Friday Update: the Communique from the Gathering may be read here
Today the Primates agreed how they would walk together in the grace and love of Christ. This agreement acknowledges the significant distance that remains but confirms their unanimous commitment to walk together.
The Primates regret that it appears that this document has been leaked in advance of their communiqué tomorrow. In order to avoid speculation the document is being released in full. This agreement demonstrates the commitment of all the Primates to continue the life of the Communion with neither victor nor vanquished.
Questions and further comments will be responded to at a press conference tomorrow at 1500.
The full text is as follows:
1. We gathered as Anglican Primates to pray and consider how we may preserve our unity in Christ given the ongoing deep differences that exist among us concerning our understanding of marriage.
2. Recent developments in The Episcopal Church with respect to a change in their Canon on marriage represent a fundamental departure from the faith and teaching held by the majority of our Provinces on the doctrine of marriage. Possible developments in other Provinces could further exacerbate this situation.
3. All of us acknowledge that these developments have caused further deep pain throughout our Communion.
4. The traditional doctrine of the church in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds marriage as between a man and a woman in faithful, lifelong union. The majority of those gathered reaffirm this teaching.
5. In keeping with the consistent position of previous Primates’ meetings such unilateral actions on a matter of doctrine without Catholic unity is considered by many of us as a departure from the mutual accountability and interdependence implied through being in relationship with each other in the Anglican Communion.
6. Such actions further impair our communion and create a deeper mistrust between us. This results in significant distance between us and places huge strains on the functioning of the Instruments of Communion and the ways in which we express our historic and ongoing relationships.
7. It is our unanimous desire to walk together. However given the seriousness of these matters we formally acknowledge this distance by requiring that for a period of three years The Episcopal Church no longer represent us on ecumenical and interfaith bodies, should not be appointed or elected to an internal standing committee and that while participating in the internal bodies of the Anglican Communion, they will not take part in decision making on any issues pertaining to doctrine or polity.
8. We have asked the Archbishop of Canterbury to appoint a Task Group to maintain conversation among ourselves with the intention of restoration of relationship, the rebuilding of mutual trust, healing the legacy of hurt, recognising the extent of our commonality and exploring our deep differences, ensuring they are held between us in the love and grace of Christ.
It is probably worth reading this alongside the text and particularly the schedule to the Communique from the Primates Meeting in Dar-es-Salaam in 2007.
We have been here before.
Well this works out well for TEC. Three years with voice but no vote then we’re done and we stay in the AC and ordain who we want and marry who we want. Looks like a win to me.
I appreciate that a lot of hard work went into it, but the statement is thin and disappointing.
We have indeed been here before. When will we ever learn?
Can’t argue with Brian. That about sums it up.
The announcement may be as significant in the public eye as the Emancipation Proclamation.
Pageantmaster, precisely. The burden is now on +Welby. If this is enforced, we are on the way to a renewed communion. If he fails, it’s over. His choice. I don’t think the Gafcon/GS leaders will go through this again.
If this is enforced, presumably after three years and no TEC repentance it would become permanent. But it’s entirely on +Welby’s shoulders.
I posted this over at StandFirm:
In negotiating strategy, one of the concepts is that you should know your BATNA, or Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement. My initial reaction is that GAFCON’s BATNA was to walk out with as many of the GS primates as would join them and issue their own statement reaffirming their refusal to take part in any further AC official meetings until Welby is serious about disciplining TEC, ACoC, and any other Province that embraces heresy. And I wonder how this 2016 Statement is a better option then that. So color me underwhelmed, dis-spirited and rather confused.
Granted, this is not a TEC victory, but it most certainly is a Welby victory. I really wonder what the point of this statement is. And, I suppose, if I put on my optimistic hat and try to see this in as positive a light as possible, I see this. We read the following bits of information from the various sources:
1. Welby tried hardball Delphi techniques on the Primates, which seem to have mixed results.
2. GAFCON was probably not very happy with how things were playing out, which led to the Ugandan primate leaving. This suggests that a walk out was a close run thing.
3. Conger suggests that momentum shifted in GAFCON’s favor as the week went on, with an increasing number of “moderate†primates apparently willing to take some sort of action against the liberal provinces.
4. I read that 2/3 of the primates voted to sanction TEC, and so this was part of the final statement.
5. The GAFCON statement declares that this should be seen “not as an end, but as a beginningâ€.
So, I wonder if the GAFCON primates were ready to walk after Welby’s attempts to invoke the Delphi technique, but realized that a significant block of moderate primates who were hitherto unwilling to support any sanction against TEC became willing to. And perhaps the GAFCON and GS primates decided that rather then walk out and lose those moderate primates back to Welby and TEC, they would stay and play it out. Perhaps, this 2/3 of primates that voted to sanction TEC have assured the GAFCON and GS primates that this IS just the beginning, and that if TEC doesn’t back down, they will vote to suspend in 3 years. This could be why the GAFCON primates felt that they should agree to this statement despite having serious concerns about it. Perhaps these “moderate†primates were willing to draw the line at Provincially approved SSM that they weren’t ready to at diocesan approved SSBs.
If this is the case (and it is simply my speculation about a POSSIBILITY), then:
1) Welby would be willing to go with this as it is a kicking of the can down the road 3 years (a favorite tactic) and because he would be betting that the 2/3 primatial alliance would fall apart within 3 years.
2) The liberals would be willing to go along with this because this doesn’t really impose any significant sanctions (just wrist slapping); because they also would be betting that the 2/3 primatial alliance will fall apart; and because they will be able to focus a great deal of economic incentives on those “moderate†primates to grease the falling apart of the alliance.
3) The GS and GAFCON would be willing to go along with this because they know full well that TEC will not back down and that the ACoC will also implement SSM, and if the GAFCON/GS primates can hold the 2/3 primatial alliance together, they can move to expel TEC and ACoC in a few years.
I am not saying that I think the above reflects the reality of what transpired, but rather is one possible explanation considering all of the evidence.
#2 has hit the nail on the head. He writes, “…ordain who we want and marry who we want.”
There’s nothing here about God’s involvement in either process. It’s all about the human will.
This isn’t a win. As a doctrinal statement, it sums up how so many of the TEC leadership view things.
The opening sentence says it all:
[blockquote]given the ongoing deep differences that exist among us concerning our understanding of marriage[/blockquote]
The Windsor Report and the Dar-es-Salaam Primates’ Communique were concerned not only with same sex marriage but also with same sex blessing rites. This is no casual oversight that this category has been ommitted nor that the Canadians who have practiced same sex blessings have been given a pass.
Justin Welby has made it clear on many occassions that he intends to find a way to recognise same sex relationships in the church and Canon David Porter has said that it is Welby’s intention to bring this forward for consideration at the CofE General Synod following on from the ‘Facilitated [Delphi] Conversations’ which Welby and Porter have designed.
By going along with this wording the Primates have opened the way for Welby to proceed in this fashion without sanction in the Church of England and also to open the way for similar actions in New Zealand and other provinces. It is not just Canada which has been given a pass.
The Primates, including Mouneer Anis and Foley Beach have been hopelessly naive in their assessments of what has been happening and what they have achieved. The only thing achieved is to undermine the faithful in the Church of England.
It is likely that Welby will seek to build on the statement which centralises future action not in the Primates who were tasked by the Windsor Report with dealing with the issue of TEC and ACoC, but by taking the task to himself. He will seek to do that by making good on his intention of seeking to centralise the Communion’s different groups in personal loyalty and linkage, not to Jesus Christ and His teaching, but in their relationship to himself. It is really just all about him. That is why it is important to stay to the end of such meetings.
If you play Welby’s game by his rules you will lose. Like his father he has skilled himself in the arts of deception and manipulation. He and his advisors are ruthlessly determined. The Statement is an example of what Sir Humphrey would have drafted to achieve ends not envisaged by the participants. To go along with it is to play the game of these scheming bastards, and to fail us.
Wake up Primates!
To our well-beloved friend (#10):
Emotions are running high. But I wonder if you would consider withdrawing the personally insulting and uncharitable characterization you offered when you said of Justin, your brother in Christ: [b]” Like his father he has skilled himself in the arts of deception and manipulation. He and his advisors are ruthlessly determined. ” [/b] Perhaps it was inadvertent … ?
I doubt I’m alone in finding contemptuous language such as this (concerning as it does the person and the family of the Archbishop) both unhelpful and unwelcome.
Thank you [11] jhp for your admonition, and I have thought again about what I wrote in the light of your comment.
It was written not in haste, nor without consideration, but based upon a long observation of events and the way this particular meeting has been handled:
1. The use of the Delphi Technique and its derivatives by Welby while at Coventry for Continuing Indaba and at Liverpool for the Dublin Primates Meeting where he was a facilitator;
2. The increasing use by Welby of the Delphi technique in the English Church and General Synod to manipulate emotions and achieve a predetermined end;
3. The ‘design’ by Welby and Porter of the Facilitated Conversations rolled out in the Church of England following the Pilling Report with the aim of exploring the church’s teaching on sexuality and its corrollary, same sex marriage and blessings; and
4. The design apparent from the invitations and ground rules laid down by Welby for this Primates’ ‘Gathering’: the provision of speakers from the L’Arche community to stress inclusion; the format and aims set out in the invitation letter; the attempts to use the Delphi Technique to bring in small groups when the GS Primates tabled the motion Archbishop Ntagali mentioned and which led him to leave the meeting; and not least the manipulative drafting of the language of this Statement.
The Delphi Technique and the group psychology techniques on display at this meeting are powerful psychological warfare techniques akin to those used on captured servicemen in Korea and Vietnam. They range from the isolation of participants, the control of information coming in and coming out, to the control of what is listened to and what is discussed. They were seen at their most outrageous abuse in the Dublin Primates Meeting where those who did attend were subject to massive manipulation and persuaded to emasculate the Instrument known as the Primates Meeting from the role it had been given under the Windsor Report and prior Communion decisions into relegating themselves into being a counsel of advice to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams. Welby was fully involved in that as a facilitator if not a designer of the Delphi process used down to the use of candles on chairs to represent absent primates. These techniques were used in TEC to manipulate the majority to the will of the minority, and they have no place in a church or in dealing with theological matters. They are a tool of manipulation and deception.
On his own admission, Welby’s father was a bootlegger and a conman, and while that is no fault of Welby, the parallels are disturbing to how he conducts meetings and processes. That is why I am disturbed at the parallels.
As for ‘he and his advisors are ruthlessly determined’ it is a scandal and a source of deep embarrassment to see how nuanced language in this statement and its drafting, the design and operation of this and prior meetings have been used on Christian leaders from around the world whose first language is not English. Their trusting, courteous and respectful nature is abused and once the doors of the meeting are closed behind them and outside contact in and out restricted, the advisors get to work on them. It is outrageous abuse, yet inside all appears warm and friendly and reasonable. It is only later as happened at the Dublin meeting that the way they have been used and manipulated becomes apparent.
The Archbishop of Canterbury certainly has the role of first among equals among the Primates and has the duty and role of invitation, but that does not entitle him to control, use psychological warfare techniques and manipulate as he and his predecessor have and continue to do.
The words treated like children have been used in relation to this meeting. It is time for us all to grow up.
Dave McCarthy, the Gadget Vicar said following the recent liberalising moves in the Scottish Church that we have been too nice. We have, and so I have said exactly what I think of what is going on. It is outrageous and a disgrace, and it has been used against the faithful in the Church of England and other churches and is personal to the character and actions of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his advisors. It may be unwelcome, but there it is.
Pageantmaster is right that focussing on marriage specifically gives a relatively easy win. And there is plenty of scope for strings being pulled and pressure being applied in the next three years.
But think how things would look if it had all gone the other way and if the GAFCON (and GS Primates) had walked out, leaving the liberals in possession of the field and occupying the moral high ground as the injured party.
It is different from Dar es Salaam in 2007. The Primates have taken their own action, not left things to the ABofC – that in itself bears thinking about. TEC has had a sanction applied (however meagre people think it may be), and that sends a signal – wait for the liberal reaction to see how they understand what’s happened. ACoC (and Wales and other provinces) have been given a warning.
Not a perfect outcome, but it is the liberals who now have ground to make up.
Katherine, you say “If this is enforced, presumably after three years and no TEC repentance it would become permanent.” Perhaps I am reading the statement wrong, but I see no permanence suggested. It seems to me that after 3 years we go back to “normal.” Even the request for the Task Group has no mention of repentance.
It is maybe also worth attempting a quick commentary on the terms of the Statement as I read them so far:
1. The scope of the issue, as pointed out above is limited to the doctrine of marriage, not the issue of appointment of bishops, same sex unions, blessings as well as marriage, as was the wider focus of the Windsor Report and the prior Primates Meetings, particularly as laid out at Dar-es-Salaam. The omission of the issue of same sex blessings appears both deliberate and a startling case of dropping the ball for those whose aim was to pick up the threads of where the Primates last left things to be dealt with at Dar-es-Salaam. This is the most important omission from the point of those in liberal threatened provinces such as England.
2. The aim of the statement is set out in numbered paragraphs 1, 7 and 8. The aim is not expressed as the restoration of obedience to Christ and His word. Indeed Christ [much less God] gets only a passing mention at the very end as someone to ensure that differences are held between Primates in love and grace. Instead the aim is expressed to be Unity and its preservation.
3. The actions of the Episcopal Church are cited in paragraph 2, and instead of referencing the still extant doctrine and teaching of the Anglican Communion contained in Lambeth Resolution 1.10, that teaching is relegated to being that “held by the majority of our Provinces on the doctrine of marriage†[para 2] and the traditional teaching “reaffirmed by the majority of those gathered†[para 4].
4. The results of those actions by the Episcopal Church are said to be not disobedience to God but a cause of “deep pain†[para 3], “unilateral actions on a matter of doctrine without Catholic unity†and a “departure from mutual accountability and interdependence†[para 5], and “impair our communion and create deeper mistrust between us†as well as perhaps most importantly to Canterbury placing “huge strains on the functioning of the Instruments of Communion†[para 6]
5. Sanctions. Paragraph 7 on sanctions, such as they are, consists of a number of measures which are in place for 3 years after which they automatically lapse unless renewed. The measures are:
5.1 The Episcopal Church no longer represents the Anglican Communion on ecumenical or interfaith bodies. As has been pointed out elsewhere, this is only a repeat of the limitation imposed in 2010 in his Pentecost Letter by Rowan Williams on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada following their institution of same sex blessings and appointment of Mary Glasspool by TEC as a bishop. That restriction may still remain in place, but the Primates have only mentioned it anew in relation to the Episcopal Church.
5.2 The Episcopal Church should not be appointed or elected to an internal standing committee. The wording is difficult – does this mean that existing members of these committees including Bishop Ian Douglas on the so called Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion continue but no successor can be appointed? Is indeed that Standing Committee an “internal standing committee?â€
5.3 The Episcopal Church “while participating in the internal bodies of the Anglican Communion..will not take any part in decision making on any issues relating to doctrine or polity.” Firstly this is not an exclusion or restriction on attendance from any of the Instruments – the Primates Meeting, the Anglican Consultative Coucil or the Lambeth Conference, although this has been claimed in various places. The restriction on voting on doctrine, would only apply to the Lambeth Conference because this is where doctrine including Lambeth 1.10 has been decided in the past. The same is true of polity. The ACC and the Primates meeting have been concerned with administration and organizational matters, so there would be no restriction on TEC’s participation. It also has to be said that this restriction and that of 5.2 above are even weaker than the voluntary withdrawal from the councils of the Communion which TEC was made subject to under the Windsor Report and I think the Dromantine Primates Meeting [though I would have to check on that being the relevant meeting as it was before my time]. It is a remarkably weak ‘sanction’ or ‘consequence’ in Mr Arora’s parlance.
6. Future action. At the Primates Meeting at Dar-es-Salaam, the Episcopal Church was asked to respond to questions about their intentions and actions to the Primates. The Archbishop of Canterbury was instructed to bring their reply back to the Primates, something which Rowan Williams disobeyed. In this Statement [para 8], there is a mere request to the Archbishop to appoint a task group, not to ensure compliance with the Statement, nor to bring back a response from TEC but to primarily “MAINTAIN CONVERSATION.†It is hard to imagine anything more weak and useless. There is no doctrinal objective to this task group only a series of relational objectives: restoring relationship, rebuilding mutual trust, heal hurt, recognize commonality and explore difference. Oh and by the way, “ensuring those differences are held in the love and grace of Christ.” Christ came to ensure we hold deep differences in love and grace, apparently.
It needs to be seen for what it is–a statement of little practical use and effect though something the Primates have been encouraged to feel excited and satisfied with, for now.
“The Episcopal Church “while participating in the internal bodies of the Anglican Communion..will not take any part in decision making on any issues relating to doctrine or polity. Firstly this is not an exclusion or restriction on attendance from any of the Instruments – the Primates Meeting, the Anglican Consultative Coucil or the Lambeth Conference, although this has been claimed in various places. The restriction on voting on doctrine, would only apply to the Lambeth Conference because this is where doctrine including Lambeth 1.10 has been decided in the past. The same is true of polity. The ACC and the Primates meeting have been concerned with administration and organizational matters, so there would be no restriction on TEC’s participation.”
And the practical effect of this is truly negligible. The only votes on doctrine and/or polity that TEC may want to be a part of would be the votes that they would have lost anyway. So votes that may have gone 34-4 against the position of TEC will now be 34-3.
See David Ould’s analysis [url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/sf/page/32091/]here[/url]. While the results are disappointing to many, Welby may have inadvertently provided an opportunity to strengthen the GAFCON/GS alliance, with many “moderates” now joining in. The use of the Delphi technique at this meeting was insulting and contrary to what Welby promised the various primates. He promised an open meeting. This alone may have moved some of the “moderates” towards the GAFCON position.
It is true, Pageantmaster, that this leaves believers in England in a sad position. Not only the Anglican Communion is coming apart, but also the Church of England. The faith will endure, but the institution may not.
If, as Pageantmaster posted, the Delphi process is “a tool of manipulation and deception” then the obvious question we need to ask is who ultimately stands behind their use. The one Jesus said was a liar from the beginning comes immediately to mind. Let’s name it for what it is.
Pageantmaster – you write “The Windsor Report and the Dar-es-Salaam Primates’ Communique were concerned not only with same sex marriage but also with same sex blessing rites. This is no casual oversight that this category has been ommitted nor that the Canadians who have practiced same sex blessings have been given a pass. Justin Welby has made it clear on many occassions that he intends to find a way to recognise same sex relationships in the church…”
Speaking as someone who has lived through this both from a secular political and ecclesiastical sense, let me make it very clear – it NEVER stops with just civil unions or same sex blessings. Civil unions and same sex blessings are simple stop gaps for same sex marriage. Naive people don’t get this (and I don’t suggest you are such, but I DO suggest that the institutionalist primates might be). So while I agree 100% with Matt Kennedy’s and your disgust with the line being drawn only at SSM and not at SSB, I would also argue that from a political perspective Welby is going to have to soon be working to erase the no-SSM line or he will be facing the same, if not worse, liberal condemnation that he would for opposing SSBs.
I actually am beginning to think that something else is going on here entirely. What if the strategy behind GAFCON’s acquiescence with this admittedly weak statement is not so much that *this statement* effects the reformation of the Anglican Communion, but rather is something else. Review the evidence. Prior to this meeting, GAFCON had largely written off the official Anglican Communion and was focused primarily on it own organization moving forward. Welby convinced them to return to the table, presumably with intent to inflict the Delphi technique on them and get a nice photo shoot of everyone gathered together.
The superficial supposition is that this weak statement is exactly what Welby wanted – a very weak statement with largely symbolic sanctions on TEC for only some of its heretical actions, and Welby in charge of a vague process going forward. But this doesn’t square with all the evidence. Do we really think that GAFCON just caved?
I think that Welby might not have won the victory that it appears. Suppose that GAFCON maintained its pre-gathering attitude that the institutional Anglican Communion is no longer central to its longer term strategy. It comes to Welby’s gabfest but expect to walk out in protest. They almost do, but realize a substantial shift away from Welby and TEC and towards GAFCON by many formerly institutional primates. For THESE institutionalist primates, this statement is a big deal because they have for the first time, moved beyond the ABC and agreed to some sanction (however paltry) for TEC.
GAFCON was never going to be able to stop Welby and the CofE from brokering in SSBs. The most they were going to be able to do was walk out of the meeting in protest, and Welby was going to then say “well, it is too bad that the extremists have left, but we will go on.” Instead, Welby has just seem his Delphi technique blow up in his face, and the 3/4 of the Primates vote to sanction TEC for SSM. So consider my point earlier that if Welby is planning to bring SSB into the CofE, SSM won’t be far behind. Welby will know this, and he will have just learned that 3/4 of the primates have just found the courage to draw the line.
Maybe, just maybe, Welby has lost control of the Anglican Communion, and that GAFCON may be able to fan this little candle flame into a roaring bonfire. Maybe TEC and Welby can smother this flame and put it out. In any case, I think there is a possibility that more may be afoot then we realize.
Inasmuch as none of us were in the room, we are all speculating. Having said that, there is a more positive interpretation of the results than stated by some commenters on this thread. Consider these points:
1. TEC was sanctioned. For the first time since 2003, the Communion has disciplined TEC. That is a solid accomplishment, and much more than the typical stalemate or outright victory TEC has enjoyed until now.
2. The sanctions are not a meaningless wrist slap. TEC has been effectively demoted to observer status. If you disagree, go to Episcopal Cafe and read the bitter and hysterical reactions there.
3. Of course this sanction is not sufficient, and more steps are needed. As Abp. Beach said, it took a lot of steps to get to where we are, and it will take more than one meeting to repair the damage.
4. I agree that SSBs ought to have been condemned by the Primates’ statement and that the ACofC ought to have been sanctioned for allowing SSBs. But the reports are that same sex marriages are what galvanized the Primates. Take this victory for orthodoxy, even though it is not complete. The ACofC dodged the bullet, thanks to Abp. Hiltz’s fast talking, but the red line is now drawn and may constrain their General Synod from approving same sex marriages. That is a victory too.
5. The evidence does not show that, after TEC refuses to repent after 3 years, TEC will just resume its seat within Communion councils. Several sources report significant movement toward the GAFCON position during this meeting; the evidence does not show that TEC $$$ or argument will cause the Primates to weaken. TEC gave its best arguments to the Primates this week and those arguments did not persuade. What new arguments are there about the theological merits of TEC’s heresy?
6. The evidence does not show Abp. Welby’s determination to persuade the Communion or the CofE to adopt TEC’s heresy. Reports are that the ABC’s opening sermon started the movement of the new and undecided Primates toward the GAFCON position. Why would he preach a sermon that undercut his goals?
7. The use of the Delphi technique is intellectually dishonest and reprehensible. The attempt to use it this meeting clearly backfired. If Abp. Welby caused its use then he was clearly wrong. But other reports say that he has never really controlled the Lambeth Palace staff; I wonder who really was the driving force behind the attempt to use the Delphi technique. Some commenters here ascribe Machiavellian traits to the ABC. Consider this: a Machiavellian move would be to use the Delphi technique in the Primates meeting hoping that it would backfire, in order to discredit its use later in the upcoming CofE debates, and to discredit those who advocate its use. I wonder if the real advocates of the Delphi technique are people on the Lambeth Palace staff who retain some independence from the ABC.
8. The Primates’ action just laid down a red line for the CofE too. How can the CofE approve same sex marriages now? Machiavelli might approve using the Primates meeting to tilt the playing field a bit against proponents of same sex marriages in the upcoming CofE deliberations.
9. The evidence does not show that the ABC will simply sabotage this decision of the Primates, as did Rowan after Dar. To do so would result in the cessation of all Communion activities for the rest of Abp. Welby’s tenure as ABC. The Communion had ceased to function under Rowan, and that is what Justin Welby inherited. Why would Welby expend considerable effort to assemble the Primates, only to sabotage their decisions again and return the Comunion to where it was when he arrived?
As I conceded at the start, all of this is speculation. But I think that we have been disappointed so many times that now that perhaps we cannot recognize a victory. Of course it is not a complete victory. But let us see the results accurately.
Speaking from Scotland, where the General Synod will in June pass for its first reading a new marriage canon which omits any reference to marriage being between a man and a woman. This will be given its second reading in June 2017, at which point it will be permissible to conduct same sex marriage ceremonies. This puts the Scottish province at the forefront of this innovation, alongside TEC and ACoC. “Piskies” are very proud of their role in helping establish TEC with the Seabury consecration, so it is very possible that this church will proudly align itself with the now-maligned North American churches. Already we are seeing the hashtag #JeSuisTEC being adopted by progressives in the UK.
I suspect that the Primates’ decision will embolden the reappraisers here to push ahead. Some of the bishops will be conflicted, but while we are episcopally led, we are synodically governed – in reality the bishops’ power is limited in stopping synodical decisions, unless a majority of the seven bishops choose to put the needs of the global communion before those of some in a very small province. They can block the decision to move ahead.
As for what the reasserters will do, should it come to pass that same-sex marriage is permitted in the SEC, the plan is to………..wait on the Lord, who has been known to fight battles for his people when they remain faithful (2 Chronicles 20).
What Publius said – spot on!
I think we will need some time to see how this is perceived (which, as we know, can be more important than what was intended by some to be communicated), and the consequences that unfold, such as if TEC were to attempt to disregard the “requirement” in item 7. However, two important things seem to have happened: TEC is suspended, and the archbishop of the ACNA was seated with the primates of the Anglican Communion. Perhaps the rest is detail?
BrianfromT19: “And the practical effect of this is truly negligible.” I was just wondering if the tune for “Blowing in the Wind”(sor) was in the backgrowund of your mind as you penned those words? Because this is Rowan2.0 on Windsor2.0 as far as the eye can see, the ear hear, and the finger in the breeze can detect.
I draw your attention, and that of all, to the enormous changes wrought by the Windsor shenanigans in the EcUSA, and prophesy that even less will come of this Welbygathering. Which, by the by, was only a gathering, not even a meeting, and hence, less a win(d) than a twilight thermal shimmy in the atmosphere.
20. Hello Publius – thanks for your thoughts. May I take the liberty of giving mine on a few of them?
[blockquote]Inasmuch as none of us were in the room, we are all speculating[/blockquote]
A true statement, however I note that you go in for a bit of speculation yourself, along with giving information from what you have heard. The meeting was not entirely a black hole from which nothing came out. Nevertheless, we have a letter from Archbishop Ntagali, the Statement and now the Communique, as well as various reports which fit with the written documents, and in large part we can rely on analysis of the documents issued by the gathering.
[blockquote]1. TEC was sanctioned. For the first time since 2003, the Communion has disciplined TEC. That is a solid accomplishment, and much more than the typical stalemate or outright victory TEC has enjoyed until now.[/blockquote]
Well I did check and in the 2005 Dromantine Primates Meeting Communique, paragraph 14 we read:
14. Within the ambit of the issues discussed in the Windsor Report and in order to recognise the integrity of all parties, we request that the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Anglican Church of Canada voluntarily withdraw their members from the Anglican Consultative Council for the period leading up to the next Lambeth Conference. During that same period we request that both churches respond through their relevant constitutional bodies to the questions specifically addressed to them in the Windsor Report as they consider their place within the Anglican Communion. (cf. paragraph 8)
Following that the Anglican Consultative Council meeting ACC-13 held at Nottingham in 2005 issued the following resolution:
Resolution 10: Response to the Primates’ Statement at Dromantine
The Anglican Consultative Council:
a. takes note of the decisions taken by the Primates at their recent meeting in Dromantine, Northern Ireland, in connection with the recommendations of the Windsor Report 2004
b. notes further that the Primates there reaffirmed “the standard of Christian teaching on matters of human sexuality expressed in the 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1.10, which should command respect as the position overwhelmingly adopted by the bishops of the Anglican Communionâ€
c. endorses and affirms those decisions
d. consequently endorses the Primates’ request that “in order to recognise the integrity of all parties, the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Anglican Church of Canada voluntarily withdraw their members from the Anglican Consultative Council, for the period leading up to the next Lambeth Conferenceâ€
e. interprets reference to the Anglican Consultative Council to include its Standing Committee and the Inter-Anglican Finance and Administration Committee.
So it is not entirely accurate to say there has been no Communion discipline [or consequences if you will] for TEC since 2003, and I have already mentioned the 2010 Pentecost Letter from Rowan Williams, and of course there have been statements and or actions stating impaired communion with I recollect 22 of the Provinces of the Anglican Communion with TEC. There may have been other items of discipline/consequences.
[blockquote]2. The sanctions are not a meaningless wrist slap. TEC has been effectively demoted to observer status. If you disagree, go to Episcopal Cafe and read the bitter and hysterical reactions there[/blockquote]
No doubt at the Cafe they are swooning and having attacks of the vapors, but we can only go on the text of the Statement for its sanctions/consequences and there is no demotion to observer status. TEC remains a full participant, and indeed now the precedent for its inclusion in this gathering has been set, we can expect TEC to be seated at Lusaka in April for the next ACC meeting along with the GAFCON and Global South participants. In the unlikely event that any doctrinal or polity issues are voted upon, they would have to sit those out, but they are not ‘observers.’
Regarding your items 3 to 5, people are saying lots of things at the moment. There is certainly a fog of war, but there is nothing in the Statement or Communique to support such conclusions about the future.
to be Continued.
Publius cont.
[blockquote]6. The evidence does not show Abp. Welby’s determination to persuade the Communion or the CofE to adopt TEC’s heresy. Reports are that the ABC’s opening sermon started the movement of the new and undecided Primates toward the GAFCON position. Why would he preach a sermon that undercut his goals?[/blockquote]
Archbishop Welby is not a heretic. He has however repeatedly made clear his wish and intention to find some way for the church to mark the wonderful character of gay relationships which is code for some sort of same sex blessing. Follow the link above to what David Porter has said.
What we hear is that many of the Primates were unaware of the situation in TEC. That is no surprise, and the same thing has been observed at most Global South meetings, notably the Trumpet held at Singapore. Many Global South bishops live in remote areas with limited internet or phone connections, and they have many local challenges and issues which take their time rather than reading Titus One Nine, the Cafe, or ACNS. What may have happened is that when they heard from one another what was going on they did indeed move towards the GAFCON/Global South position, but it is unlikely as a response to Justin Welby, not that I have seen an official transcript of anything he said.
[blockquote]7. ..other reports say that he has never really controlled the Lambeth Palace staff; I wonder who really was the driving force behind the attempt to use the Delphi technique. Some commenters here ascribe Machiavellian traits to the ABC. Consider this: a Machiavellian move would be to use the Delphi technique in the Primates meeting hoping that it would backfire, in order to discredit its use later in the upcoming CofE debates, and to discredit those who advocate its use. I wonder if the real advocates of the Delphi technique are people on the Lambeth Palace staff who retain some independence from the ABC.[/blockquote]
There is no evidence to support this. All those who will have been involved including David Porter were Justin’s appointees, indeed he has got rid of almost everyone who was there in Lambeth Palace when he arrived [with the exception of the Correspondence Secretary] and replaced them with his own appointees, just as he did at Durham and is in the process of doing at the Anglican Communion Office. He is an oilman – that is what he does. If he is appointed to head your organisation it is time to dust off your CV.
It would however be Machiavellian to permit your staff to take the blame for things which happen when you happen to be chairing a meeting and organising the agenda.
If you believe that story I have some windmills for you to tilt at. Welby has ‘form’ when it comes to his box of tricks including using variants of the Delphi Technique.
[blockquote]8. The Primates’ action just laid down a red line for the CofE too. How can the CofE approve same sex marriages now? Machiavelli might approve using the Primates meeting to tilt the playing field a bit against proponents of same sex marriages in the upcoming CofE deliberations.[/blockquote]
There are no current plans for same sex marriage in the CofE, including from Welby. There is however a process going on to consider issues around marking/blessing gay relationships and Welby has repeatedly expressed his sympathy/intention of finding a way to bring this in. See my link in 10 above and note Welby’s recent article in the Spectator Magazine. As Jamesw notes however, some form of ‘marking’ or blessing leads to other action eventually including marriage changes, just as has and is happening in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada.
When a man repeatedly says he intends to find a way to do something, and his staff say he intends to bring it to General Synod for consideration, you should take him seriously. He means what he says. This is where we were most seriously let down by this gathering this week.
[blockquote]9. …Why would Welby expend considerable effort to assemble the Primates, only to sabotage their decisions again and return the Comunion to where it was when he arrived?[/blockquote]
There is nothing in the Statement and Communique which Welby would have a problem in enforcing if enforcing CONVERSATION, restoring relationships, rebuilding mutual trust, healing hurt, recognizing commonality and exploring deep differences is what the Primates have asked him to do.
Its what he does. Well except with the staff he inherits.
19 jamesw
Thanks. I agree with much of what you say about blessings being the thin edge of the wedge. Activists are not satisfied until they achieve all their aims and find something else to go on to.
You will have to ask GAFCON primates what was going on. I am not a signatory to the Jerusalem Declaration and not in their councils. I don’t know what happened except that they don’t all seem to have been on the same page.
20 Gadget Vicar – thank you for your sad update. God bless, uphold and protect you and the flock you pastor.
One of the things I have been thinking about in the past few days is that when we try to do things in our own strength they just come to naught. When we come to recognise our own complete need and reliance upon God, that is what He wants from us, and then He can use us and will act in power. Always in His own time and plan of course.
I hope that jamesw is right in his optimistic assessment of what may have been going under the surface at this gathering, but at this point I fail to see how this incredibly lame result is a better alternative to simply walking out and reconvening elsewhere. I have great respect for the orthodox primates, and this post is not a criticism of them.
As I’ve said here at T19 many times over the years, what we’re dealing with is not so much a matter of the personal flaws or failures of certain leaders, whether ++Rowan Williams and ++Justin Welby, or brave orthodox leaders who have been outmanueved at times or betrayed by the scandalous shenanigans of our heretical foes on the left. The fundamental problems w’re contending with aren’t so much personal as systemic.
Thus, while I’m surprised and disappointed that the orthodox primates didn’t just walk out and shake the dust off their feet on the steps of Canterbury Cathedral, I’m not shocked. The GAFCON primates (and other GS primates) have repeatedly affirmed that they are not leaving “the Anglican Communion.”
The problem is that no such thing actually exists any longer. The orthodox primates just haven’t got that memo, or aren’t yet willing to come out of denial and admit it. The Anglican world is hopelessly shattered. The tear in the fabric is unmendable (remember the folly of trying to patch old worn-out garments in Mark 2:22).
For me, the fatal flaw in this final statement surfaces right at the start. The communique asserts that the primates are unanimous in seeking to “walk together.” This obviously echoes the final ominous words of the Windsor Report of 2004, that warned that if the moratoria it urged upon both sides weren’t observed, that we would have tio learn how to “walk apart.”
This week, the primates listened to (or read) some harsh warnings in the book of Amos that came up in the Daily Office. But they seem to have missed the grim proverbial saying in Amos 3:3, “[i]Can two walk together unless they be agreed?[/i]” (KJV, RSV and NRSV have, “…unless they have made an appointment?”).
It is impossible for people who believe in mutually exclusive worldviews and mutually exclusive gospels to “walk together.”
Forget saving “The Anglican Communion.” It is gone, or irreparably divided. Anglicanism, however, is a different matter. We have to learn to separate the kernel, prayerbook religion, from the institutional chaff that has encased it for so long.
The former Anglican Communion is no more. That parrot is dead. It isn’t just stunned, as in the famous Monty Python skit. But orthodox Anglicanism is very much alive. Let’s stop confusing the two things.
David Handy+
The crucial question to answer is, gun to one’s head–has this meeting and this statement made things for Christ and in the Anglican Communion better or worse? I see a lot of analysis bypassing this question.
#29, Fr. Harmon, cautiously, I say better for Christian witness in the world, especially in the dangerous world in which most GS primates live. African Christians don’t know, as many are pointing out, all the ins and outs of the past decade + of Anglican disarray. What they know, now, is that African Anglicans, along with some Americans, have stood for the traditional faith.
For the Anglican Communion, it depends on how you look at it. TEC is saying clearly it won’t repent (or go back, as it says). I doubt that Canada will avoid the precipice, and the CofE is also teetering. So the Communion as it has been is in terrible shape. The believing Communion, as it is developing, is in positive and improving condition.
Brian at #2 wrote:
“Well this works out well for TEC. Three years with voice but no vote then we’re done and we stay in the AC and ordain who we want and marry who we want. Looks like a win to me.”
Assuming that everything turns out as you predict, three years ahead, that may well be the case.
In similar vein, I predict that I will receive an inheritance of $40 million from an unknown relative at some point in the next three years. Looks like a win to me!
Publius wrote:
“But other reports say that he has never really controlled the Lambeth Palace staff; I wonder who really was the driving force behind the attempt to use the Delphi technique.”
That is an interesting point. Jaundiced as I am about ++Welby, I am far, far more jaundiced about the Lambeth Palace staff, particularly the ones who weasel their way into that department of Lambeth Palace known as the Anglican Communion Office. They have been causing trouble in the AC for years, and a scenario like you paint is more than possible.
PM wrote:
“What we hear is that many of the Primates were unaware of the situation in TEC. That is no surprise, and the same thing has been observed at most Global South meetings, notably the Trumpet held at Singapore. Many Global South bishops live in remote areas with limited internet or phone connections, and they have many local challenges and issues which take their time rather than reading Titus One Nine, the Cafe, or ACNS.”
I respect all of your posts and views, but I have to ask – why do you assume that the Primates who were said to be unaware of things going on in TEC were part of the Global South?
I suggest there is good reason for considering that the opposite is the case, i.e. that the Primates who had to be brought up to speed were the 17 or more who are not part of the Global South. Consider:
(a) The Global South primates meet at least every two years. At most of their meetings since 2005 they issue some comment about the situation regarding TEC and ACoC, indicating that they discuss it every time. There are also many meetings involving bishops of the GS.
(b) By contrast, when have the non-GS primates had the opportunity to meet? The last fully-attended Primates Meeting was in 2009 at Alexandria. That is six years ago.
Hi Michael A
Perhaps because with the exception of New Zealand and parts of Australia the liberal provinces are in the North [Canada, US, British Isles and Europe], and everyone else is by definition in the Global South, from Papua New Guinea to India to Tierra Del Fuego.
Reports from the penultimate Global South ‘Trumpet’ held in Singapore [if you regard Tunisia/Egypt as the last one] were that at the start many bishops simply had not heard what was going on in the north of America and had to be brought up to speed once they had got over their astonishment.
May I also comment on your reference to Lambeth Palace staff? While that may have been true a few years ago, Justin has pretty much been clearing house – in Church House in the CofE, in Lambeth Palace, and has now moved on to the ACO in St Andrew’s House. The downside of that is that he and the CofE have lost the organisational corporate knowledge, history and experience as it has been shown the door. But that doesn’t matter – you can always make it up as you go along.
It is rather telling that at Dromantine, the Primates were able to reaffirm:
“the standard of Christian teaching on matters of human sexuality expressed in the 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1.10, which should command respect as the position overwhelmingly adopted by the bishops of the Anglican Communionâ€
and to require TEC and ACoC to withdraw from the ACC and its standing committees, and that was in response to same-sex blessings.
Ten years later and with rampant use of same sex blessings in the US and Canada and they are not allowed to
– reassert their doctrine other than as the ‘traditional teaching’
– produce a sanction or consequence anything like as strong in response to same sex marriage
– mention or deal with same sex blessings
– mention Christ or scripture in support of their position, only catholic order and jumping ahead of the other Communion provinces.
All quite deliberate of course.
PM, just bear in mind that there are 20 provinces in the Global South, leaving 18 that are not.
Given that the GS primates issued communiques on this issue in 2012 and 2013, whereas other Primates haven’t met together as a body since 2009, isn’t it at least possible that some of the Primates who require to be brought up to speed were not in the GS?
As I read the limited information on numbers, only 15 primates were prepared to vote for discipline of TEC and ACoC at the beginning of the conference, whereas “the vast majority” of primates were prepared to sign off on the final statement four days later. I am guessing that most of the initial 15 were in the GS, but the final grouping must have included many who aren’t in the GS.
“The only votes on doctrine and/or polity that TEC may want to be a part of would be the votes that they would have lost anyway.”
Sounds like Brian at #16 is whistling in the dark here – if TEC only wanted to be part of such a grouping, it would be long gone from the AC. On the contrary, its obvious that TEC has been desperate for Communion membership, and has spent a lot of money over the years to retain it.
Mind you, the Curmudgeon points out that the actual amount given by TEC has dropped off markedly over the last year – sooner or later TEC’s money shortages had to bite I suppose.
36 MichaelA – I think perhaps there is a distinction to be drawn between the geographical Global South, to which I referred, and the body with its own standing committee to which members of the Global South are more or less committed, and of course GAFCON. there is a certain fluidity between them all, and for example Southern Africa and Hong Kong which are firmly in the geographical Global South are yet more liberal and share little with the group with a standing committee. Then there are the united provinces of the Indian Subcontinent, which are a little bit Anglican and a little bit Methodist and a little bit of this and that but who probably are more concerned with their own affairs to know much of the Anglican picture.
There are plenty of reports about what went on, but there is also a certain fog. One can rely I think on what Ntagali wrote on things up to his departure, I recollect on Tuesday or Wednesday. This seems to have been around the time of the failed Delphi attempt which seems to have followed on from his motion, perhaps as a spoiling tactic for it, although listening to Welby in the Press conference it looks like the ‘observers’/facilitators were helping the Primates understand one another throughout, whatever that means. I am not entirely sure why primates were unable to understand each other without them unless they are qualified translaters, but that would presumably only apply to the spanish-speaking and francophone provinces. I have no reason to suppose that they were there to translate.
PM at #35 wrote: “It is rather telling that at Dromantine, the Primates were able to reaffirm: …”
That was in 2005. What about Primates meetings since then?
Here is the text of the statement issued by the last Primates meeting to do so, in 2009 at Alexandria: http://www.anglicancommunion.org/media/68372/Pastoral-Letter.pdf. I suggest anyone interested in this topic read it carefully. The 2016 meeting statement seems to be a significant improvement on 2009.
Or, to put it another way, the 2016 meeting can only be viewed negatively if we ignore how badly things turned for orthodoxy in the Anglican Communion after 2007.
I have seen this on David Ould’s website (thanks David+): http://davidould.net/anglican-tv-interviews-archbishop-foley-beach/
It is a 19 minute interview with ++Foley Beach after the end of the conference. I really recommend that people interested in this watch it. I found a couple of surprising things.
40. I agree. I just watched it, and learned some very interesting things. Everyone with any interest should watch the ++Foley Beach/KarlKallsen interview.
This is also interesting – a short video press release from +Jensen, secretary of Gafcon: http://gafcon.org/january-2016/
To me, some of the most telling points about all this, that have come to the forefront on Anglican Uninked (I think Kallsen and Dean Conger do a terrific job – I think I’ve sent you links on AI211, 212, and add today’s 213, when its posted.), that most people who have responded on Titus, and elsewhere, don’t seem to understand, or don’t want to understand, as many of them stand in judgement of various participants, are:
1. The last time such a meeting was attempted to be held, Welby wasn’t even a bishop, and whilst he was probably, at least to some extent, aware of was going on in the US, it wasn’t either his business or a priority for him. Plus, he’d undoubtedly had been influenced by R Williams’ style and manner in one way or another.
2. Welby took the trouble to talk with the primates over the last two years, and agreed to let them set the agenda. He followed through on this. This is what took place. In other words, he treated the primates with far more respect, respect they were due, than did Williams. This year’s group DID set their agenda.
3. A significant number of the primates are new, and many of them were simply unaware of ECUSA since ’03. This meant GAFCON/Global South/ACNA had a huge task of education to carry out, once the agenda was set. That they obtained the result they did significantly reveals their success in that educating.
4. What the primates agreed to do, and only do, and did, was to try to find an answer to “How shall we respond to ECUSA’s Gen Con ’16?†That was the top question on their own agenda. Nothing else. And, that’s all they tried to do.
5. There are a great number of hugely biased people reporting on the gathering. I think Kallsen/Conger are the best I’ve come across at doing what God’s wishes are.
6. Without a doubt, when you listen to K/C, you will hear their viewpoints on ++Welby, his strengths and weaknesses. I found them highly instructive and informative, valuable. More importantly, though, I believe, is their belief that ++Welby will be a far better and effective ABC for having faced all this and worked through it.
7. ECUSA will be able to think about all this before their Gen Con ’20. Will they change what they are doing? In my opinion, “NO!, they will not.†Further in my opinion, there will have to be another gathering – no one knows now who will still be in the same positions they now hold in late ’20 or ‘21; ACNA and G/G will have new leaders who, to the extent they wish to, will have to re-educate the rest of the provincial primates all over again about ECUSA.
8. Until you have walked in someone else’s shoes, try not to judge them.
39 Thanks MichaelA
Alexandria was when they started playing the small group game and Rowan blocked any move to talk seriously about the issue as well as refusing to deal with what went on in his own actions post Dar-es-Salaam. That was when many of the Primates decided it was a waste of time and didn’t bother to come to Dublin, particularly since TEC’s uncouth Presiding Bishop was strutting round in her pants getting in everyone’s faces. It was part of the era of Rowan neutering and killing off the Instruments, one by one…ACC at Jamaica, Lambeth Conference and so on.
I agree that nails it, PM.
Read the whole communique. It has a trojan horse also. Hint: border crossing versus same sex blessings in the Windsor Report.