Once upon a time that recognition and authentication occurred through the meetings of the Primates, the Lambeth Conference of Bishops, churches of the Anglican Communion and resolutions of the Anglican Consultative Council “with the Primates assenting.”
But, the Archbishop of Canterbury never makes that decision alone.
Tomorrow in Atlanta, Georgia, eight Primates and other bishops representing the majority of practicing Anglicans worldwide will gather around the new Archbishop of the ACNA to lay hands on him and recognize him as a fellow Primate, and reaffirm the ACNA as a full member of the Communion of Anglican Churches. Canterbury’s absence from that future””without even an official representative””will be noted.
The Rev. Dr Mark Thompson of Sydney, Australia has written an excellent analysis of Canterbury’s statements in the light of Anglican polity and history. I encourage you to read his analysis below. In it, Dr Thompson pinpoints a major concern with Archbishop Welby’s interview. The Archbishop of Canterbury is assuming powers that rightfully belong to the Primates:
“ACNA could be, and perhaps already is [according to ++Welby], an ecumenical partner with the Anglican Communion but it cannot be considered a member of the Anglican Communion because (and this last bit is the implication of what he said rather than his own words) it is not in communion with Canterbury, it has not been recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury himself.
“This is a gigantic slap in the face to the Primates who represent the vast bulk of practicing Anglicans around the world and who, meeting in London in April 2009, recognized the Anglican Church in North America ”˜as genuinely Anglican’”¦” (Emphasis added)
That “slap in the face” stings worse when those who have already recognized the ACNA read more of what the Archbishop of Canterbury had to say:
“Virtually everywhere I’ve gone, the analysis is that the definition of being part of the Anglican Communion is being in communion with Canterbury. And I haven’t prompted that. I was quite surprised to hear that.” ”“ Archbishop of Canterbury, Church of Ireland Gazette
It has always been the role of the Primates to decide who is in the Communion of Anglican Churches”“ working together in their Primates’ meetings, through their Provinces[1], at the decennial Lambeth Conference of Bishops, and by prior assent to resolutions of the Anglican Consultative Council[2]. This authority is recognized in Section 7.2 of the Constitution of the Anglican Consultative Council (revised 2010), which provides that the “Member Churches of the [Anglican Consultative] Council shall be those bodies listed in the Schedule”¦ with the assent of two-thirds of the Primates of the Anglican Communion.” (Emphasis added).
How is it possible that the Archbishop of Canterbury overlooked the polity of the Anglican Communion, its Instruments, and its documented history in granting membership to Churches?
What a confusing time we live in. Lacking the black-letter canon law of our Roman friends, Anglicans have operated with tacit agreements — some not forged with an eye toward break-down and major theological splits.
So +Welby says the provinces look to him, on the one hand, and on the other, he says the Lambeth Conference will happen at the behest of a Primatial will more broadly discerned.
As stated elsewhere, my suspicion is that the really tough wicket to negotiate and the next in line will be a gathering of the Primates as such, in 2015. Who will be present, what will be the status of the TEC Primate (given Dar es Salaam), and how will history describe whatever happened in Dublin.
There can be no doubt that the central role of the ABC, however one once thought of it, is in decline due to facts of the ground and the vast preponderance of the AC being conservative theologically. It may simply reflect reality to say that a Lambeth Conference cannot happen without the most sizeable bloc of Primates satisfied as to its character.
RE: ““This is a gigantic slap in the face to the Primates who represent the vast bulk of practicing Anglicans around the world and who, meeting in London in April 2009, recognized the Anglican Church in North America ‘as genuinely Anglican’…â€
How?
There are lots of genuinely Anglican entities in the US — some 30 to 40.
How does pointing out that ACNA is not a member province of the Anglican Communion — a thing that the leaders of ACNA have sought because they recognize that ACNA is not a member — make it “a gigantic slap in the face to the Primates” who have rightly recognized ACNA as “genuinely Anglican.”
It might be nice for those Primates to recognize several other much smaller Anglican entities as “genuinely Anglican” as well — but the ABC pointing out that those smaller entities are also not member provinces of the Anglican Communion doesn’t make it a “slap in the face” to those genuinely Anglican entities.
How, Sarah?
Simply because the majority of the world’s Anglican primates not only encouraged ACNA’s startup, but they have recognized ACNA as a legitimate Anglican province.
None of the numerous Anglican groups to which you allude have been accorded this type of recognition – only ACNA.
RE: “but they have recognized ACNA as a legitimate Anglican province.”
Again — that is wonderful, but noting that an entity is not a part of a larger organization in no way asserts that that entity is not “genuinely Anglican.”
I should hope, for instance, that you would deem the Diocese of the Holy Cross, or the ACA, or the APA as “genuinely Anglican.”
But rather obviously they are not member provinces of the Anglican Communion. Their bishops do not get invited to Lambeth, the entities are not in Communion with the see of Canterbury, they have not been listed in the ACC schedule of the member churches, and so on and so forth. None of those things speaks to whether they are “genuinely Anglican” — merely whether they are member provinces of the Anglican Communion — a large body of particular Anglican provinces.
“ACNA…cannot be considered a member of the Anglican Communion because it is not in communion with Canterbury, it has not been recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury himself.”
Seems a bit fatuous when Canterbury is “in communion” with just about any religious group willing to sign an “agreement.” Let’s say an ACNA bishop presents himself at a Eucharist to receive the Sacrament. Will His Grace deny him?
RE: “Let’s say an ACNA bishop presents himself at a Eucharist to receive the Sacrament. Will His Grace deny him?”
Two different things. In fact, Canterbury recognized ACNA’s orders as “valid” and of course Anglicans do not have closed communion anyway.
In fact, my understanding is that ACNA clergy and bishops are able to *preside* at Holy Eucharist in COE parishes as well — at least they have in the past.
But again — when the ABC talks about “recognition” he is talking about “recognition” as a member province of the Anglican Communion.
[blockquote] “This is a gigantic slap in the face to the Primates who represent the vast bulk of practicing Anglicans around the world and who, meeting in London in April 2009, recognized the Anglican Church in North America ‘as genuinely Anglican’…†[/blockquote]
I have no difficulty with Dr Thompson characterising it that way, but with certain caveats. It is true that if Archbishop Welby were a rational leader he would recognise that:
(a) ACNA should be part of the Anglican Communion;
(b) TEC should also be part of the Communion IF AND WHEN its leadership repents; and
(c) The goal to be aimed at is the establishment of one province in North America (or one each in USA and Canada) combining all the orthodox elements of TEC, ACNA and other groups, after appropriate healing, dialogue etc.
But the reality is that the ABC isn’t rational; or rather he is, but he is entirely beholden to those who elected him (the hierarchy of the Church of England) and he is required to state and do whatever they require him to state and do, whether its rational or not.
That being the case, there is no point getting hot under the collar about “a slap in the face”. Just cop it, and get on with work. That means accepting that ABC Welby has foregone any entitlement to respect or attention (except in his role as primate of the English province), and continuing to do what we are doing without caring what he has to say.
[blockquote] “How is it possible that the Archbishop of Canterbury overlooked the polity of the Anglican Communion, its Instruments, and its documented history in granting membership to Churches?” [/blockquote]
Well, to start with, it was “possible” because he wanted to do it, and so he did! There are no constraints on what the ABC can do in relation to the Anglican Communion. But then, there are no constraints on what anyone else can do either.
Canon Ashey’s question begs another: what is the nature of this “polity of the Anglican Communion” to which he refers? After all, the Anglican Communion” is not a legal body. It has no constitution. Nobody owns it. Nobody has a legal right to the name.
That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist in some sense, but it does mean that its polity was always entirely dependent on the continuing agreement of all parties to be bound by it. For example, Lambeth Conferences (gatherings of the bishops of the Communion) passed resolutions about various issues, but those resolutions had meaning ONLY insofar as the various persons involved decided to implement them.
Take just one example, the issue of the Primates’ functions raised by Canon Ashey: Many resolutions of the Lambeth Conference have resolved that this or that function should be carried out by the Primates Meeting, but none of those resolutions matter a flea if the Archbishop of Canterbury decides unilaterally not to call a Primates Meeting (and the converse is also true – if the Primates decide not to turn up, then there is nothing anyone can do about it).
The same applies to Lambeth Conferences. Yes, there is a pattern of calling them every ten years or so, but that pattern can be abrogated at any time by an Archbishop of Canterbury simply declining to do so. It is important to note that this is not actually an exercise of power – rather it is an absence of power. No authority is conferred by any document anywhere for the ABC to decline to call a Lambeth Conference; rather, nothing says that he has to do so, and if a document did (e.g. a resolution of the Lambeth conference or the ACC), he could just ignore it anyway.
How did things come to this pass? Well, they have actually always been the case. The Anglican Communion worked because those involved wanted it to work. Now that significant portions of it don’t (or have completely different ideas on what “working” means) there is nothing left.
So, what should the orthodox do? Just say they are “the Anglican Communion”, recognise who they wish to as fellow members, and decline to recognise who they don’t wish to. Those things have as much objective validity as any bizarre comments by ABC Welby to the effect that he is “not in communion” with a bunch of bishops with whom he has actually taken communion on several occasions (don’t ask me what he means by that – its about as rational as other recent emanations from Lambeth Palace).
The orthodox have work to do and they are getting on with it, in communion and fellowship with each other. The rest can do what they please, although they can expect that part of the work of the orthodox will be to plant and nurture new churches in the backyards of those who give their orthodox parishes and dioceses a hard time. If that doesn’t bother them, then all the better!
All of this seems so 2006. The Communion existed on a complex network of tacit understandings – which have been more or less destroyed over the last 16 years. Anyone remember the utter chaos and confusion of ACC 14 in Jamaica?
The ABC has no power to do what it would take to rebuild that trust – for it would surely now need to be formalized – and we can’t formalize seating arrangements at a party let alone a complex network of mutual accountability before the Lord. So we talk about talks about talks…
RE: “All of this seems so 2006.”
I think there’s a reason for that. We’re going to see escalating rhetoric because ABC Welby wishes to restart the old dance and get the Global South Primates once again engaged in that dance. Jefferts Schori’s blabbing the timeline/plan at a news conference didn’t help with the stealth factor at all on that.
Sarah, regarding your comment in #6: I believe ACNA clergy and bishops can only preach, not preside, in COE parishes. But that’s better than in the Diocese of Kentucky where they cannot preach or preside, even if retired.
Hi Ralinda — my understanding is that both are allowed — of course, the determination on *specific individuals* is a case by case basis. It’s been discussed in a number of instances, and I also believe *in action* — but here’s one formal decision right here:
[blockquote]Where clergy from ACNA wish to come to England the position in relation to their orders and their personal suitability for ministry here will be considered by us on a case by case basis under the Overseas and Other Clergy (Ministry and Ordination) Measure 1967.[/blockquote]
https://churchofengland.org/media/1389262/gs misc 1011 – acna.pdf
The problem with the Anglican Communion is not that they don’t have a Pope. It’s that they don’t have a magisterium. Hence they don’t actually make any decisions on an international level at all and if they did all the members would be free to disregard them anyway.
I think the real questions are ones of Apostolicity and Sacramentality.
The Anglican Church commonly presented itself to the Christian world as a third branch of the Catholic church. In the meantime, various bodies have re-defined various sacraments such as ordination and marriage. Various actions such as the ordination of women have called into question the validity of sacraments associated with such personages. With the advent of women bishops the idea of apostolic succession has also been muddled.
The underlying idea explored here seems to be that if one is in communion with the ABC one retains his or her Anglican Catholicity. Because the ABC can recognize whom he will, but cannot deny the validity of orders of outside Anglican bodies, I think the real question to ask is, are the sacramental and teaching practices of a particular body Catholic in the Anglican Biblical sense that has been passed down. However, being Catholic and apostolic, there is a need to be rooted in some type of Patriarchy, and if the ABC is not forthcoming I would think there would be an obligation for outside bodies to pursue a more rooted situation by looking elsewhere.
Right now we have something that looks like A recognizes B and B recognizes C but A does not recognize C.
Please forgive me if anyone has mentioned this already. I’ve not really read the full threads carefully as I’m in a busy work crunch week.
But, one discouraging scenario came to mind… If / when a new TEC Presiding Bishop is elected in 2015, I really hope Abp. Justin et al will not be able to use that as an excuse for “time for a clean slate, do-over let’s call a Primates meeting and have everyone get to know one another, sweep the past under the carpet like so much dust…” This is not about personalities or individual leaders/bishops but is an institutional tearing of the fabric of the Communion. TEC as a whole has acted against the prior Communion consensus.
I REALLY hope and pray the Global South Primates and other leaders will keep that in mind and not be caught up in “let’s get to know the new Primate and see if he/she is an improvement”
#15. The Primates with seniority and a strong history in AC affairs over the past years–in the GS–are in my view trustworthy and canny both. To the degree to which the CofE makes the ABC’s role precarious, or that he does that, they increase in authority given facts on the ground. They are in no doubt about subterfuge in TEC and the forms this may take, as they have observed a decade of machinations. I believe one should put faith in them, and the ABC derivatively of them. I also do not believe we can discount the ABC accepting that reality as well.
Abp. Welby’s response on this strikes me as a bit clumsy, unnecessary, and possibly complicating things for him in the future. IIRC, when Abp. Williams was posed a somewhat similar question (maybe by a blogger) – Williams responded (to the effect) that it was not up to him (alone) to say. Of course, that sort of a dodge neatly avoids the complementary question about acting against TEC.
**In this case, Apb. Welby suggests that he could very well act against TEC, but has simply chosen not to do so.**
(no surprise to some of us, but possibly to others)
IMHO, this clumsiness is consistent with the loose control of information about his intentions for Lambeth. He could have played his cards close to the chest while meeting with Primates – but somehow Bp. Schori gained control of the message, and he is reduced to damage control.
Seems to me like the Anglican Communion right now is like a group of people wanting to drive a car. The Global South primates hold the key to the ignition. The Americans have control of the gas pump. The ABC holds the key to the passenger compartment and who is and who is not allowed into the car.
And so the Global South refuses to turn over the ignition key unless the western heretical primates are kicked out. The ABC refuses to surrender his control of the seating arrangements and refused to either evict TEC or ACiC or to invite in ACNA. The Americans have been willing to fill the car with gas, so long as the ABC assured them of a seat and assured them of no seat for ACNA.
And so, the end result is a car that is going nowhere.
Clever, but I do not see such a stalemate.
Both Phil Ashey and George Conger report that the Primates who laid hands on ++Beach at the investiture service said this:
“Foley Beach, We receive you as an Archbishop and a Primate in the Anglican Communion.â€
I understand that the Primates actually present were:
*Jerusalem and the Middle East (++Anis as president of the Global South)
*Myanmar
*Kenya
*Nigeria
*Uganda
*Rwanda
*Southern Cone
Primates represented were:
*South East Asia
*Congo
*Sudan
It seems that there is some difference of opinion between ++Welby and some of his Primates, to say the least.
Whatever, I hope that the people of ACNA were cheered and encouraged by the messages of support from all over the world, whether delivered in person by church leaders or otherwise.
We were, and are.
Our rector, who was present at the investiture, brought back many copies of the program to us, preached on this, in part, and made a point of telling us of the world-wide acceptance and support given ACNA at that service, and for the future.
RE: “the Primates who laid hands on ++Beach at the investiture service said this . . . ”
Well, just so long as it’s [i]my[/i] favorite ten Primates, that’s what really matters.
Quite frankly, the Archbishop of Canterbury is no longer important. He is a mere shadow of what once was important and it is his own doing. Ironically, he is a man from the corporate world who was not able to renounce worldly treasurers and still caters to TEC and other financiers and ignores the ministers of the Gospel.
Professing himself to be wise, he became a fool instead.
“Well, just so long as it’s my favorite ten Primates, that’s what really matters.”
That pretty well sums it up. There are certainly some Primates who would not agree at all with the words of investiture used by the Primates.
Thinking this through a bit further, I wonder if this illustrates a major miscalculation on the part of ++Welby. He stated to the Irish Times that, in effect, being in communion with the ABC is the touchstone of membership in the Anglican Communion – I don’t really think that was a “slap in the face”, but it was certainly a push, and now ten primates (including, significantly, the President of the Global South) have pushed right back.
In the process, it appears they have gone further the other way. So far as I can tell, even GAFCON/FCA has never made the claim that ACNA is a province in the Anglican Communion, or that the Primate of ACNA is a Primate in the Anglican Communion. Nor has the Global South. The Jerusalem Conference in 2008 talked about the future ACNA being a “province in formation” of the AC, but I think that is as far as it ever went – until now.
And even now, neither GAFCON nor the Global South have officially said it. But the game has moved. The president of the GS, ++Anis, is a careful man, and I can’t imagine him saying something that is too far ahead of where he believes his fellow provinces in the GS will go.
And it all seems to have been stimulated by ++Welby’s claim about communion with Canterbury being essential to membership in the AC. He has elicited an opposite public response from some of the Primates. I wonder if ABC is now thinking that it might have been better not to raise the issue in the first place?
RE: “That pretty well sums it up.”
Yes indeed for deconstructionists.
There’s been pushback every time Rowan Williams said the equivalent as well. SOP really when a group is trying to promote a redefinition.