There was an opportunity for members of the Committee to express their views and ask questions about the decision to remove or alter the status of members from one province serving on the Anglican Communion’s ecumenical dialogues and IASCUFO. The Archbishop of Canterbury and Secretary General Kenneth Kearon explained the rationale behind this decision. In particular the Committee was assured that the Archbishop had not acted unilaterally but with the support of the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion; that they had acted within their powers; and that the action had not been punitive in intention. Rather it had been taken””following the breaking of the agreed moratoria””in response to the needs of the Communion in respect to ecumenical dialogues and faith and order bodies. Committee members were told that other Provinces were under consideration.
Prayers for the standing committee can be found [url=http://anglicanprayer.wordpress.com/2010/07/24/scac-4/]here[/url], [url=http://anglicanprayer.wordpress.com/2010/07/24/scac-3/]here[/url], [url=http://anglicanprayer.wordpress.com/2010/07/24/scac-2/]here[/url], and [url=http://anglicanprayer.wordpress.com/2010/07/24/scac/]here[/url].
It seems to me that a schism in the Anglican Communion is inevitable, and I weep. I am not afraid, but I am sad. [blockquote]Luke 12:32
Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.
[/blockquote]
Well, let’s give credit to the Standing Committee for posting prompt notes on the meeting. That’s an improvement, to be sure.
Still, there is an oily feel to the report. In response to the passionate letters of Bp. Mouneer and Abp. Orombi, the SC “expresses regret that their voices would be missed…” I wonder if the Treasures of the Lambeth Palace Library include a copy of Foxe’s Book of Martyrs!
Secretary General of the Anglican Communion? Whoa! Now there’s a title! And they say the Anglican Communion has no Pope!
I’m confused – I thought the new Articles have only recently been made public. How can they have been approved in May 2009 let alone submitted to Provinces between 2005 and 2009?
The [url=http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/news.cfm/2009/5/12/ACNS4630]Resolutions of ACC-14[/url] never mention the word “Articles” and only use the word “Constitution” under the rubric “Terminology”:
Despite the lack of reference to this in the record of resolutions, I [url=http://www.americananglican.org/whither-the-standing-committee-of-the-anglican-communion]see[/url] that the delegates at ACC-14 were asked to approve the ACC change from an unincorporated charity to a limited company. Is this being counted as ratification of the new Articles/Constitution?
Ledgerdemain and central committee scenario – worked out so well for the USSR, et alia.
This meeting is underway, and the objectionable members (Shori, Douglas, Trisk) are participating as if nothing has happened? Kiss the ACC and the “Standing Committee” goodbye. They are now pointless.
Well – the Lambeth Conference has been made into a talking shop, the Primates’ decisions have been ignored without consequence and the ABC has said he’s lacks the authority to act. It looks as if the Standing Committee is where the power is. And it’s hugely influenced, if not controlled, by TEC.
Instruments of Disunity might be a better name for the way the central Anglican bodies are functioning.
Finally, given the Standing Committee looks to play a central role in the Covenant, what future for the Covenant?
One footnote to the publication of these notes from the first day. The new Articles 19.2-3 make it mandatory that minutes of the Standing Committee, the Council and all its committees be made public “as soon as practicable.†Art. 19.2 specifies that “the names of the members of the Standing Committee present at each meeting†also be published.
Granted these notes are not official minutes, but I wonder why the report omits to list the members present? Guess #1, Katherine Schori; Guess #2, Ian Douglas; Guess #3, pick your favorite liberal.
Here is another curiosity. Canon Rees “explained that the new Articles of Association had been drawn up between 2002 and 2005, before submission to the Provinces between 2005 and 2009…â€
Now why is it that the text of these Articles had to be kept secret during that period? Why did their text never appear in any documents of ACC-13 and 14? Did ACC members actually see the proposed text? Was it for fear that critics in the blogosphere might unduly interrupt its adoption by the Provinces?
Next question: Were the new Articles actually adopted by two-thirds of the Provincial synods? We have the Secretary General’s assurance that all is well in this regard. What I can say is that it is virtually certain that the Articles were [b]not[/b] adopted in their present form. I have seen an earlier draft of the Articles from 2008, which is not the same as the present one (though most of the changes are legal peccadilloes no doubt required by the UK law). One substantial change, however, between 2005 and the present was the creation of the new Standing Committee. The proposed amendments to make this change were passed at ACC-13 in 2005 to be circulated to the Provinces for comment and adoption. Canon Kearon announced at the Standing Committee in 2009 that some of these proposals (adding the five members of the Primates’ Standing Committee) had received the requisite approvals; he also announced in November 2008 that the other part of the proposal from ACC-13 to add ALL the Primates to the ACC “was not meeting with a favourable response.†So how could a Provincial synod know exactly what it was approving between 2005 and 2009 with regard to the Standing Committee?
I have one suspicion about how the two-thirds approval was achieved. The new Articles (7.2) allow that changes to the official list of ACC members must be approved
[blockquote]with the assent of two-thirds of the Primates of the Anglican Communion (which shall be deemed to have been received if not withheld in writing within four months from the date of notification)…†[/blockquote]
We already know that the Standing Committee has been acting in a proleptic way in appointing Janet Trisk before the new Articles came into effect. Is it not possible that the two-thirds approval of the new Constitution/Articles was according to the dictum “silence implies consent�
Who put Widow Twanky in charge?
If you want to really balls something up give it to Williams, Kearon and Rees.
How has this sleight of hand with regard to Canon Janet Trisk of Souhern Africa been achieved?
Well, when the JSC [note!] met in December, they purported to elect Janet Trisk a clergywoman to replace Mrs Walaza, a laywoman, something which could not be done at that time as the then constitution and by-laws of the ACC which required replacements to come from the same order.
We were told that this was all OK, because the ACC was now operating under new Articles approved for its incorporation as a company limited by guarantee.
Now Articles cannot become effective before incorporation of a body in English law, so Janet Trisk HAD BEEN appointed in breach of the ACC constitution in December.
Now we have been told that the JSC has ‘confirmed’ her illegal appointment. What does that mean? Well probably one of the following:
A last minute panic led to Canon Rees incorporating the company limited by guarantee on 12th July with himself as one of the subscribers. At the JSC meeting the Articles were tabled [in the English sense] along with the other books of the company and the old trustees took over from the subscribers. They then either:
1. re-elected Janet Trisk under the new Articles, or
2. more likely from the wording, retrospectively decided to ratify their prior illegal appointment. They probably decided to deal with Ian Douglas at the same time, possibly with the consent of Trisk and Douglas who were already there and seated.
Of course one of the problems they now have is that the ACC is now apparently governed both by English Charity law, and by English Company law, one of the disadvantages the Charity Commission themselves note. There were other alternatives, but so desperate were Williams, Kearon and Rees to get Douglas and Trisk on board and pre-empt anything the Primates might do, that they drove this through. They better have got the details right!
So is the Charity known as the ACC now governed by the Articles? Well a company of that name has certainly been incorporated. According to the Charity Commission website the ACC is an unincorporated body governed under its original constitution by the trustees. Whether what the JSC has purported to do crosses the t’s and dots the i’s must be doubtful.
What is the effect likely to be whether or not they managed the legalities properly and got things in place in time to ratify their illegal prior decision? Well, the concerns of the Global South articulated in their Singapore communique have been ignored, as usual. Two rampant revisionists, one who undermined ACC-14 and the other who consecrated Glasspool have been seated. A breach of the rules has been retrospectively painted over and there is a question of whether the ACC is still operative as a charity in the form of the new company limited by guarantee.
The ACC has adopted Schori’s law – declare the illegal legal, and apply the legal principle of Ex Post Facto ratification or restrospective approval to cure defects. We have seen it before from the TEC handbook and know it as making up the rules as you go along.
Dr. Noll, have the minutes of the December meeting been published, or has anyone present published a personal account?
[url=http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/news.cfm/2009/12/18/ACNS4676]This[/url] is the sum total of “minutes†from the December 2009 meeting. But in December the current Articles were not in effect then, and the old Constitution did not require the Standing Committee to report any minutes.
Much as I approve the new article requiring the reporting of minutes, it is probably also significant that it is the Standing Committee that is expected to report, not the “plenary†ACC. And this because in the new order of things, the Standing Committee is the really important body of Communion governance; it is the politburo while the plenary ACC is the supreme Soviet.
I think persons who were present in December should publish personal accounts.