The reality is that the “consequences” agreed to at the 2016 Primates’ meeting have been all but ignored. The Anglican Consultative Council chose to effectively ignore the Primates’ request and the Archbishop of Canterbury, rather than insisting that they were implementing, simply accepted the outcome. Hence the language in this year’s communiqué that he “will take steps within his authority”. i.e., where he has no “authority” there is no chance of anything happening. The Primus of the SEC, Bishop Mark Strange, must have been quaking in his boots at that one.
Worse was to come:
We discussed difficulties arising from cross-border interventions, agreeing that the principles were clearly stated from the Council of Nicaea onwards and in the 1998 Lambeth Conference. We recognised that there were opportunities for joint initiatives and mission partnerships for the benefit of the Gospel where these are agreed between Provinces. However consent was critical to any inter-provincial collaboration and it was essential that courtesy and love should be extended to Provinces at all times.
Attempts to deal with breaches of consent and courtesy should be made in regional Primates’ Meetings and only referred to the Secretary General and the Archbishop of Canterbury as a last resort. We recognised that persistent and deliberate non-consensual cross-border activity breaks trust and weakens our communion.
We recognised that there is a need for a season of repentance and renewal including where interventions may have happened without prior permission having being sought.
These are three paragraphs that expose just how poor the outcome of this meeting was. First note the language used here which refers to the recent GAFCON consecration of Andy Lines. It is a “breach of consent and courtesy” which is “persistent and deliberate” and “non-consensual”. It “breaks trust and weakens our communion” and requires “repentance and renewal”.
Compare to the language used above of the SEC’s actions: “the distance that exists in our relationships due to deep differences in understanding on same sex marriage”. You would think that it was simply a misunderstanding by family members. The language is clearly not as strong. Further there is zero mention of the ongoing position of TEC and the Canadian Church (ACC). If there is persistent and deliberate action then surely it is the absolute refusal of TEC, Canada, Scotland (and perhaps, soon, New Zealand) to desist from their path of deliberately rejecting Jesus’ words on what marriage is. Yet it is not even mentioned, let alone in the tone of language reserved for GAFCON. The remedial action is roundly criticised yet the heresy (for that is what it is) that caused the crisis is treated like a spat between siblings.