..As you know, it was described as a Primates’ Gathering and Meeting, as the Meeting proper could only include those provinces which are recognised as institutionally part of the Anglican Communion (as distinct from churches which have an Anglican tradition and identity). To be part of the institution of the Anglican Communion, a Province must be in communion with the See of Canterbury. That was upheld as it had been understood previously at the Lambeth Conference of 1930, and was often repeated, most recently in the Eames Report 3.32. And also a Province has to be on the schedule of Provinces held by the ACC and supported by two thirds of the Primates in one way or another. There is no clear process or precedent for a new Province to join, except as an agreed spin-off from a previous Province.
……………………
…The underlying issue is about reception. Both before, but especially since, Lambeth 1920, reception has meant the informal process by which, over time, developments are accepted or rejected in a way that leads to consensus. Thus, issues in 1920 around contraception, in Lambeth 1930 and 1948 around divorce, were at the time seen as threatening the unity of the Communion as seriously as issues of human sexuality now. Reception goes both ways. There has been a consensus against lay presidency, despite significant pressure in the past, but the reception process rejected it. It is not a legal process, but a discernment of the Spirit based in relationship.
The importance of this is very great indeed. The Anglican Communion finds its decisions through spiritual discernment in relationship, not through canons and procedures. Those operate at Provincial level. All developments must show signs of the presence of the Spirit, not only locally but across the Communion. Primates’ Meetings, Lambeth Conferences and ACCs are not a question of winning and losing, but of discerning.
Read it all and see also quite a bit of comment this has led to:
+ [Canon Phil Ashey] Anglicanism in spite of Canterbury? (February 16, 2016 at 7:56 pm)
+ Andrea Williams: ”˜No unity at the expense of truth’: a response to Justin Welby’s Presidential Address (February 17, 2016 at 1:41 pm)
+ [Ian Paul] Order, freedom and human flourishing (February 17, 2016 at 1:47 pm)
Uh oh, it looks like discernment is going to be the new catchword. To remind your readers of what the term means to the revisionist I defer to the “Revisionist Dictionary: Revised and Re-visioned Edition”,
[blockquote] DISCERN: To come up with reasons for doing what we’re going to do anyway. “I’m not yet convinced I should marry my niece but I’m in a discernment process.â€[/blockquote]
Up,
I think it also means I haven’t yet talked enough people into this idea, with YET being the operative word.
Still, I think it’s positive that “lay presidency” was listed as an innovation that was rejected.
“The Anglican Communion finds its decisions through spiritual discernment in relationship, not through canons and procedures.”
-heh, never mind that Bible book.
“The meeting was set for Canterbury because that would recall to people the way in which Canterbury, and especially its cathedral, represent the center of the Anglican Communion.”
-heh, never mind that Jesus guy
“For the first time, I experienced the beauty of the Communion when, on issues affecting us very widely – often issues of life and death – there was a sharing and an outpouring of mutual support.
For example, we shared together around issues of the environment…”
terribly sad and funny at the same time
‘Power’ is used by those you disagree with. And they do so because they have ‘fear’ of the other. They need to listen to them in facilitated conversations in reeducation camps run by David Porter until they see the error of their ways, cease exercising ‘Power’, and enter the true way of enlightenment though ‘Good Disagreement’ maintaining the bonds of Unity with heretics
Spinning indeed.
So, the Archbishop of Canterbury is unable to hold a primates’ meeting and have most of the Anglican Communion show up unless he invites the primate of the ACNA, because so many primates recognize the ACNA as the province for North America, and are in communion with it, and do not recognize or are in communion with TEC. No surprise, but good to admit the truth.
[blockquote]As you know, it was described as a Primates’ Gathering and Meeting, as the Meeting proper could only include those provinces which are recognised as institutionally part of the Anglican Communion (as distinct from churches which have an Anglican tradition and identity). To be part of the institution of the Anglican Communion a Province must be in communion with the See of Canterbury. That was upheld as it had been understood previously at the Lambeth Conference of1930, and was often repeated, most recently in the Eames Report 3.32). And also a Province has to be on the schedule of Provinces held by the ACC and supported by two thirds of the Primates in one way or another. There is no clear process or precedent for a new Province to join, except as an agreed spin-off from a previous Province.[/blockquote]
Ah, so the Anglican Communion has a counciliar form of organization (“The autonomy means that no meeting of the Communion has any authority to give instructions to individual provinces. No province is legally bound by the Communion; there is no synodical group within the Communion.), yet the Archbishop claims that its provinces are oddly bound by some strung-together legalisms from deciding as a council to do anything with respect to the ACNA or TEC. It is inauspicious that the same Archbishop who cautions that provinces cannot dictate instructions seems to think that he can do so. However, I believe it more likely that this will just further encourage the provinces of the global south to discard more quickly what remains of the failed instruments of communion, not least the Archbishop of Canterbury as other than a figurehead, which underpin this legalistic approach. Well, perhaps GAFCON will invite him to its next meeting of the parts of the Anglican Communion that, you know, actually are in communion with each other, and he can explain the corporate bylaws of the ACC in greater detail.
[blockquote]The vote was immediately spun outside the Meeting, having been leaked on the Thursday (the day before it ended) as a severe sanction on TEC. You will not find the word ‘sanction’ or ‘punishment’ or anything like it at any point in the Communique, or the Addendum which refers to the decision taken. The word used is ‘consequence’.[/blockquote]
Could someone hand this man a dictionary? I suppose I would not find the words “sanction” or “punishment” in the communique, but it would be reasonable to conclude that a “consequence” is good, bad or neutral. If bad (from the point of view of the one suffering the consequence, or alternatively from the point of view of those who wished to impose it) it would easily be a sanction or punishment.
#6 reeducation camps – that is exactly what they are, and using the same psychological warfare techniques. Isolate the subjects, remove communication with the outside, create relaxation and the dropping of their guard – perhaps low lighting with candles on chairs or a walk round an empty cathedral all to themselves, control the environment, control the agenda, appoint the facilitators, control the meeting, control the feedback and reporting, apply pressure to those whose minds you wish to change, and make them doubt what they believe with certainty. Tell them it is not about rules and power they need to let go of, tell them it is about relationship and flourishing. It is deeply wicked and manipulative and has no place in theological discernment in a church. It is used by the sociopathic and deranged.
Sounds like we need a few [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puddleglum]Puddleglums[/url] to stick ++Welby’s feet in the fire and clear the fog from his brain.