The Anglican Communion Office has announced that two new members will serve on the Standing Committee beginning with the July 23-27 meeting in London: Bishop Paul Sarker, moderator of the Church of Bangladesh and bishop of Dhaka; and the Rev. Canon Janet Trisk, rector of the parish of St. David, Prestbury, in Pietermaritzburg, South Africa.
Trisk was elected at the last Standing Committee meeting to replace Nomfundo Walaza, also from South Africa, and Sarker is the elected alternate for Middle East President Bishop Mouneer Anis, who resigned his membership in February saying that his presence has “no value whatsoever” and that his voice is “like a useless cry in the wilderness.”
The July 2 release also confirmed that Archbishop Henry Orombi of Uganda and his elected alternate, Archbishop Justice Akrofi of West Africa, have resigned from the Standing Committee.
Forgive this lengthy piece, but I am trying to make sense of the ACNS and ENS articles. Here to the best of my knowledge is the membership list of the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion which changed its name (without telling anyone) at the ACC 14 meeting in Jamaica.
OK, what are we to conclude from a comparison of these lists? Let’s recall that the SC is composed of 5 Primates chosen by the Primates’ Meeting (with Abp. of Canterbury as ex officio member). There are supposed to be nine ACC members appointed/elected by the full ACC membership.
I’ll accept the ENS explanation of these replacements:
[blockquote]Trisk was elected at the last Standing Committee meeting to replace Nomfundo Walaza, also from South Africa, and Sarker is the elected alternate for Middle East President Bishop Mouneer Anis, who resigned his membership in February saying that his presence has “no value whatsoever” and that his voice is “like a useless cry in the wilderness.” [/blockquote]
The question remains: by what authority did the Standing Committee elect Canon Trisk in December and by what provision does Bp. Sarker automatically succeed Bp. Mouneer. I have no explanation for the latter. There is no provision I can find of in the published ACC Constitution or unpublished “Articles†about automatic succession by “alternates.†In fact, the published Constitution explicitly states:
[blockquote]“the Council [i.e. plenary ACC membership] shall appoint a Standing Committee†(sec. 7a) [/blockquote]
No provision is made for filling vacancies between ACC sessions. This may be an oversight, but there it is.
However, one can find an explanation for election of Canon Trisk in December in the unpublished Articles of Association [Bylaws]. Art 3.7.1 states:
[blockquote] “in the case of a casual vacancy occurring amongst the Trustee-Members (aka Standing Committee)… The remaining Trustee-Members shall have power to fill the vacancy by the appointment of a suitably qualified [ACC] Member…†[/blockquote]
So it seems likely that Ms. Walaza resigned from the SC prior to the December 2009 Standing Committee meeting and the members present (remember Abps. Anis and Orombi were absent) elected Canon Trisk. I say this despite the fact that there are no published minutes to this effect.
I can only conclude that the Standing Committee is operating, when it so chooses, on the secret constitution and not the published one. It strikes me as likely that the SC will regularize the succession of Bp. Sarker by a vote, according to the new Art. 3.7.
Now we turn to the resignations of Abp. Orombi and Akrofi. Remember, we have no official knowledge as to how the Primates’ Meeting chooses its representatives, except that it seems likely they elect by region (Africa, Middle East/South Asia, Australasia, North and South America, Europe). We have no knowledge of what role a “deputy†or “alternate†might play on the Standing Committee, and there is no provision in either of the ACC constitutions for proxies. So let’s leave aside Abp. Akrofi as an anomaly.
As for the “resignation†of Abp. Orombi, the ACO release states as fact something that is not known from any public statements that I know of. The ENS spin on this is intentionally misleading. Make sense of this non-sequitur:
[blockquote]Orombi’s letter was ambiguous about whether or not he had resigned his membership on the Standing Committee. But the Rev. Canon Alison Barfoot, Orombi’s assistant for international relations, confirmed at the time that he was standing in support of Anis’ resignation but that he had not, in fact, resigned himself. [/blockquote]
Unless there is a private letter from Abp. Orombi to the ABC, the idea that he has resigned contradicts what he said explicitly in his April letter. I have no doubt that there are those on the Standing Committee and in the New York-London HQ who would wish him gone: Note the displeasure expressed at his absence in the unpublished Joint Standing Committee Minutes of April 30-May 1, 2009.
[blockquote]Canon Kearon explained that Archbishop Orombi had requested that his alternate Archbishop Justice Akrofi from the Province of West Africa be invited for November 2008 and April/May meetings; however, unfortunately Archbishop Akrofi was unable to attend on either occasion.
The Joint Standing Committee requested the Secretary General that this matter be raised at the next Primates’ Meeting [2011] to seek a better way of addressing the issue. They strongly felt it was not satisfactory that Archbishop Henry Orombi had never attended the Joint Standing Committee since elected to be a member of the Primates Standing Committee. This resulted in an inconsistent representation of the Primates at the Joint Standing Committee.
The Joint Standing Committee asked the Archbishop of Canterbury to write to Archbishop Orombi about his availability for the next Joint Standing Committee as soon as the date was confirmed. [/blockquote]
The ACO is careful to state that the Standing Committee can only “note†Orombi’s resignation and cannot replace him, as that is the constitutional prerogative of the Primates’ Standing Committee. However, there is a provision in the unpublished ACC Articles that might be employed against him. Article 3.6.5 reads:
[blockquote]A Trustee-Member’s term of office automatically terminates if he or she:
is absent without the permission of the Trustee-Members from two successive ordinary meetings and a majority of the Trustee-Members resolve that his or her office be vacated.†[/blockquote]
So according to its Articles, the Standing Committee can remove a Primate from office without his consent or the consent of the Primates’ Meeting.
Did the Standing Committee (Trustee-Members) vote to remove Abp. Orombi in December? Probably not. More likely, the ACO is indulging in some realized eschatology. Accepting his “resignation†and vacating his office may well be on the agenda in July. Does this remind you of the “abandonment†of ministry and “resignation of orders” by certain notorious priests and bishops in TEC, as declared ex cathedra by the powers that be?
Much of what I have said above is sleuth-work. I could be wrong at a number of points, as I am simply working from avaialable resources on the internet and a few special documents of my own. The Secretary General could clear this all up by an open statement of the truth. But transparency does not seem to be in vogue in high places of government in church or state. At least Canon Kearon did not enter office promising the most transparent regime in history.
Finally, I ask: How can we possibly place the final discipline of the Communion under the Covenant in the hands of a body whose s.o.p. is vague at best and devious and manipulative at worst?
Answer–by calling attention to every jot and tittle as you are doing, and bringing light onto the situation. So, keep at it. BTW, I agree about the dubious business of saying an ‘alternate’ is a default rep if someone doesn’t attend. That is lazy and without obvious bylaw.
As ACI has said, Douglas and Schori are moratoria-breakers (as was Ashey, literally speaking, and the cause of his Jamaica non-seating; so, what is good for him ought to be good for them); Douglas is playing musical chairs; Trisk cannot replace a lay woman; the Primates need to call for order in their own rep making, with more proportionality and greater Primate presence in the SC.
PS–are you saying that Orombi did not resign? ‘Sleuth work’ for the rest of us, as he has not attended any meetings and his alternate only 1. But you should know. What is the story?
Dr. Noll,
I believe Morgan was announced at Dar as the “representative for the British Isles and Europe” (++Rowan being the ex-officio chair. I would suggest that if he was left out in the pre-ACC minutes, that was an error).
But to the more important point you make- are we to understand that Archbishop Orombi has NOT resigned, but the ACO and TEC are declaring (in print, and now in several venues) that he has when in reality they have OUSTED him? Are you in a position to approach him personally and find out?
Once an imperialist, always an imperialist, eh? EcUSA/TEc continues its romp through the tulips.
Thank you for your research, Dr. Noll. Watching the events of the last few weeks is like watching a fish pulled out of water. The flip-flopping is positively acrobatic. I can understand that the pressure from the GS motivated Canterbury and Kearon to withdraw TEC reps from the ecumenical committee and to purportedly ask Schori to step down from the primates meeting. The anger of Executive Council against Kearon could be explained in that context.
However, these latest actions appear to be inclined to favor TEC. I can only speculate about the change of course.
I do think it important to pray blessings upon them all. I believe Jesus’ instruction to bless our enemies is a corollary to the spiritual law of reaping and sowing.
subscribe
#4 – You are correct. Morgan is listed. My error.
With regard to the second part of your question, I’ll try to get back on any more recent development.
As for the April letter, it is clear from [url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/25896] Alison Barfoot’s note[/url] that “Archbishop Henry supports Bishop Mouneer in resigning from the JSC, but Archbishop Henry has not himself resigned. ‘I stand with my brother Primate’ means he supports his decision.”
Curiouser and curiouser.
I do not see that, as of today, the new ACC company limited by guarantee discussed in previous ACC minutes has been incorporated in England and Wales [The current state of UK companies can be checked here]. There has been no registration of any change to the status of the Anglican Consultative Council with the Charity Commission. The current registration status of the Anglican Consultative Council may be seen here
In that event it is not open to the ACC or its standing committee to use the articles or bye-laws [“secret constitution”] provided for that proposed new company. The ACC continues to operate under its old legal constitution and the arrangements thereunder.
Looks to me as if the Standing Committee, and by implication the ACO are making it up as they go along, subject to any clarification or explanatation they wish to give. Just like Jamaica?
They are making a right old pigs ear of things.
btw I wouldn’t take what ENS write as necessarily having the imprimatur of the Instruments of Communion. We know that the ACO confirmed that Canon Kearon delivered a private letter to the Presiding Bishop at the consecration of Bishop Douglas. The ACO has confirmed this. According to David Booth BEERS the letter contained a request that the Presiding Bishop step down from the Primates Meeting AND the Standing Committee. Also according to David Booth BEERS the Presiding Bishop replied to the Archbishop saying that she will not. The information about this comes from a number of reports by TEC bishops at a meeting where BEERS made these comments. This is reported by the Church of England Newspaper here:
[blockquote]The June 2 public letter follows upon private communications between Bishop Jefferts Schori and Dr. Rowan Williams about her continuing role in the councils of the Anglican Communion.
The press officer to the Secretary General of the Anglican Consultative Council has confirmed to The Church of England Newspaper that Canon Kenneth Kearon hand delivered a letter from Dr. Williams to Bishop Jefferts Schori at the April 17 consecration ceremony of Bishop Ian Douglas of Connecticut.
The chancellor to the Presiding Bishop, David Booth Beers, told bishops attending the May 24 to 28 Living Our Vows bishops’ training programme at the Lake Logan Episcopal Center in North Carolina that in this letter Dr. Williams had asked the Presiding Bishop to consider absenting herself from meetings of the Anglican Communion’s Standing Committee and the Primates Meeting in light of the Episcopal Church’s violation of the moratoria on gay bishops and blessings, those present tell CEN.
Speaking to a group of bishops during an informal after dinner session, Mr. Beers stated the Presiding Bishop had rejected the Archbishop of Canterbury’s suggestion, observing that he had no authority to remove her from the Primates Standing Committee as she had been elected by the North and South American primates. She also objected to Dr. Williams’ claim to have the authority to ban her from the councils of the church.
One of the bishops at the evening encounter told CEN that speculation on the future structures of the Communion was also shared by Mr. Beers with the bishops. The Archbishop of Canterbury’s press office did not respond to requests for clarification on Mr. Beers’ comments, while a spokesman for the Presiding Bishop declined to comment on “speculation and conjecture.â€
The Presiding Bishop’s press officer Neva Rae Fox stated she was “not confirming the existence of a letter,†but “if there was a letter, then it was a private correspondence and I will not address anything that is private, because that is what it is – private.â€[/blockquote]
and here where there is some recent information from the ACC director of communications:
As far as I can see the reports of the private letter are accepted not only by the TEC bishops who heard BEERS’ remarks but also by politically involved TEC liberals. In addition these reports are given credence over here by for example Andrew Goddard here
Bishop Ian Douglas is debarred from the Standing Committee as set out by the ACI here
So there is clearly much going on behind the scenes. What ACNS are reporting does not add up, let alone ENS who are pumping the 815/BEERS line that TEC is represented on the Standing Committee by Schori and Douglas.
The Global South appear to have made their position quite clear. They will not participate with Schori and Douglas, and in any event it is inappropriate for them to be involved in the discussion of Faith and Order issues on the Standing Committee.
The interesting question is: what is the Archbishop of Canterbury up to? For his sake I hope he is not wobbling.
Put another way:
While you might have intended to transfer the ACC into a new company, you cannot use the articles/byelaws of that company [approved or not] until you have formed and registered it. The company does not exist, ergo you CANNOT use its articles/byelaws!
Mind you Kearon is not the brightest canon in the arsenal.
I am afraid I need to eat crow on one other matter in my post #1. The current published Constitution does contain a bye-law #7 on “Casual Vacancies on the Standing Committee.” It reads:
[blockquote]In the event of a casual vacancy occurring in the membership of the Standing Committee between Council meetings, the Standing Committee itself shall have the power to appoint a member of the Council of the same order as the representative who filled the vacant place…[/blockquote]
Having made this retractation, let me make two further observations.
First, it seems the SC replaced a lay woman (Ms. Walaza) with a clergy woman (Canon Trisk), and this is contrary to this same article.
Second, note that this article gives the SC power not only to deal with replacements from among the nine representatives of ACC but also from the Primates’ representation. So it seems that if Henry Orombi resigned or was removed, the SC could choose a successor without any recourse to the Primates as a body. Perhaps to fulfill righteousness, the SC would defer to the Primate members (i.e., Schori, Morgan and Aspinall) to choose a successor. They probably have another problem in this case: Akrofi may be the only Primate from Africa who is a member of the ACC (I do find a list of current ACC members readily available). This might be explain their reference to his “resigning” office.
In relation to the Rev Janet Trisk, it is worth remembering the pivotal role she took bringing forward AB Aspinall’s surprise ambush Resolution C which scuppered Part 4 of the Covenant at Jamaica after lunch, and without passing it through the resolutions committee on 8th May 2009, with not a little inept intervention by the ABC and various Lambeth Palace and ACO characters after the break for tea.
Videos here and transcript here. TEC were pleased, I expect, at the very least.
ACI analysed the fiasco here.
Now apparently she has been stuffed onto the Standing Committee by her chums.
Thank you everyone, especially Dr Noll and Pageantmaster, for bringing these things to public attention. The liberals love to work “in the dark” i.e. without any public scrutiny. It is imperative that their machinations are recorded on the internet, so that they can be accessed now and later by those who need to understand them.
If the open liberals and the “soft-talkers” like ABC continue to be recalcitrant in their ways (which seems likely) then it will just bring closer the day when orthodox primates decide to go their own way. You are playing an important role in this process, by exposing what the liberals are doing. Please keep it up.
Similarly, like MIchaelA, I thank Dr. Noll and Pageantmaster for their informative contributions here. But I’ll just add that before we jump to the conclusion that there is some kind of deliberate, underhanded deception and hanky panky going on here, I suspect that possibility remains that the explanation for all this confusion may be due, at least in part, to simple incompetence.
Than again, it may not. Where there’s smoke, there often is a fire. Since the liberals are outnumbered in the AC, they have to resort to desperate measures sometimes, as we saw all too clearly in Jamaica with that catastrophic ACC-14 meeting. But assuming incompetence rather than malevolence is the more charitable assumption. Time will tell. In the meantime, it’s nothing short of scandalous and unacceptable than Covenant saboteurs like the nefarious PB, or Canon Trisk, are allowed to serve on the “SCoAC.”
For in the end, the whole Windsor Process is all about trying to restore some basis for renewed trust within the polarized AC. And these sorts of crpytic announcements from the ACNS that leave so many vital questions unanswered do nothing to help rebuild the trust that’s been so severely damaged. Personally, I have no trust whatsoever in the ABoC or the ACO, or the Standing Committee.
David Handy+