(ACNS) Archbishop of Canterbury sets out his vision for the 2017 Primates Meeting
Posted in
* Anglican - Episcopal,
* Culture-Watch,
--Justin Welby,
Anglican Primates,
Anthropology,
Archbishop of Canterbury,
Ecclesiology,
Ethics / Moral Theology,
Globalization,
Theology,
Theology: Scripture
Well, somebody has to point this out, so it might as well be me.
According to the linked ACNS press release (at least, as I post this, will not surprise me if ACNS doesn’t edit it shortly):
“Members of TEC participated in ACC-16 in Lusaka, but none took part in formal votes on issues of doctrine and polity – another stipulation of the Primates’ communiqué.”
Within a few hours of the release of this statement the TEC delegates to ACC-16 had issued a statement categorically denying this statement, and reiterating (as they and others stated immediately after the meeting) that the TEC delegation voted on every single issue, including those of polity and doctrine, put before ACC-16.
Is ACNS so completely incompetent that editors don’t read what they post, or are the TEC delegates fabricating a story? Frankly, I was under the impression that several ACC officials had confirmed TEC’s “full participation.” Given the amount of rancor over TEC participation, one would have thought that if they had acted in accordance with the Primates Communique that would have been made public at the time. Certainly there were numerous Global South delegations present, so posting false information on purpose (whether ACNS or TEC) makes no sense, since GS Primates and officials have ready access to the accounts of their own delegations and therefore know what actually happened.
Sorry for the poor grammar, better would be…
…Within a few hours of the release of the ACNS statement, the TEC delegates to ACC-16 released their own statement categorically denying the ACNS account…
Well, I see that ACNS has now re-edited the article to include a sentence saying that NOBODY voted on matters of polity or doctrine, all those matters were decided by “consensus.” They did not note the “correction” as a correction, and have made it appear to have always been there.