Although we have written before of our concerns over the substance of the new Articles of Association of the Anglican Consultative Council, until now we have said little about our concerns over the procedures followed by the Anglican Communion Office in managing the development of these Articles. Others voiced complaints and we remained hopeful that the ACO would respond to these complaints with transparency and by providing satisfactory answers. This has not happened.
We are dismayed that the Communion Office is either unable or unwilling to provide even the most basic information to those who have raised serious concerns: what information was provided to the provinces; when was it provided; and what was their response. An amendment of the constitution is a significant action by an organization, especially one subject to legal duties. Maintaining this information is the most basic level of diligence required of an organization’s secretariat. The lack of transparency and public accountability throughout this process is one of the most regrettable episodes of Communion life in recent years.
Our concerns are only heightened by information suggesting that the ACO may not have followed advice given to it on the necessary procedures for adopting the new Articles. In November 2008 Robert Fordham of Australia, then a member of the ACC standing committee and the “convenor” of its “sub-committee on Constitutional Issues,” addressed the Joint Standing Committee on the status of the new constitution and “what steps have to be taken at this stage.” He advised that the revised draft of the Articles needed to be submitted to the provinces for ratification at that time. He noted that after ACC-13 had approved a draft of the new Articles in 2005 the ACC’s legal advisor, Canon John Rees, had held “extensive discussions” with the UK charity commission and had engaged in “considerable work” to produce a new draft for the February 2008 JSC. At that meeting in February 2008, the JSC then amended the draft further before approving it. Mr. Fordham then states:
The next and final step is to circulate the Constitution in this new format to each of the Member Provinces of the Communion to seek their ratification. For the new Constitution to come into effect support will be required from two-thirds of the 39 Provinces.
Where there existed a lack of trust, there is now reason for an even greater lack of trust.
An essential ingredient in covenental human relationships is trust. Without trust relationships become filled with suspicion and are adverserial.
If the revisionists on the ACC, and those standing behind the curtains ‘pulling money strings,’ think that they can get away with flinging down a gauntlet like this, they are mistaken.
Excuse me, please change,
“Without trust relationships become filled with suspicion and adverserial.”
to read
“Without trust relationships become filled with suspicion and are adverserial.
A considerable amount of kite flying here.
These lads have not been given the documents they asked for and they are miffed!
This left them with the ability to speculate and – my goodness – they have done this in some style. A little bit of factual detail from them might help – who are these Provinces saying they had no notification?
By the way, this 11 year process, did the watchful eye of the high powered ACI follow this whole process or are they just playing catch-up?
A couple observations:
[blockquote]The lack of transparency and public accountability throughout this process is one of the most regrettable episodes of Communion life in recent years.[/blockquote]
Really? Seriously?
Many of us T19 denizens could list dozens, if not hundreds, of more regrettable episodes of Communion life in recent years than the Covenant process, which has been co-opted by revisionists from the get go.
On that note, revisionist leaders will further tamper with the Covenant process to create some hybridized governance structure that provides them ALL decision making power in the AC, forcing an orthodox reaction. Then, the revisionists will proclaim that the orthodox split the AC. Just watch…
Note this comment [url=http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/004570.html]posted[/url] at Thinking Anglicans last Saturday:
[blockquote]That is not to say that there is no merit in their [ACI’s] concerns over the ACC and ACO – and we must find a way of raising these.
We have asked a Canon lawyer to examine the process of approvals for the new constitution – just to discover who has and who did not approve the subsequently amended articles – and how this approval in principle was evinced.
Posted by: Martin Reynolds on Saturday, 14 August 2010 at 10:32am BST [/blockquote]
All these lies and deceptions! And in a religious institution, no less! And yet we still cannot seem to puzzle out the identity of the mysterious man at the top who is doing all this!
#3: Thus far, the “Covenant process” has been “coopted” by no one (only one province, Mexico, has adopted it), although, to be sure, efforts have been made to coopt it. They are, fortunately, being resisted.
In any case, this is not about the “Covenant process”; it is about the Constitution of the Anglican Consultative Council and its purported revision, which affects lines of relationship and governance across the Communion. Involved in this process, in the past and currently, are representatives and leaders from around the Communion — from all theological perspectives — and all of us, in various ways, have had and continue to have a stake in what is going on.
At this point, ACI is not jumping to conclusions; we are pressing for clarifications in the midst of deeply troubling questions that have arisen. As for #2, Uganda and Southern Cone are among those who have said that they had no recollection or retrieved records of such notification. Perhaps their memory is faulty. But there has been no obvious trail that has been demonstrated regarding notification with the full list of proposed new Articles. No doubt we will hear more voices on the subject. But it would not be difficult for the ACO to provide a clear list of who was notified, when, with what materials, and who responded in what way and on what matters. Then these questions would not need to be asked. Given disturbing aspects of the new Articles’ content, it is not enough to accept “in principle” agreement to them on the basis of silence, without a stronger sense of what indeed the Provinces knew and what process they followed in communicating their views, and indeed whether any of this actually followed the regulated procedures of the ACC.
#4. Quite. So let’s do the proper research before descending to innuendo and smear.
Let us remember that there is no juridical/canonical authority above the provincial/national level in the Communion. So as long as they carry on the revisionist course and keep up the obfuscation, they won’t gain any credibility among the provinces, and all this playing around in these international bodies will have amounted in the end to utter vanity and further division. Kyrie eleison!
Why would anyone be dismayed? This behaviour is the norm.
Except in certain limited exceptions, for example where parties have so agreed or a binding provision provides for it, silence does not connote consent in English Law, and cannot be inferred. If the proper provisions for changing the constitution of the ACC, including the proper number of consents required to be given, have not been followed, then the ACC continues to operate under its old constitution.
Then the question is what is this new company? Maybe there are two bodies who are the Anglican Consultative Council, which is what the Charity Commission seem to think [see here and here!]
That would be an interesting outcome, but not surprising when it appears that Widow Twankey is in charge.
Btw I take the appearance of the Rev Reynolds on an ACI thread, to pooh pooh what they say, to be a sure indicator that they are spot on with their assessment. Well and thoroughly researched ACI.
Oh and by the way, for anyone interested, the argument that silence implies consent does not work any better in English Criminal Law than it does in Civil Law.
Why is Martin Reynolds so anxious to defend a ratification process that no one has much information about? Certainly the General Convention of The Episcopal Church did no ratifying. And why the adolescent use of language like ‘ACI lads’? Am I missing something? We have the former Dean of Berkeley Divinity School; a Professor of Historical Theology and author of several books on Anglicanism and Ecclesiology, one of the best students of George Lindbeck at Yale; an international lawyer; and good old ‘laddie Seitz’, working together with several others. Can Mr Reynolds explain his need to over- familiarize — if that’s what it is. I frankly don’t know anything about him, but I certainly wouldn’t call him ‘the blogging lad’ or equivalent.
BTW, I recall a note from Mr Reynolds, I believe on Stand Firm, in which he speaks of being involved in discussions about the new constitution. In what capacity was that? Was he a member of the ACC? I apologise but I simply do not know anything about his role, which he made sound on SF as insider work of some kind. Many thanks for the clarification.
Do you remember why NRA got so bitterly angry? He felt guilty afterwards, but I still say he was right on target. And it was THIS sort of hanky-panky that set him off. Larry
I found it. From Martin Reynolds:
“I was involved in wide ranging discussions on how the possible changes in the ACC might go forward following the Hong Kong ACC three years later – as I remember we took as our starting points the observations made in the Virginia Report on both the ACC and Primates Meeting. I recall there was much debate then on the wisdom of the Council empowering the Standing Committee to make the changeover to a limited company with such vague direction and no measure of oversight!
It’s not insignificant to note that it took 11 years to complete, and I can only imagine that few didn’t know it was on its way.
But the new power of the Standing Committee must surely be of concern to all, I doubt that the 1999 ACC had this in mind – though it could be clearly argued the authors of the Virginia Report did.”
I note that the new Articles do explicitly say at 7.2 that consent by Primates to any alteration to the Schedule [of members of the ACC] is deemed given if it is not withheld in writing within four months. The former Articles contain no such provision with respect to consenting to altering the Articles.
#14 [url=http://www.anglicancommunion.org/communion/acc/meetings/acc11/participants.cfm]Here[/url] is the list of participants at ACC-11 (1999 Dundee, Scotland) and [url=http://www.anglicancommunion.org/communion/acc/meetings/acc12/participants.cfm]ACC-12[/url] (2002, Hong Kong).
Martin Reynolds name doesn’t, as far as I can see, appear on either list, though the list may well be incomplete.
It may also be that some Provinces did discuss “in principle” the possible changes. Perhaps some organ of the Church in Wales did after ACC-12?
Good morning. (dare I say, lads and lassies!)
As you say driver8 – there was an expectation for a wide debate after Dundee – but I didn’t attend anything ’till after the next ACC. The advantage of Wales in this area is we have Norman Doe and his department to help simple parish priests and their like. His graduate canonists are thick on the ground here and members of the Ecclesiastical law society provided helpful commentary. Then there was a similar gathering at Westminster I went to.
But by that time the reception for the Virginia Report was not looking good!
#10 has stated the potentially most troubling implications of this mess. And if these implications turn out to be more than anxieties but founded realities — that is what we need to know, and do not yet know — we are facing an unprecedented challenge within the Communion.
Procedures for the ACC re-vamp are like kanons in the EcUSA/TEc – malleable, imterpretive, and -MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL- useful for the behest of those in power with the kapacity and will to mold them to their purposes (cf. that Nietzsche guy and Lord Voldemort and the “new sheriff”). However, it would appear that the PB is imitating the Brits rather than [i]vice versa[/i].