Final Communiqué from the Primates 2016 Gathering

The Primates recognise that the Christian church and within it the Anglican Communion have often acted in a way towards people on the basis of their sexual orientation that has caused deep hurt. Where this has happened they express their profound sorrow and affirm again that God’s love for every human being is the same, regardless of their sexuality, and that the church should never by its actions give any other impression.

We affirmed the consultation that had taken place in preparation for the meeting by Archbishop Welby and commended his approach for future events within the Communion.

The consideration of the required application for admission to membership of the Communion of the Anglican Church of North America was recognised as properly belonging to the Anglican Consultative Council. The Primates recognise that such an application, were it to come forward, would raise significant questions of polity and jurisdiction.

Read it all.


Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, - Anglican: Primary Source, -- Statements & Letters: Organizations, --Justin Welby, Anglican Primates, Archbishop of Canterbury, Primates Gathering in Canterbury January 2016

10 comments on “Final Communiqué from the Primates 2016 Gathering

  1. Bruce806 says:

    I noticed there are no signatures attached to the communique. Are we to assume that all the primates agreed to this?

  2. Fr. Dale says:

    In answer to your question, “No”. This was a CoE press release with an anonymous author who probably ran it by ++Welby first. Did this author attend the same “gathering” as reported by the Primates statement? This was a “gathering”. It allows folks to meet with no agenda and no decisions that will be enforced. Does this sound like the last Lambeth Conference to anyone? When I think of the CoE final communique, two words come to mind. White Wash. The Windsor Report was a better document and fell into a black hole.

  3. MichaelA says:

    Comments by other evangelical leaders in Europe, which are quite encouraging:

    I didn’t know, for instance, that evangelicals in France had problems with this issue, and that one of the churches there has been split by it.

    And the comments by the moderator of the Free Church of Scotland are very encouraging.

  4. Fr. Dale says:

    I must correct myself. After listening to the ABC. He claimed in the press conference following that the primates did sign off on the statement.

  5. Marie Blocher says:

    Fr Dale, The Primates may have signed off on the Statement, but that doesn’t mean they signed off on the Final Communique, which included a bunch of things not in the Statement.

  6. Fr. Dale says:

    Thanks, I don’t think they would have accepted the watered down version.

  7. Luke says:

    Be sure and listen to ++Foley Beach’s interview.

  8. Luke says:

    After reviewing nearly all of the posted comments, and listening to Kallsen’s/Dean Conger’s Anglican Uninked reports 211 and 212, and ++Foley Beach’s interview with Kallsen, here is my summary, for what you may think it is worth.

    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.

  9. Fr. Dale says:

    Thanks for the link. ++Foley Beach strikes me as articulate, engaging, honest and lacking guile.

  10. Luke says:

    To all above: please see –, wherein +Masters of the Anglican Network in Canada makes it clear that many, if not all, GAFCON leaders, along with ++Foley left Canterbury before the “final communique” was written and released.

    No way they could have signed off on it.