The Archbishop of Canterbury has proposed suspending the Primates Meeting””the fourth ”˜instrument of unity’ in the Anglican Communion””in favour of holding multiple small group gatherings of like minded archbishops.
In a letter to the primates dated Oct 7, Dr. Rowan Williams suggested that given the “number of difficult conversations” and the threat of a boycott of its meetings, a regime of separate but equal facilitated small groups sessions might better serve the primates’ “diverse” perspectives and forestall the substantial “damage” to the communion a full-fledged boycott would entail.
Dr. Williams also called for a reform of the structure of the meetings, suggesting that an elected standing committee be created and the powers and responsibility of the meeting of the communion’s 38 archbishops, presiding bishops and moderators be delineated.
Lambeth Palace did not respond to a request for clarification about the Oct 7 letter, while a spokesman for the Anglican Consultative Council said it could not address the question of a potential boycott as “the content of correspondence between the Primates and the Archbishop of Canterbury is private.”
Because putting our heads in the sand and avoiding the problems have served us so well in the past.
Can you say ‘solipsist”? I wonder how many ostriches have been eaten tail first?
“Equal” meetings of like minded primates? The Global South won’t attend such a pretense of keeping the USA and Canada at the table, no matter how convoluted! The boycot will continue until ++Rowan either gets the message or is replaced. Its too bad that he continues to play his little games instead of bitting the bullet.
The meeting ‘en masse’ of the primate’s is most important of the Anglican Communion’s four instruments of communion.
It permits the episcopal heads of each national church to speak substantitively and with authority regarding issues critical to the communion’s furture.
It can avoid/negate/’bring out into the open’ the political games that have been and are being played with the other three instruments of the communion.
It reduces the participation of the revisionist churches to a level appropriate to their national membership and NOT according to their wealth. Wealth that is hypocritically used to manipulate and distort and theological discussions of key issues and issues related to episcopal order.
What we have here gentlemen is an apparent attempt on the part of the Archbishop of Canterbury to avoid issues and to divide meetings of the primates into groups that will avoid decisions being made and actions being made by the primates meeting ‘en masse.’
Is this a form of “indaba” being being introduced into the meeting of the primates?
Far be it for me to interpret this. However, 1) we have RDW saying that a new Standing Committee of the Primates will be created; if proper representation (proportional) were to happen, that would also redress the present imbalance; 2) he also intimates that the new SC would have the role of setting the agenda; 3) Ian Ernest is invited to a ‘preparatory meeting’ to discuss the Dublin event — this is of course infuriating the liberal blogs; 4) they are also calling the Primates Meeting ‘finished’; if a new SC were in place, however, then the present situation–with Room A and Room B, etc–would only be transitional to a new Primates Meeting. One can pray for AB Ernest in the leadership role for the CAPA Primates.
From Conger’s report:
“Dr. Williams also called for a reform of the structure of the meetings, suggesting that an elected standing committee be created and the powers and responsibility of the meeting of the communion’s 38 archbishops, presiding bishops and moderators be delineated.”
Predictable. The ABC’s strategy is and has been to prevent any decision being made either way. He has doggedly pursued this strategy ever since Windsor. He will do this as long as he can get away with it. It is also why I have written off the AC as an institution.
Since most of these primates are already meeting in other contexts why would they not just invite the ABC to one of their meetings? It would save travel costs etc. If there are some others that have not been included they could be invited also
Having a standing committee is not a new episcopal concept.
The real questions are
“Will the standing committee in an way have puppet strings attached to it that in any way will be used to resist/nullify the will of the orthodox/traditional primates ?”
and
“Who will pull those strings?”
Because, if the standing committee is manipulated then the meetings of the primates will be manipulated.
The real problem in the Anglican Communion is not structure so much as the fact that the mutual trust between the national churches and of the instruments of communion have been eroded by the behavior/maneuvering/manipulation of the communion’s revisionist minority faction.
All true. There has been a SC in the Primates. It is also the one that is inclosed in the SC of the AC. At issue is that it is unrepresentative. ‘Americas’ gets one vote, in spite of being puny over against Africa. If Africa were to have three, e.g., the will of that committee would be different.
Of course many, many have called for reform here in the past. Perhaps the decision to stay away has made conditions favorable for a new SC and a new remit for it.
In my mind, I have written off PECUSA and written off the AC. GAFCON is the new AC. So far they have shown no need for a new ABC. Cut PECUSA Canada and the ABC loose and get on with the summary of the law and the great commission! Quit wasting time and resources.
YIC,
NW Bob
The TEC Diocese of Washington, DC is reporting on its blog that the ACO has twittered “Am afraid this story is not accurate. Communion Sec. Gen. Canon Kearon adamant: never any plans to cancel Primates’ Mtg.”
http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/anglican_communion/kearon_adamant_primates_meetin.html#more
I would think much is going on behind the scenes, but it is difficult to see how how the meeting is going to begin or end well for the Communion.
How it is and how it looks may be too different things, but this looks a lot more like another obfuscating tactic rather than a solution.
I don’t like the primates of TEC/ACoC seated at this meeting, but I disagree with boycotts or others not attending. I can only imagine what the Pope would have to say if cardinals refused to attend meetings.
Were I ++Williams I would strongly encourage all primates to attend the meeting. I would also find a way to give TEC and ACoC voice but no vote–the Glasspool “consecration” is proof enough, so far, of their inability to work well and play nice with others, not to mention their theological bankruptcy. I would also hope that the Communion Partner bishops, especially in TEC if not Canada, would demand representation at this meeting. I have a hard time seeing Katherine Schori speaking ethically for them. At some point, too, the primates’ meeting as a whole needs to deal with the status of ACNA. Like it or not, it’s here to stay, I would think–unless you want the Anglicans in it to light out for a free church, the RC Church, the Orthodox Church or something like LCMS.
It’s quite a can of worms, mostly of the AB of C’s own making. Maybe he’s ruing the day he didn’t help execute the DeS Communique. That might have been a viable solution to a lot of this, as opposed to mass confusion and kick-the-can. Not to mention that ++Williams has lent credence to the antics of what in the AC is truly a minority renegade sect, as opposed to upholding the views in Scripture also shared by the MAJORITY of the world’s Anglicans–the major complaint when one sees that Communion representation on the world stage is the same, as opposed to based on actual population/attendance numbers like the US House or the United Methodist Church.
Also in this case, placing another “committee” between oneself and a huge, steaming pile of dung is pretty transparent. REAL problem-solving is more likely in order. One of Al Gore’s best quotes, even though I’m no fan of his–“get with the g.d. program”…
First, let me second Dr. Seitz call for prayers in #5.
There seem to be 2 ways this could play out. It would seem that Dr. Williams hopes to further degrade the power and influence of the Primates by dividing them into small groups, and then have his “facilitators” interpret whatever they actually say into Indaba-speak. That way, he meets separately with Gafcon, non-Gafcon African primates, non-African GS primates, non GS-non Western primates, and Western Primates (or something like that). By gerrymandering the groups, he can achieve what was achieved by gerrymandering the “regional” voting for Standing committee- He will come away saying that 3 of the 5 groups do not want to kick out TEC, by having 2 blocks voting unanimously for discipline, 2 voting very narrowly against discipline, and the TEC block voting to discipline Gafcon. Thereby maintaining the fiction of unity for another few months, until TEC’s next outrage, and allow KJS to go on dominating the Communion structures via the Standing Committee.
The other possible outcome would be that the GS refuses to meet other than together, along with any other Primate willing to uphold Lambeth 1.10 and Dar. Then he meets with one large group, that may even be a majority of the Primates, certainly representing a majority of the Communion membership, and one or two small groups of TEC supporters or “non-aligned” members. A much different, and much more positive dynamic.
I would agree with #14 and others calling for extreme caution here, keeping in mind Rowan Williams’ past behavior. My initial suspicion is that Rowan will be trying for one of two things here:
1) Invite Ian Earnest to be part of the pre-meeting planning team, and thus make him feel obligated to attend the primates meeting, thus causing him to backtrack on his boycott plan. This would most certainly seriously disrupt the coming together of the GAFCON primates and the more moderate GS primates.
2) Calling for multiple group meetings of primates, in which Rowan divides up the groups such that each group has 1-2 GAFCON primates, a few moderate GS primates, 1-2 liberal primates with the plurality being the institutionalists. I could see Rowan manipulating it so that KJS, Hiltz, Morgan and any other uber-liberal are placed in the same group as some of the more institutionalist primates. Then let loose the Delphi technique and he comes away saying that in no group did a majority want to kick out TEC or the ACoC. RW avoids a boycott and he walks away with a “all is well” headline. The GAFCON primates would be sufficiently dispersed such that they would be outvoted.
Dr. Seitz – I see you mention here and elsewhere the concept of making the primates’ SC to be more proportionally representative but I see no suggestion of that in anything RW says. Do you have insider knowledge of this, or are you suggesting that this is something that Abp. Earnest should insist upon during the planning session, such that Earnest could say “we are willing to take part in a primates’ meeting, if conditions A, B and C are met”.
At this point, I think that wisdom and experience dictate that the default response to Rowan Williams is that of distrust and to question what manipulation he is up to now. IMHO, the only way to approach Rowan Williams now is as hostile, but appreciate his game, and be prepared to be one step ahead of him in refashioning the primates meeting governance to be proportionally representative and not under RW’s control.
#15 — “Dr. Williams also called for a reform of the structure of the meetings, suggesting that an elected standing committee be created and the powers and responsibility of the meeting of the communion’s 38 archbishops, presiding bishops and moderators be delineated.â€
Yes, +IE should press for this. But I say this only because it has been said so often before; it is obvious. A Primates Meeting SC that is not representative is not a good idea, and the Primates should not put up with it/should not have put up with it. We know that +RDW got an earful in Uganda. I would not assume either that the Primates Meeting is dead (so Thinking Anglicans); nor that it will forever be ‘multiple meetings’. If the Primates take charge of their own meeting, and +RDW has realised they will not meet otherwise, then a genuinely conciliar PM could result. As far back as early 2000 I wrote that this was the way forward in the RDW era (in Pro Ecclesia), for what that’s worth…
I also don’t think a ‘multiple meeting’ format necessarily favours TEC and might have thought the opposite. The power is in the GS and they are using it.
#15 — I don’t disagree with the concern for caution and great care.
As with all speculation, “we shall see.” What we do know, and this aside from the sexuality debate, is that “progressives” tend to be low church in ecclesiology, whatever ritual they enjoy , and mistrust the power and authority of bishops. We see this struggle emerging in TEC, with the Deputies or some of them striving for dominance over the HofB, with their president as co-equal with the PB.
A reassertion of primatial. episcopal authority seems to me to be essential and thus the creation of a sc for the primates, reflecting numerical strength of provinces rather than the assumed leadership of the West.
A most interesting man Rowan Williams is. Here is an “Archbishop” who claims he lacks the authority to withhold invitations to the meeting of arguably the most important of the so called “instruments of unity” and yet feels he does hold the authority to effectively abolish that instrument.
#18 — We at ACI have also noted that for someone claiming not to have the authority to ‘gather’, here is someone with the authority to reconfigure. The argument could be made that the Primates Meetings are not open to this kind of alteration…but we are living in a season of collapse of the instruments.
“…but we are living in a season of collapse of the instruments”.
I realize that Dr. Seitz is just stating a fact there, but that is no feather in our cap. Would that it could be better.
Sadly, my betting money is on divide-and-conquer or purposeful confusion as opposed to any brand of problem-solving.
How sick, too, as the gentlemen above have pointed out–no power to “disinvite”, but plenty of power to rearrange or dissolve. DUH…
The ABC is a liar. It’s that simple.
This is game playing; there is no gravitas, no serious substantive intent.
Just beneath the surface, there is a deep dishonesty that extends to the core; and here there is rot: the heartwood has decayed. This tree will continue to stand for a long time, and the leaves will green in the spring, but nothing will stop the rot from spreading outward. I have seen many such trees. They are both alive and dead. They will seem vital until the branches show diminished strength, few leaves, and those cracks in the bark shows where the rot has breached the sapwood. This is our church; even though your branch is still vigorous, look at the other branches and you will know you future.
Larry
Rowan Williams lacks the power to disinvite when it is convenient to lack it, yet possesses the power to disinvite when it is convenient to possess it.
It is remarkable that after much prayer and reflection on the Primates’ Meeting that Dr Williams has managed come up with……Apartheid!