Look at the contributors and see if you notice a pattern
The present text was developed from the remarks of JSC members in New Orleans and in consultation with them.
In electronic correspondence, the following members of the Joint Standing Committee have signified their assent to this text:
â™¦ Phillip Aspinall, Primate of Australia, Primates’ Standing Committee
â™¦ Barry Morgan, Primate of Wales, Primates’ Standing Committee
â™¦ Katharine Jefferts Schori, Primate of The Episcopal Church, Primates’ Standing Committee
â™¦ John Paterson, Chairman of the Anglican Consultative Council and of the ACC Standing Committee
â™¦ George Koshy, Vice-Chair, ACC and Standing Committee
â™¦ Robert Fordham, ACC Standing Committee
â™¦ Kumara Illangasinghe, ACC Standing Committee
â™¦ James Tengatenga, ACC Standing Committee
â™¦ Nomfundo Walaza, ACC Standing Committee
Responses have not yet been received from:
â™¦ Mouneer Anis, Primate of Jerusalem and the Middle East, Primates’ Standing Committee
â™¦ Philippa Amable, ACC Standing Committee
â™¦ Jolly Babirukamu, ACC Standing Committee
â™¦ Elizabeth Paver, ACC Standing Committee
Update: Mouneer Anis is ‘incredibly disappointed and grieved’:
His response, which reached The Times a couple of hours after the JSC report was published, indicates perhaps that hopes of reconciliation remain as distant as ever, as the JSC itself appears from this document to fear they might. Archbishop Anis said this evening: ‘It is very unfortunate that not all the members of the Joint Standing Committee were present when a response to the HOB of TEC was drafted. The lack of discussion and interaction will not produce a report that expresses the view of the whole committee.’ He said the TEC response merely represented a ‘superficial shift’ from their previous position and refuted the JSC’s claim that there had been a change in position since 2003.
‘Therefore I strongly disagree with the report of the JSC which states that “We believe that the Episcopal Church has clarified all outstanding questions relating to their response to the questions directed explicitly to them, and on which clarifications were sought by the 30th of September, and given the necessary assurance sought of them.” The reasons for my disagreement are as follows:
‘On Public Rites for Blessing of Same-sex Unions
‘The statement of the House of Bishops in New Orleans did not meet the request of Windsor Report that the “Bishops must declare a moratorium on all such public rites”. It also failed to meet the request of the Primates at Dar El Salam that the Bishops should “make an unequivocal common covenant that the Bishops will not authorize any rites of blessing for same-sex unions in their Diocese.”
‘They did not declare a moratorium on authorization public rites of the blessing of same-sex unions. Instead the House of Bishops pledged not to authorize any public rites of blessing of same-sex unions. I understand moratorium as “cessation of activity”. In the explanatory discussion they mentioned that “the majority”, not all, of Bishops do not make allowances for the blessings of same-sex unions. This means that a number of Bishops will continue to make allowances for the blessing of same-sex unions. I see this as an equivocal and unclear response.
‘While the House of Bishop’s response means that ‘authorization’ of the rites will not take place, but it also stated that some will continue to ”explore and experience liturgies celebrating the blessing of same-sex unions”. The exploration of liturgies celebrating the blessing of same-sex unions, keeps a window to continue such blessings under another title !! This unashamedly disregards the standard teaching of the Anglican Communion which is still torn over this issue.
Update: Here is perhaps a better link for +Mouneer Anis’ commentary on the JSC report.