The ACC may take years to do whatever it does (what does it do?). Fortunately, other bodies get a vote. There is a Primates’ Meeting hard upon us; if the ECUSA-owned tools want to allow others to create facts on the ground while they play at bureaucracy, let them.
Why is this only reported by ENS? There does not appear to be anything on the official anglican communion web site. Is ENS now telling Lambeth Palace what to report?
Speaking personally, I’d prefer that the new province not be recognized as a member of the AC. However, I am compelled to point out that, in addition to the ACC-10 resolution referred to in the announcement (which is here) there is also this ACNS article about that meeting, which says in part:
The guidelines are not intended to be a legal requirement but a flexible aid. The Rev John Rees, of the ecclesiastical law firm Winckworth and Pemberton, pointed out, “In a number of instances in recent years, although the ACC has been ready and willing to offer advice and assistance to Provinces in process of formation, it has not in fact been consulted until the process has become so far advanced that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to incorporate any of its suggestions into the proposed constitutional documents.”
Discussions on the guidelines threw up the need for a change to the ACC’s own constitution. Membership of the ACC must be agreed not only by the Council itself but also by two-thirds of the Primates of the Anglican Communion. Since a Province can be a member of the Anglican Communion without being a member of the ACC, it was possible for a Primate to be asked whether or not he agreed to his own Province becoming a member of the ACC. The Council resolved to restrict consultation to the Primates of ACC member Provinces.
So, while the lengthy ACC process is recommended, it is not strictly required… and two-thirds of the Primates could short-cut it if they really wanted to force the issue.
So the question is: can they muster two-thirds of the Primates?
And what spiritual and synodic over arching authority does the Archbishop of Canterbury, an appointed official of the British Government, have over the other national churches of the Anglican Communion?
Think about it. The nations of the other national churches are no longer colonies of the British Government. It follows that their national churches are no longer in a subordinate relationship with Canterbury.
The other national churches of the Anglican Communion are collegial peers of of the Church of England/the ABC. As a collegial peer, the ABC should not be calling the shots nor should any entity subordinate to him be permitted to do so.
Instead, the primates of the Anglican Communion should manage the greater episcopacy of the Anglican Communion as a synodic college of peers with the ABC being JUST ONE OF THOSE PEERS.
And what spiritual and synodic over arching authority does the Archbishop of Canterbury, an appointed official of the British Government, have over the other national churches of the Anglican Communion?
A person who was an Anglican first would know his role.
I have to agree with Tar Heel. The ABC’s leadership (or lack thereof) style is to allow things to happen and see where they lead. Laissez Faire has not worked well in economics and it causes equal suffering here. However, the ABC is 100% ideologically committed to this style and has yet to vary from it.
“A person who was an Anglican first would know his role.”
“Pax Britannia” is OVER Brian.
The British Empire no longer exists. The ex-colonies are now co-equals with Britain and govern themselves. Likewise, their national churches, derived from the Church of England, are now co-equals with the Church of England. The ABC is a figurehead for the Anglican Communion just as Queen Elizabeth II is a figurehead for the British Commonwealth. The ABC no more ‘rules’ the national churches of South Africa or Nigeria than does the Queen ‘rule’ South Africa or Nigeria.
I call myself an Anglican because I adhere to Anglican ‘form,’ tradition and acknowledge as my bishop a man who is an orthodox Anglican ordained in the Apostolic Succession.
Now if you want to talk about Anglican ‘rule,’ then you may have a point. But this is a highly arguable point.
The ABC is a first among equals. The current occupant of the See will not be there forever. The Conservatives will likely form the next government so a less liberal +++ABC is likely before the next Lambeth. If a considerable number of primates recognize the new Province – a deal will likely be brokered. Facts on the ground usually win the day. The new Province will need to show itself as governable, viable, and growing. If it hits 250k ASA in the next few years it will likely become an unstoppable fait accompli. Lets see how big a train wreck TEC GC2009 is.
De jure recognition of ACNA is probably a ways off. De facto recognition could come much quicker if the primates demand that Archbishop Duncan(and I, for one, plan on using that phrase a lot) be admitted to the next Primates Meeting regardless of how loudly Fred and Kate scream about it. Because the moment Archbishop Duncan walks into that room, ACNA is recognized and the only thing left for the Communion to do will be to adjust itself to the new reality. And how long that takes is less than irrelevant.
[i] In relation to the recent announcement from the meeting of the Common Cause Partnership in Chicago, the process has not yet begun [/i] —Lambeth Palace
The sort of curt, self-satisfied dismissal you would expect from ECUSA’s most important bedmate.
That “demand” will only work if at least a majority of the Primates agree to it. Obviously the GAFCON Primates support the new province, but they’ll need to line up several others to get a majority.
And even then, I think that a situation where more than a simple majority, but fewer than a two-thirds majority of the Primates agree to recognize the new province and (+)+Duncan, is perhaps the most ambiguous and most contentious outcome. Fewer than half the Primates, and neither the Primates’ Meeting nor the ACC recognizes the new province; more than two-thirds, and both do (and the ABC is, I think, unlikely to disagree with two of the Instruments in this situation.) In either case, the result is pretty clear.
But if the Primates’ Meeting states by a simply majority that it recognizes ACNA, but the ACC does not because two-thirds of the Primates do not agree, then the Instruments are split… and if they’re split I think the ABC would consider himself free to not recognize the new province. I know, reasserters don’t care what the ABC thinks; but it would still leave it murky whether or not ACNA is really “in” or not. Ambiguity like that is not what y’all want right now.
That is, of course, the big “if.” If Archbishop Duncan is not admitted to the meeting, the primates who support him have to be willing to immediately walk out and go home. There has to be some brinkmanship here; my gutless lord of Canterbury has to know that refusal will have consequences for him and for the Communion. If the primates let themselves get rolled again, recognition will never come(Dr. Williams will see to that) and the absolutely final opportunity for Anglican conservatives will have been squandered.
i for one would like it to be recognised by the AC and the ABC. i value my anglican history a great deal; without Britannia, we wouldn’t be here in more ways than one. their recognition is important to me.
They say the process has not yet begun – a very interesting wording.
There are all sorts of things they don’t say like: there is already a province in the geographic area, or this is an unwelcome development. or who cares. There are all sorts of things they could say – one could read what is said to mean – ok take the next step and start the process
Also note that the words are not the ABC. No tellling what he would actually say if he were to put words in his own mouth – and I really do mean no telling
I call myself an Anglican because I adhere to Anglican ‘form,’ tradition and acknowledge as my bishop a man who is an orthodox Anglican ordained in the Apostolic Succession.
Now if you want to talk about Anglican ‘rule,’ then you may have a point. But this is a highly arguable point.
Sorry for the snarkiness AF, however, I still maintain that the very name Anglican means British.
Don’t accept the notion that only Canterbury, the Primates’ Meeting, and the Anglican Consultative Council can confer relevant recognition.
For the past 5 years, Abp. Williams has manipulated Anglican institutions to protect ECUSA. He will probably continue to do so by preventing the primates and the ACC from taking timely action to recognize the new province. He will keep recognition off the agenda. If supporters of recognition persist, he will sidetrack them with studies and convenantal legerdemain.
The only way to get good out of Abp. Williams is to force his hand.
In the meantime, we should give thanks for the legitimacy that will come from recognitition by provinces accounting for a majority of the world’s Anglicans. We should work for the further legitimacy of recognition by a majority of the world’s Anglican provinces.
We should never, ever accept the notion that some self-willed coterie in Lambeth Palace can legitimately stonewall recognition (or, for that matter, anything else).
[i] The very “outside” approach of what comment #14 suggests amounts to terrorism. Every organization—including the Anglican Communion—has established ways, methods, rules … and such a demand would not be even remotely acceptable. The end does not justify corrrupt means. [/i]
Why do “established ways, methods, rules” constrain only the orthodox?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
From the Revisionist Dictionary:
[blockquote] PROPHETIC ACTS: How impatient Progressives get their way. Progressives act “prophetically” when they break rules to commit noisy acts of inclusion. [/blockquote]
The very “outside†approach of what comment #14 suggests amounts to terrorism. Every organization—including the Anglican Communion—has established ways, methods, rules … and such a demand would not be even remotely acceptable.
The end does not justify corrrupt means.
Is this applicable to reappraisers too? Isn’t putting facts on the ground and threatening (even implicitly) to withhold financing also terrorism? Can you clarify why “terrorism” is OK for changes you support and not ok for changes you do not support?
Terrorism, Gracie? You mean like when the Episcopal Organization consecrated an unrepentant sinner without consulting the rest of the Communion, unilaterally destroying every Anglican pronouncement on the subject? That kind of terrorism?
No Sherri, there are those who worship in the Anglican style. Anyone is free to call themselves what they want. But if you are not in communion with Canterbury, then you are another denomination altogether. Again, that’s fine. And it may not matter to you. But people like magnolia above in #19 consider it important to be in that unbroken chain of history and faith that is the Anglican Communion
[i] It would be odd were a group claiming to be conservative, traditional, and/or orthodox find it necessary to work outside the rules in order to get its way. Might it be because the orthodox aren’t nearly as orthodox as they presume themselves to be? Might it be because their goals are outside what is biblically right and just? [/i] —Hopper [#28]
Being right doesn’t guarantee success in this world.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
[i] “Why do ‘established ways, methods, rules’ constrain only the orthodox?”
Ethical consistency [/i] —Brian from T19 [#32]
Not every human rule is a matter of right and wrong.
As St. Peter declared to the Sanhedrin, “We must obey God rather than any human authority” (Acts 5:29).
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
[i] The ABC is deeply commited to his style of leadership. Because of that, it will literally be impossible to force his hand [/i] —Brian [#27]
Impossible? Not so. The primates to some extent forced his hand at Dromantine and Dar-es-Salaam; he avoided action against ECUSA only by such strategems as nixing a Dar follow-up meeting. The Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, by providing a better organizational structure for the orthodox, may serve as a check on future manipulations.
[i] Important to be in that unbroken chain of history and faith that is the Anglican Communion [/i] —Brian [#35]
All the more reason to be wary of ECUSA’s current leaders, who disdain that history (so much so that they redefine Anglicanism as a dress-up version of agreeing to disagree) and increasingly forsake that faith.
It would depend on the revisionist. Ethical systems are relative to the individual. Group ethics are hard to pindown because everyone has different commitments.
This radical innovation in church polity by Bob Duncan and his followers not only contravenes the ancient Christian councils of Nicea (325), Constantinople (381), and Chalcedon (451), but also goes against Lambeth Conference encyclical letters of 1878 and 1888, as well as Lambeth Conference resolutions 1897:24, 1908:22, 1988:72, 1998:V.13, III.2. In addition Paragraph 154 of The Windsor Report clearly states: ‘Whilst there are instances in the polity of Anglican churches that more than one jurisdiction exists in one place, this is something to be discouraged rather than propagated. We do not therefore favour the establishment of parallel jurisdictions.’ Seems to me that those who claim to be traditionalist have a very selective view of what the traditions of the Church are.
-The Rev. Dr. Ian T. Douglas, Angus Dun Professor of Mission and World Christianity at Episcopal Divinity School and member of the last Lambeth Conference Design Team
would it not force +++Rowan’s hand if the Global South primates simply informed him that they would continue to belong to the AC only if ACNA was recognized and only if +Duncan became ++Duncan and was an equal at the Primates meeting?
What prevents the primates from doing this at the next meeting?
would it not force +++Rowan’s hand if the Global South primates simply informed him that they would continue to belong to the AC only if ACNA was recognized and only if +Duncan became ++Duncan and was an equal at the Primates meeting?
What prevents the primates from doing this at the next meeting?
The likelihood that he would say, “Well, we’ll be very sorry to see you go.”
The Rev. Dr. Ian T. Douglas, Angus Dun Professor of Mission and World Christianity at Episcopal Divinity School and member of the last Lambeth Conference Design Team says precisely WHAT about the canonicity from the first Council onward to the last of the “ordination” of practicing homosexuals to the diaconate, priesthood, and episcopacy, BfT19?
His take on the de-ordination of Maximus and his un-ordinands?
He’ll know where to look for the references, I’m sure.
While I respect Ian Douglas’ scholarship—I do not believe he is correct in his claims about the Nicaea canons would withstand scholarly scrutiny. NT Wright–who is not a historian–also made this mistake in his claims about the Windsor Report.
Also, in re Brian of T19’s comments on the primates meeting, the Archbishop of Canterbury in personum does not issue the invitations to the Primates Meeting. The Primates Standing Committee issues the invitations, which go out through the ACC. The Archbishop of Canterbury is the president of the primates standing committee, but he does not have the authority over the primates meeting as he does over the Lambeth Conference—witness Dar es Salaam.
RE: “We do not therefore favour the establishment of parallel jurisdictions.”
Heh.
Heh heh.
Right — but they didn’t establish a “parallel jurisdiction”, remember? They’re not a new province of the Anglican Communion. The Windsor Report — speaking to itself, er . . . The Anglican Communion . . . is entirely irrelevant to what this entity is doing and cannot speak to it.
Ian’s mentioning it is, to put it kindly, simply more hyperbole in the hopes that nobody will notice. It is — to put it not kindly — just rhetorical manure disguised as substance.
And the other stuff poor Ian mentions [nice “Design Group hails Lambeth Conference’s success” there . . . cute!] applies when, you know, you’re dealing with Christians.
On another side note, most favoritest quote ever from Douglas is his pumping up a standard group discussion technique — “indaba” — with his own scholarly filler words: “”Indaba isn’t just a new methodology. It’s a new way of being. It’s a new expression of catholicity where every person and every voice is absolutely necessary if we’re going to be faithful to God’s mission in the world.”
Can’t you just hear that? Applied to say, a new car. Or how about Scientologist “dianetics.”
Dianetics “isn’t just a new methodology. It’s a new way of being. It’s a new expression of [science] where every person and every voice is absolutely necessary if we’re going to be faithful to [mankind’s] mission in the world.”
It is worth remembering what the role of the ACC is: it is consultative and its power is limited to ‘advise’:
[blockquote]The Constitution of the Anglican Consultative Council
…..
2. Object
The object of the council shall be to advance the Christian religion and in furtherance of that object, but not further or otherwise, the council shall have the following powers:
………
c. To [b]advise[/b] on inter-Anglican, provincial, and diocesan relationships, including the division of provinces, the formation of new provinces and of regional councils, and the problems of extra – provincial dioceses. here [/blockquote]
So going back to basic principles, the ACC cannot take on a role of deciding to admit a new province, only to ‘advise’. It has been given no power to do anything else in its constitution.
So how is the ACC to ‘advise’?
Well if you look at Resolution 12 ACC 10 it reads as follows:
[blockquote]Resolution 12: Creation of new Provinces
Resolved that this Council
1. [b]affirms[/b] its commitment to [b]assisting[/b] in the creation of new Provinces, where conditions indicate that such a development is appropriate in the Anglican Communion;
2. [b]urges[/b] those involved in promoting the creation of new Provinces to consult the Council through its Secretary General and other officers from the earliest stages in their discussions;
3. [b]affirms[/b] the guidelines set out in previous Council resolutions;
4. adopts the additional guidelines as set out in the appended Schedule;
5. requests the Secretary General to publish as a separate document a summary of the Council’s views for circulation to Primates, Provincial Secretaries and all others concerned with promoting the creation of a new Province; and
6. requests the Secretary General to keep these matters under review and to report to the next meeting.
Schedule (Additional Guidelines)
1. [b]For the Primate, or any other Council or body having metropolitical authority for the relevant dioceses[/b], to make contact with the ACC as soon as a proposal for formation of a new Province is under serious consideration…..[/blockquote]
Looking at the language of this resolution ‘assisting’ and ‘urging’ it is entirely consistent with the governing constitutional role of the ACC to ‘advise’. No decision-making authority is granted to the ACC under either its constitution or Resolution 12 of ACC 10, only a process which they ‘urge’ in their role of offering ‘advice’.
There may be a further rub in the language of the ACC resolutions in this role of ‘advice’. As was pointed out by John B. Chilton on a Thinking Anglicans thread
[blockquote] … consider:
ACC 10 Resolution 12 says “affirms the guidelines set out in previous Council resolutions.”
One has to remember that the specific wording of the membership provisions of the ACC constitution [under Section 3 of the ACC Consitution] apply to individuals who are to be co-opted onto the council as members with the consent of 2/3 of the Primates, not to the membership of provinces in the Communion.
So since ENS is trumpetting the above staement of a Lambeth ‘spokesman’ [and we have even seen ACO staff claiming to be ‘spokesmen’] are we to assume that this is what the Primates meeting the Archbishop are going to be fobbed of with:
Process of Communion, ACC decides….ACC process….. follow Resolution 12 ACC 10…. need to be careful….. long complicated process…likely to take years ….did we mention to you that +KJS needs to make the initial request and TEC agree?….blah blah blah
Believe that if you will. No the ACC has no authority to decide, only to advise, and as far as I can see there is no limitation on the Primates discussing the matter and making decisions.
Further if you look at the following provisions of Resolution 12 ACC 10
[blockquote]5. requests the Secretary General to publish as a separate document a summary of the Council’s views for circulation [b]to Primates, Provincial Secretaries and all others concerned with promoting the creation of a new Province[/b];[/blockquote]
then it is clear that the ACC sees its role as advising others….Primates…concerned with promoting the creation of a new Province. There is no provision for the ACC to do anything other than advise – the procedures it has to advise are internal to itself and for its assistance in helping it to ‘advise’. There is nothing in this to limit those [Primates and others] concerned with promoting the creation of a new province.
In England we would wonder if someone is being fobbed off.
The other thing to mention: the ACC schedule quite clearly is not a definitive schedule of provinces since it lists Ceylon, which is not a province, but comes under the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury, notwithstanding the distances involved.
Translation: “There will be snow flurries in hell before we take any action on this matter.”
Will take years?
Oh, Rowan, will you ever be fooled. Your Communion won’t let you try that one again. You’ll end up losing the bunch to save the rot.
The ACC may take years to do whatever it does (what does it do?). Fortunately, other bodies get a vote. There is a Primates’ Meeting hard upon us; if the ECUSA-owned tools want to allow others to create facts on the ground while they play at bureaucracy, let them.
Why is this only reported by ENS? There does not appear to be anything on the official anglican communion web site. Is ENS now telling Lambeth Palace what to report?
Yes.
Speaking personally, I’d prefer that the new province not be recognized as a member of the AC. However, I am compelled to point out that, in addition to the ACC-10 resolution referred to in the announcement (which is here) there is also this ACNS article about that meeting, which says in part:
So, while the lengthy ACC process is recommended, it is not strictly required… and two-thirds of the Primates could short-cut it if they really wanted to force the issue.
So the question is: can they muster two-thirds of the Primates?
And what spiritual and synodic over arching authority does the Archbishop of Canterbury, an appointed official of the British Government, have over the other national churches of the Anglican Communion?
Think about it. The nations of the other national churches are no longer colonies of the British Government. It follows that their national churches are no longer in a subordinate relationship with Canterbury.
The other national churches of the Anglican Communion are collegial peers of of the Church of England/the ABC. As a collegial peer, the ABC should not be calling the shots nor should any entity subordinate to him be permitted to do so.
Instead, the primates of the Anglican Communion should manage the greater episcopacy of the Anglican Communion as a synodic college of peers with the ABC being JUST ONE OF THOSE PEERS.
Interesting how quickly they can respond to what we do, but never respond to KSJ’s misbehavoir…like deposing Duncan.
And what spiritual and synodic over arching authority does the Archbishop of Canterbury, an appointed official of the British Government, have over the other national churches of the Anglican Communion?
A person who was an Anglican first would know his role.
I have to agree with Tar Heel. The ABC’s leadership (or lack thereof) style is to allow things to happen and see where they lead. Laissez Faire has not worked well in economics and it causes equal suffering here. However, the ABC is 100% ideologically committed to this style and has yet to vary from it.
Ross- Brilliant!
Shall we call this Ross’ Law?:
For every distinct claim by an Anglican functionary there is an equal and opposite disclaimer from an Anglican functionary.
“A person who was an Anglican first would know his role.”
“Pax Britannia” is OVER Brian.
The British Empire no longer exists. The ex-colonies are now co-equals with Britain and govern themselves. Likewise, their national churches, derived from the Church of England, are now co-equals with the Church of England. The ABC is a figurehead for the Anglican Communion just as Queen Elizabeth II is a figurehead for the British Commonwealth. The ABC no more ‘rules’ the national churches of South Africa or Nigeria than does the Queen ‘rule’ South Africa or Nigeria.
I call myself an Anglican because I adhere to Anglican ‘form,’ tradition and acknowledge as my bishop a man who is an orthodox Anglican ordained in the Apostolic Succession.
Now if you want to talk about Anglican ‘rule,’ then you may have a point. But this is a highly arguable point.
Let’s see, obedience to Jesus Christ and his gospel or obedience to man-made traditions and structures.
The person who is a Christian first would know the answer.
Vincent
The ABC is a first among equals. The current occupant of the See will not be there forever. The Conservatives will likely form the next government so a less liberal +++ABC is likely before the next Lambeth. If a considerable number of primates recognize the new Province – a deal will likely be brokered. Facts on the ground usually win the day. The new Province will need to show itself as governable, viable, and growing. If it hits 250k ASA in the next few years it will likely become an unstoppable fait accompli. Lets see how big a train wreck TEC GC2009 is.
De jure recognition of ACNA is probably a ways off. De facto recognition could come much quicker if the primates demand that Archbishop Duncan(and I, for one, plan on using that phrase a lot) be admitted to the next Primates Meeting regardless of how loudly Fred and Kate scream about it. Because the moment Archbishop Duncan walks into that room, ACNA is recognized and the only thing left for the Communion to do will be to adjust itself to the new reality. And how long that takes is less than irrelevant.
Is #14’s proposition correct? Will de facto recognition work like that?
Larry
[i] In relation to the recent announcement from the meeting of the Common Cause Partnership in Chicago, the process has not yet begun [/i] —Lambeth Palace
The sort of curt, self-satisfied dismissal you would expect from ECUSA’s most important bedmate.
#14 (and #15):
That “demand” will only work if at least a majority of the Primates agree to it. Obviously the GAFCON Primates support the new province, but they’ll need to line up several others to get a majority.
And even then, I think that a situation where more than a simple majority, but fewer than a two-thirds majority of the Primates agree to recognize the new province and (+)+Duncan, is perhaps the most ambiguous and most contentious outcome. Fewer than half the Primates, and neither the Primates’ Meeting nor the ACC recognizes the new province; more than two-thirds, and both do (and the ABC is, I think, unlikely to disagree with two of the Instruments in this situation.) In either case, the result is pretty clear.
But if the Primates’ Meeting states by a simply majority that it recognizes ACNA, but the ACC does not because two-thirds of the Primates do not agree, then the Instruments are split… and if they’re split I think the ABC would consider himself free to not recognize the new province. I know, reasserters don’t care what the ABC thinks; but it would still leave it murky whether or not ACNA is really “in” or not. Ambiguity like that is not what y’all want right now.
That is, of course, the big “if.” If Archbishop Duncan is not admitted to the meeting, the primates who support him have to be willing to immediately walk out and go home. There has to be some brinkmanship here; my gutless lord of Canterbury has to know that refusal will have consequences for him and for the Communion. If the primates let themselves get rolled again, recognition will never come(Dr. Williams will see to that) and the absolutely final opportunity for Anglican conservatives will have been squandered.
i for one would like it to be recognised by the AC and the ABC. i value my anglican history a great deal; without Britannia, we wouldn’t be here in more ways than one. their recognition is important to me.
They say the process has not yet begun – a very interesting wording.
There are all sorts of things they don’t say like: there is already a province in the geographic area, or this is an unwelcome development. or who cares. There are all sorts of things they could say – one could read what is said to mean – ok take the next step and start the process
Also note that the words are not the ABC. No tellling what he would actually say if he were to put words in his own mouth – and I really do mean no telling
I call myself an Anglican because I adhere to Anglican ‘form,’ tradition and acknowledge as my bishop a man who is an orthodox Anglican ordained in the Apostolic Succession.
Now if you want to talk about Anglican ‘rule,’ then you may have a point. But this is a highly arguable point.
Sorry for the snarkiness AF, however, I still maintain that the very name Anglican means British.
Don’t accept the notion that only Canterbury, the Primates’ Meeting, and the Anglican Consultative Council can confer relevant recognition.
For the past 5 years, Abp. Williams has manipulated Anglican institutions to protect ECUSA. He will probably continue to do so by preventing the primates and the ACC from taking timely action to recognize the new province. He will keep recognition off the agenda. If supporters of recognition persist, he will sidetrack them with studies and convenantal legerdemain.
The only way to get good out of Abp. Williams is to force his hand.
In the meantime, we should give thanks for the legitimacy that will come from recognitition by provinces accounting for a majority of the world’s Anglicans. We should work for the further legitimacy of recognition by a majority of the world’s Anglican provinces.
We should never, ever accept the notion that some self-willed coterie in Lambeth Palace can legitimately stonewall recognition (or, for that matter, anything else).
[i] The very “outside” approach of what comment #14 suggests amounts to terrorism. Every organization—including the Anglican Communion—has established ways, methods, rules … and such a demand would not be even remotely acceptable. The end does not justify corrrupt means. [/i]
Why do “established ways, methods, rules” constrain only the orthodox?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
From the Revisionist Dictionary:
[blockquote] PROPHETIC ACTS: How impatient Progressives get their way. Progressives act “prophetically” when they break rules to commit noisy acts of inclusion. [/blockquote]
#14 et al
The problem with ++Duncan* being “admitted” is that the only person who can call a meeting of the Primates is the ABC and only he issues invites.
*BTW, has he accepted this position in the new ACNA? I’m a bit behind with my reading.
The only way to get good out of Abp. Williams is to force his hand.
As I mentioned above, the ABC is deeply commited to his style of leadership. Because of that, it will literally be impossible to force his hand.
Is this applicable to reappraisers too? Isn’t putting facts on the ground and threatening (even implicitly) to withhold financing also terrorism? Can you clarify why “terrorism” is OK for changes you support and not ok for changes you do not support?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
#20,
Terrorism, Gracie? You mean like when the Episcopal Organization consecrated an unrepentant sinner without consulting the rest of the Communion, unilaterally destroying every Anglican pronouncement on the subject? That kind of terrorism?
I still maintain that the very name Anglican means British.
So all Anglicans are British?
It seems to me that many conservatives are ignoring the “red†letters.
Taught by their colleagues in TEC? Nice try to avoid the question – why do rules not apply to revisionists?
Can we leave the “terrorism” at the gate? Terrorism means that you are trying to cause terror-and I think we are all fairly short of terrified.
Why do “established ways, methods, rules†constrain only the orthodox?
Ethical consistency
So all Anglicans are British?
All Anglicans in communion with Canterbury are part of a British Church
Then why has there been so much talk about “national” churches? Is Britishness the only thing that matters in Anglicanism?
No Sherri, there are those who worship in the Anglican style. Anyone is free to call themselves what they want. But if you are not in communion with Canterbury, then you are another denomination altogether. Again, that’s fine. And it may not matter to you. But people like magnolia above in #19 consider it important to be in that unbroken chain of history and faith that is the Anglican Communion
[i] It would be odd were a group claiming to be conservative, traditional, and/or orthodox find it necessary to work outside the rules in order to get its way. Might it be because the orthodox aren’t nearly as orthodox as they presume themselves to be? Might it be because their goals are outside what is biblically right and just? [/i] —Hopper [#28]
Being right doesn’t guarantee success in this world.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
[i] “Why do ‘established ways, methods, rules’ constrain only the orthodox?”
Ethical consistency [/i] —Brian from T19 [#32]
Not every human rule is a matter of right and wrong.
As St. Peter declared to the Sanhedrin, “We must obey God rather than any human authority” (Acts 5:29).
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
[i] The ABC is deeply commited to his style of leadership. Because of that, it will literally be impossible to force his hand [/i] —Brian [#27]
Impossible? Not so. The primates to some extent forced his hand at Dromantine and Dar-es-Salaam; he avoided action against ECUSA only by such strategems as nixing a Dar follow-up meeting. The Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, by providing a better organizational structure for the orthodox, may serve as a check on future manipulations.
[i] Important to be in that unbroken chain of history and faith that is the Anglican Communion [/i] —Brian [#35]
All the more reason to be wary of ECUSA’s current leaders, who disdain that history (so much so that they redefine Anglicanism as a dress-up version of agreeing to disagree) and increasingly forsake that faith.
Brian from T19…
Are you suggesting that revisionism is unethical?
Shumanbean
It would depend on the revisionist. Ethical systems are relative to the individual. Group ethics are hard to pindown because everyone has different commitments.
This radical innovation in church polity by Bob Duncan and his followers not only contravenes the ancient Christian councils of Nicea (325), Constantinople (381), and Chalcedon (451), but also goes against Lambeth Conference encyclical letters of 1878 and 1888, as well as Lambeth Conference resolutions 1897:24, 1908:22, 1988:72, 1998:V.13, III.2. In addition Paragraph 154 of The Windsor Report clearly states: ‘Whilst there are instances in the polity of Anglican churches that more than one jurisdiction exists in one place, this is something to be discouraged rather than propagated. We do not therefore favour the establishment of parallel jurisdictions.’ Seems to me that those who claim to be traditionalist have a very selective view of what the traditions of the Church are.
-The Rev. Dr. Ian T. Douglas, Angus Dun Professor of Mission and World Christianity at Episcopal Divinity School and member of the last Lambeth Conference Design Team
would it not force +++Rowan’s hand if the Global South primates simply informed him that they would continue to belong to the AC only if ACNA was recognized and only if +Duncan became ++Duncan and was an equal at the Primates meeting?
What prevents the primates from doing this at the next meeting?
#41
No, because they would then be taking the action. His style has always been agressively passive
I think that’s Arbishopese for “Get over yourselves!”
I think that’s Archbishopese for “Get over yourselves!â€
#41 Chris says:
The likelihood that he would say, “Well, we’ll be very sorry to see you go.”
For many of us, getting clear of the disgraceful archepiscopate of Rowan Williams wouldn’t be a bug, it would be a feature.
The Rev. Dr. Ian T. Douglas, Angus Dun Professor of Mission and World Christianity at Episcopal Divinity School and member of the last Lambeth Conference Design Team says precisely WHAT about the canonicity from the first Council onward to the last of the “ordination” of practicing homosexuals to the diaconate, priesthood, and episcopacy, BfT19?
His take on the de-ordination of Maximus and his un-ordinands?
He’ll know where to look for the references, I’m sure.
A quick glimpse under the velvet glove.
While I respect Ian Douglas’ scholarship—I do not believe he is correct in his claims about the Nicaea canons would withstand scholarly scrutiny. NT Wright–who is not a historian–also made this mistake in his claims about the Windsor Report.
William Tighe pretty much sank these arguments in his Touchstone article, Abusing the Fathers.
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-03-036-f
Also, in re Brian of T19’s comments on the primates meeting, the Archbishop of Canterbury in personum does not issue the invitations to the Primates Meeting. The Primates Standing Committee issues the invitations, which go out through the ACC. The Archbishop of Canterbury is the president of the primates standing committee, but he does not have the authority over the primates meeting as he does over the Lambeth Conference—witness Dar es Salaam.
I see that SR is indulging in further fantasy.
In other news . . .
RE: “We do not therefore favour the establishment of parallel jurisdictions.”
Heh.
Heh heh.
Right — but they didn’t establish a “parallel jurisdiction”, remember? They’re not a new province of the Anglican Communion. The Windsor Report — speaking to itself, er . . . The Anglican Communion . . . is entirely irrelevant to what this entity is doing and cannot speak to it.
Ian’s mentioning it is, to put it kindly, simply more hyperbole in the hopes that nobody will notice. It is — to put it not kindly — just rhetorical manure disguised as substance.
And the other stuff poor Ian mentions [nice “Design Group hails Lambeth Conference’s success” there . . . cute!] applies when, you know, you’re dealing with Christians.
Otherwise . . . well . . . Athanasius rules. ; > )
On another side note, most favoritest quote ever from Douglas is his pumping up a standard group discussion technique — “indaba” — with his own scholarly filler words: “”Indaba isn’t just a new methodology. It’s a new way of being. It’s a new expression of catholicity where every person and every voice is absolutely necessary if we’re going to be faithful to God’s mission in the world.”
Can’t you just hear that? Applied to say, a new car. Or how about Scientologist “dianetics.”
Dianetics “isn’t just a new methodology. It’s a new way of being. It’s a new expression of [science] where every person and every voice is absolutely necessary if we’re going to be faithful to [mankind’s] mission in the world.”
; > )
RE: “Go in peace, my friend.”
Well — you’re on the blog, “friend.” And you don’t seem all that peaceful.
But maybe it’ll come. Maybe that peace will flood over you and you won’t need to obsess over here amongst all us fundamentalists. . . .
. . . Waiting . . .
[i] A quick glimpse under the velvet glove [/i] —Marion R [#51]
A glimpse at a cold claw.
[i] I think that’s Archbishopese for “Get over yourselves!” [/i] —Susan Russell
Susan: Words you loathe when they’re directed at you.
It is worth remembering what the role of the ACC is: it is consultative and its power is limited to ‘advise’:
[blockquote]The Constitution of the Anglican Consultative Council
…..
2. Object
The object of the council shall be to advance the Christian religion and in furtherance of that object, but not further or otherwise, the council shall have the following powers:
………
c. To [b]advise[/b] on inter-Anglican, provincial, and diocesan relationships, including the division of provinces, the formation of new provinces and of regional councils, and the problems of extra – provincial dioceses.
here [/blockquote]
So going back to basic principles, the ACC cannot take on a role of deciding to admit a new province, only to ‘advise’. It has been given no power to do anything else in its constitution.
So how is the ACC to ‘advise’?
Well if you look at Resolution 12 ACC 10 it reads as follows:
[blockquote]Resolution 12: Creation of new Provinces
Resolved that this Council
1. [b]affirms[/b] its commitment to [b]assisting[/b] in the creation of new Provinces, where conditions indicate that such a development is appropriate in the Anglican Communion;
2. [b]urges[/b] those involved in promoting the creation of new Provinces to consult the Council through its Secretary General and other officers from the earliest stages in their discussions;
3. [b]affirms[/b] the guidelines set out in previous Council resolutions;
4. adopts the additional guidelines as set out in the appended Schedule;
5. requests the Secretary General to publish as a separate document a summary of the Council’s views for circulation to Primates, Provincial Secretaries and all others concerned with promoting the creation of a new Province; and
6. requests the Secretary General to keep these matters under review and to report to the next meeting.
Schedule (Additional Guidelines)
1. [b]For the Primate, or any other Council or body having metropolitical authority for the relevant dioceses[/b], to make contact with the ACC as soon as a proposal for formation of a new Province is under serious consideration…..[/blockquote]
Looking at the language of this resolution ‘assisting’ and ‘urging’ it is entirely consistent with the governing constitutional role of the ACC to ‘advise’. No decision-making authority is granted to the ACC under either its constitution or Resolution 12 of ACC 10, only a process which they ‘urge’ in their role of offering ‘advice’.
There may be a further rub in the language of the ACC resolutions in this role of ‘advice’. As was pointed out by John B. Chilton on a Thinking Anglicans thread
[blockquote] … consider:
ACC 10 Resolution 12 says “affirms the guidelines set out in previous Council resolutions.”
And, looking back,
ACC 1
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/communion/acc/meetings/acc1/resolutions.cfm
Resolution 21: Creating and Dividing Provinces says “There must be the good will of the existing province in order not to create difficulties of disunity after division.”[/blockquote]
One has to remember that the specific wording of the membership provisions of the ACC constitution [under Section 3 of the ACC Consitution] apply to individuals who are to be co-opted onto the council as members with the consent of 2/3 of the Primates, not to the membership of provinces in the Communion.
So since ENS is trumpetting the above staement of a Lambeth ‘spokesman’ [and we have even seen ACO staff claiming to be ‘spokesmen’] are we to assume that this is what the Primates meeting the Archbishop are going to be fobbed of with:
Process of Communion, ACC decides….ACC process….. follow Resolution 12 ACC 10…. need to be careful….. long complicated process…likely to take years ….did we mention to you that +KJS needs to make the initial request and TEC agree?….blah blah blah
Believe that if you will. No the ACC has no authority to decide, only to advise, and as far as I can see there is no limitation on the Primates discussing the matter and making decisions.
As I read it.
Further if you look at the following provisions of Resolution 12 ACC 10
[blockquote]5. requests the Secretary General to publish as a separate document a summary of the Council’s views for circulation [b]to Primates, Provincial Secretaries and all others concerned with promoting the creation of a new Province[/b];[/blockquote]
then it is clear that the ACC sees its role as advising others….Primates…concerned with promoting the creation of a new Province. There is no provision for the ACC to do anything other than advise – the procedures it has to advise are internal to itself and for its assistance in helping it to ‘advise’. There is nothing in this to limit those [Primates and others] concerned with promoting the creation of a new province.
In England we would wonder if someone is being fobbed off.
RE: “Oh … I’m peaceful … don’t worry ‘bout that.”
Oh, we can all tell, Hopper. All of us — I assure you. We would never think otherwise. I promise.
RE: “Kisses & Hugs … and Peace too.”
Yes — and Cherishings, and Affirmations to you, Dear Peaceful [and Joyful, don’t forget Joyful] Loving True Bestest Friend.
Yours Ever Admiringly,
Your Best Friend,
And Most Sincerely,
Sarah
The other thing to mention: the ACC schedule quite clearly is not a definitive schedule of provinces since it lists Ceylon, which is not a province, but comes under the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury, notwithstanding the distances involved.