Bishop Curry was asked directly whether he would contest these “consequences” at the next meeting of the ACC in April. On Wednesday, he would say only: “The ACC is the only formal constitutional body of the Anglican Communion and it will decide what it will do. Our representatives from the Episcopal Church look forward to being there.”
Earlier this week, a prominent canon lawyer, Professor Norman Doe, state that the Primates’ ruling was not binding…. He described it as “completely unacceptable interference with the autonomy of each of these bodies as they transact their own business”.
The ACC is due to meet in Zambia in April. Two US members, the Bishop of Connecticut, the Rt Revd Ian Douglas, and the Revd Gay Clark Jennings, have confirmed that they will attend. Bishop Douglas is also a member of the ACC’s standing committee, and would therefore have to stand down if the ACC chooses to comply with the Primates’ wishes.
In the past, members of the ACC have criticised the Primates for overstepping their remit. In 2006, after the Primates asked the US Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada to voluntarily withdraw their representatives from the ACC, the organisation’s then chairman, the Rt Revd John Paterson, criticised the move as “at least slightly premature, if not coercive and somewhat punitive”….
Nice try, Bishop Curry.
The ACC has a constitution, by virtue of being a registered British charity in order to get tax exemptions. That doesn’t make it “the only formal constitutional body of the Anglican Communion”.
The ACC has no more status in the Anglican Communion than the members of the Anglican Communion choose to give it.
If TEC members insist on attending TEC meetings, then the orthodox in the Communion should repudiate the ACC’s right to have any say in Communion affairs.
[blockquote] “…the Most Revd Francisco de Assis da Silva, stressed that the decision of the Primates “needs to be scrutinised by the Anglican Consultative Council, as this is the only legislative body entitled to decide on membership issues within the Communion”.” [/blockquote]
Since when is the ACC a “legislative body”? It is a registered British charity, that is all.
Nor is it “entitled to decide on membership issues within the Communion” – who gave it that entitlement? There are a couple of Lambeth resolutions (themselves of no legal effect and not binding) to the effect that it exists to consult, nothing about deciding. And the Communion members can decide anything they want now, including to ignore the ACC.
Ball is in Welby’s court. The part I don’t get is how it is that TEC upper level management can’t add. If the Gafcon provinces show up to the ACC meeting (and I think they will), and other primates have clued their delegations in on what’s what, and the ABoC does not pull a Rowan Williams and put a half dozen New Zealanders on as ad hoc members, then TEC will lose every vote by 50 to 10 with a few abstentions.
And by refusing to comply with the Primates, they may bring ADDITIONAL “consequences” down on themselves (if they breach the agreement, then the 3 year “grace period” no longer applies)- such as being removed from the ACC all together – there is no law stating that x number of Americans must sit on the board of the British charity – the strategy they are playing is just dumb.
[blockquote]In 2006, after the Primates asked the US Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada to voluntarily withdraw their representatives from the ACC, the organisation’s then chairman, the Rt Revd John Paterson, criticised the move as “at least slightly premature, if not coercive and somewhat punitive .[/blockquote]
Really? A surprising thing for Paterson to have said considering that ACC-13 made the following resolution:
[blockquote]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.[/blockquote]
Btw, that was in 2005
PM, yes, in point of fact, Paterson did say that-
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2005/24-june/news/acc-chairman-ticks-off-primates
And he must have been complicit in the ACC vote to drop the “request to withdraw” from the Primates recommendations
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2005/24-june/news/acc-resorts-to-secret-poll-to-modify-ejection-plan
TEC is hoping to pull off the same thing all over again 10 years later
5 Thanks and well spotted, TJ. I also see that the attempt was voted down and the Resolution 10 unamended was passed by ACC-13 at Nottingham.
The confusion about the date cited by the Church Times as 2006 seems to be to do with the date subsequently appearing on their articles, even though ACC-13 was held 19 – 28 June 2005 according to the report
[blockquote] Bishop Curry was asked directly whether he would contest these “consequences†at the next meeting of the ACC in April. On Wednesday, he would say only: “The ACC is the only formal constitutional body of the Anglican Communion and it will decide what it will do.”[/blockquote]
If this is true, are there enough votes on the ACC to permanently expel TEC, since it doesn’t seem to be getting the message? If I were TEC I wouldn’t push my luck. They may just be digging the hole deeper.
#7 –
I think the answer to that is “it depends.”
Historically, ACC has been controlled in several ways. One is various parliamentary maneuvers, or machinations by the chair (remember RW torpedoing his own covenant draft at Jamaica?). And the ACO, generally has substantial control of the agenda.
The standing committee and the chair also have the power to “co-opt” additional members- RW, as I recall, had a fondness for revisionist New Zealanders, and can load the committee with a lot of extraneous people who will vote the party line.
But given the vote in the Primates Meeting (reported variously as somewhere between 26-3 and 6 abstentions to 27-6 with 3 abstentions), if the delegations vote in line with their primates, TEC would lose, regardless of how many extraneous votes KJS may have packed on during the lame duck session of the standing committee.
But it really, really, comes down to Justin Welby as the committee chair. If he says, “we need to support the Primates for the good of the Communion”, then there is no doubt the sanctions on TEC will hold. If he pulls a Rowan Williams, then who knows. BUT, if Ian Douglas takes a seat on the Standing Committee, my prediction is that the Communion is over- the Gafcon delegations will up and leave, and at least some of the GS with them. There will be formal “impairment” if not outright breaks with the ABoC, and GAFCON will replace Lambeth as a destination for the majority of Anglicans.
Another major question, and a gaping hole in the primates statement, is WHAT committees, exactly, is TEC barred from? The wording is vague. I suppose we can assume the standing committee is a standing committee. But were the Gafcon primates led to believe that ACC was included? If so, was the same made clear to Curry? TEC is acting like showing up for ACC is an act of rebellion, while some primates and bishops seem to be implying that TEC is expected at ACC, while others seem under the impression that they won’t see anyone from TEC at a Communion function for the next 3 years.
++Welby needs to clarify that, publicly, NOW.
My prediction is that the liberals will do the same with ACC as they did with it in 2005. I hope I am wrong, of course.