Notes to editors:
Q. Practically, what does this letter mean for Provinces, national or regional churches who have broken any of the moratoria?
A. Representatives of those Provinces, national or regional churches whose decision-making bodies have gone against the agreed moratoria a) will be asked to step down from formal ecumenical dialogues such as those with Orthodox Churches or the Roman Catholic Church, and b) will no longer have any decision-making powers in the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order that handles questions of church doctrine and authority.
Q. What are the agreements that have been broken?
A. As far back as 2004, the Anglican Communion leadership agreed to three moratoria: 1) No authorisation of blessings services for same-sex unions; 2) No consecrations of bishops living in same-sex relationships; 3) No cross-border interventions (no bishop authorising any ministry within the diocese of another bishop without explicit permission). These have been affirmed repeatedly in subsequent years at the highest levels of the Communion.
Q. Is anyone being asked to leave the Communion?
A. No. By proposing these actions the Archbishop is working to safeguard the common life of the Communion. His proposals come after several churches broke the Communion’s agreed moratoria (their promises to the Communion). Nevertheless the churches concerned remain full members of the Anglican Communion.
Q. Why did the Archbishop decide to issue this letter now?
A. His comments are made at the season of Pentecost when Christians pray for a renewing of the Holy Spirit which is the Spirit of communion and of fellowship. The letter also comes shortly after the Episcopal Church broke one of the moratoria by appointing a bishop in a same-sex relationship.
Cross post:
Rowan says that violators should not be on some worthless committee for ecumenical relations…but it can stay on the “Standing Committee†and the ACC because they have constitutions that might preclude kicking out violators off.
Isn’t that swell that the secret constitution of the “Standing Committee†is coming into play? Why could the Anglican Communion ask the TEC to withdraw from the ACC in 2004 but not in 2010?
The loud chortling is coming from 815.
Cross post:
Simon Sarmiento identifies provinces who might be at risk of removal from the Anglican Communion Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order in relation to the authorisation of breach of moratoria on cross border interventions as:
Nigeria
Rwanda
Kenya
Southern Cone
It is a shame that Dr Williams continues with his games trying to divide the Global South against itself. It will probably backfire.
Meanwhile Mrs Schori will apparently be invited to the next Primates’ meeting and the TEC/ACoC representatives continue to sit on the Standing Committee and other Instruments including those involved with the implementation of the Covenant. She was right to claim that TEC has got away from it – she certainly has as far as Dr Williams is concerned.
As far as I am aware the Commission has a role in the adjudication of the Covenant and also in reform of the Instruments. It has been solely appointed by Rowan Williams.
Dr Williams has not taken note of the need stated by Fulcrum among others that in order for the Primates’ Meeting to go ahead that the representatives of TEC and ACoC should not be invited. He has apparently not taken any notice of the representations of the Global South and its Primates arising from Singapore. Dr Williams claims the Communion has no mechanism for taking decisions in such circumstances as the Glasspool consecration and yet feels apparently able to remove representatives of the majority of the Communion from this Rowan commissioned Commission.
As for ecumenical relations, the GAFCON provinces and ACNA have better ecumenical relations with the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches than the Church of England does at the moment and this will be unlikely to get any better as women bishops without alternative provision is steam-rollered through .
But I think what concerns me most is Dr Williams total failure to get to grips with the requirement set out by the Global South in their prior Pastoral Letter
[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.[/blockquote]
If you look at who is left on the Commission [see here] it is Rowan’s cronies and Canon Poon and a few others. I wonder how long Dr Williams can rely on SE Asia to stand alone against the broader interests of the Global South?
Based on this letter it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Instrument that needs real reform is Dr Williams.
I think this release contains a rather blatant falsehood. It says: “the Anglican Communion leadership agreed to three moratoria: … 3) No cross-border interventions (no bishop authorising any ministry within the diocese of another bishop without explicit permission).”
But that is not what the leadership agreed to, is it? Let’s look at what they agreed to:
Dromantine Communique:
[blockquote]15. In order to protect the integrity and legitimate needs of groups in serious theological dispute with their diocesan bishop, or dioceses in dispute with their Provinces, we recommend that the Archbishop of Canterbury appoint, as a matter of urgency, a panel of reference to supervise the adequacy of pastoral provisions made by any churches for such members in line with the recommendation in the Primates’ Statement of October 2003 (xii). Equally, during this period we commit ourselves neither to encourage nor to initiate cross-boundary interventions.[/blockquote]
Dar es Salaam:
The Primates made “Key Recommendations”, including a “Pastoral Council” and a “Pastoral Scheme”. Remember them?
[blockquote]􀂃 We recognise that there are individuals, congregations and clergy, who in the current situation, feel unable to accept the direct ministry of their bishop or of the Presiding Bishop, and some of whom have sought the oversight of other jurisdictions.
􀂃 We have received representations from a number of bishops of The Episcopal Church who have expressed a commitment to a number of principles set out in two recent letters2. We recognise that these bishops are taking those actions which they believe necessary to sustain full communion with the Anglican Communion.
􀂃 We acknowledge and welcome the initiative of the Presiding Bishop to consent to appoint a Primatial Vicar.
On this basis, the Primates recommend that structures for pastoral care be established in conjunction with the Pastoral Council, to enable such individuals, congregations and clergy to exercise their ministries and congregational life within The Episcopal Church, and that
ô€‚ƒ the Pastoral Council and the Presiding Bishop invite the bishops expressing a commitment to “the Camp Allen principlesâ€3, or as otherwise determined by the Pastoral Council, to participate in the pastoral scheme ;
􀂃 in consultation with the Council and with the consent of the Presiding Bishop, those bishops who are part of the scheme will nominate a Primatial Vicar, who shall be responsible to the Council;
􀂃 the Presiding Bishop in consultation with the Pastoral Council will delegate specific powers and duties to the Primatial Vicar.
2 Namely, a letter of 22nd September 2006 to the Archbishop of Canterbury and a further letter of 11th 2007 to the Primates setting out a number of commitments and proposals. These commitments and principles are colloquially known as “the Camp Allen principlesâ€. (see Appendix One)
3 As set out in Appendix One.
Once this scheme of pastoral care is recognised to be fully operational, the Primates undertake to end all interventions. Congregations or parishes in current arrangements will negotiate their place within the structures of pastoral oversight set out above.
We believe that such a scheme is robust enough to function and provide sufficient space for those who are unable to accept the direct ministry of their bishop or the Presiding Bishop to have a secure place within The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion until such time as the Covenant Process is complete. At that time, other provisions may become necessary.
Although there are particular difficulties associated with AMiA and CANA, the Pastoral Council should negotiate with them and the Primates currently ministering to them to find a place for them within these provisions. We believe that with goodwill this may be possible.[/blockquote]
So, no, the Anglican Communion leadership agreed that (1) adequate pastoral provisions would be made for the orthodox in North America, and [i]then[/i] interventions could cease, and (2) when that was not put in place, they made key recommendations to institute a scheme of pastoral care in goodwill negotiation with ACNA and AMiA, [i]after which[/i] interventions would end.
And that is before pointing out that, technically, there never was a violation because the orthodox primates did not initiate or encourage border-crossing, they merely responded to the pleas of the orthodox in North America.
Lambeth seems to wish to delete from the historical record that the church was obligated to provide adequate alternative oversight, and that only after that was established were inteventions supposed to end. Now, one may argue that ACNA and AMiA were never going to agree to anything, but that is not true. They would have been willing to agree to something that left them with the ability to remain in existence but separate if TEC proceeded to negate the adequacy of the oversight by deposing and refusing to replace orthodox clergy and bishops and the like, but we will never know; even trap-like oversight was not put on offer but in a couple of instances. Of course, there is no evidence that the Archbishop of Canterbury ever intended to honor the Primates’ instructions.
I am not sure what sort of game the Archbishop of Canterbury imagines he is playing by insulting the orthodox primates again in this manner. I suspect his letter will only result in TEC remaining essentially in control of the ACC and the JSC, while the orthodox primates, having little money to offer, are disinvited from other groups under a trumped-up charge of border-crossing. If so, I think that will just add to the current lack of communion, and the further development of separate communion structures by the global south.
It is a shame that Lambeth has opted for this, but the larger part of the church will move on.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think the Province of the Southern Cone is going to look kindly on ++Williams’ decision, and I think there’ll be repercussions…….and before the January 2011 meeting.
[3] Such patent mischaracterization at such high levels is disturbing, particularly given that it is so easy to disprove.
I agree with everyone’s negative take above (#1-5), although I will admit that this letter is actually more positive than I had dared to expect. Still, it’s really a mere slap on the wrist for the liberals. I mean, who in the world cares who sits on the ACSCUFO?? Sounds like a UFO convention to me, and probably should be taken equally seriously.
Pendennis88 (#3) is right about the ACNS misrepresenting what was agreed to, especially in Dar es Salaam. And he didn’t even mention how the primates there came up with a fourth moratorium besides the three in the Windsor Report, namely that extra moratorium on lawsuits. What ever happend to it? Oh yeah, it was deep-sixed by Cantaur unilaterally, just like the Dar es Salaam deadline that ++RW said was more like a guideline.
But as noted above on a related thread, what I find particularly disingenuous about the letter itself (apart from the minimizing ACNS spin on it) is how the ABoC suggests that the crucial role of the infamous (Joint) Standing Committee is not novel or problematic. Granted, the “ACSC” is not a new creation, but that’s just a smokescreen. Indeed, the whole problem is that the “Standing Committee of the AC” does have a past history, a very, very bad one that proves it to be totally untrustworthy. For ++RW to sweep that issue under the rug the way he does in this letter is to disregard the strong protest of the GS leaders in Singapore.
Note how the ACNS fails to clarify just who might be asked to step down from the UFO group. Even when it’s likely that the Director herself, Canada’s Canon Alyson Barnett-Cowan, would have to do so, since the ACoC is just as much in violation of the famous moratoria as TEC is, even if the Canadaians have revolted a little less flagrantly.
David Handy+
Oops, an embarrassing typo. I meant the ACNS, of course, not the ACNA. Sorry.
David Handy+
Thanks, David+! You had me wodering for a bit.
Speaking of “border crossing,” I fail to see how the founding of the ACNA could be construed as such, considering that no province of the Communion outside North America had anything to do with that founding. We did that ourselves, and therefore I think ++Williams is wrong by accusing our leaders of “border crossing.” It was no such thing. It was CREATION……not
border crossing.”
Amy port in a storm and any excuse for delay – Rowan, Dithering Cantuar.