gospel (and some most heartening and palpable changes in outlook that followed our stopping for prayer at various key stages).
I did not speak to the covenant motion in plenary mode, but was able to share some of my Global South 2 South experiences in the caucus mode, especially with Maori and Pasifika clergy (caucusing can be either by ministry orders, or according to Tikanga, upon request). In the Pakeha caucus, I supported the motion on the grounds that we need clarity about section 4. I have other questions than those raised by Tony Fitchett about the ‘Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion’, and ended up voting for the motion on the grounds that I believe that this may well prove a blessing in disguise, in that other key questions will necessarily be raised as a consequence (and I cannot in good conscience support section 4 until the issue of oversight and administration is resolved).
And one last note: it is regrettable that we resort to terms such as ‘scumbags’ (#2), even when applied to people we may strongly disagree with. Tony Fitchett has his own story and will stand before the Lord one day, but I must say I was very moved to read a collection of poems reflecting his questions of faith following the untimely death of his son through an accident a number of years ago. Please refrain from unnecessary denigration that resorts to such caricature. I pray daily that in God’s grace I may have at least a shadow of the love for the people of this world as demonstrated by our Lord.
#12 Revds Borsch and Kimsey both stepped down as clergy reps to ACC when becoming Bishops. So too Stephen Andrew in Canada. Having two Bishop reps from one region is irregular. Roskam’s seat has not been vacated. I think this point is clear. Fulcrum has now published the essay so we can see what the UK-ACO response is, including former ACO members from a different era. George Conger’s essay will also be making the rounds.
#15 Prof Seitz
I have no doubt the ACI article will be read here.
Please also remember in your prayers the Church of England as its House of Bishops meets and its General Synod prepares to meet and we appear to be approaching acrimony and initiating the division of the church we have seen in TEC.
#15–be assured of our prayers, Pageantmaster.