Updated Thursday evening
The Episcopal Church has issued the following notice:
Statement from the Episcopal Church’s members of the Anglican Consultative Council
As the Episcopal Church’s members of the Anglican Consultative Council, we were dismayed to read in today’s Anglican Communion News Service (ACNS) an article that claims we did not vote on matters of doctrine or polity at the most recent meeting of the ACC, known as ACC-16, held in Lusaka, Zambia in April 2016. This report is wrong.
Each of us attended the entire ACC-16 meeting and voted on every resolution that came before the body, including a number that concerned the doctrine and polity of the Anglican Communion. As the duly elected ACC members of a province of the Anglican Communion, this was our responsibility and we fulfilled it.
It could be inferred from today’s ACNS story that we did not fulfill our voting responsibilities at ACC-16 to comply with a communique issued by the primates of the Anglican Communion in January 2016. The communique sought to impose consequences on the Episcopal Church for its adoption of marriage equality at our 2015 General Convention. Such an inference would be incorrect.
At the beginning of ACC-16, the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion issued a statement saying that it had “considered the Communiqué from the Primates and affirmed the relational links between the Instruments of Communion in which each Instrument, including the Anglican Consultative Council, forms its own views and has its own responsibilities.” After ACC-16 had concluded, six outgoing members of the Standing Committee released a letter reasserting that “ACC16 neither endorsed nor affirmed the consequences contained in the Primates’ Communiqué.”
As members of the Anglican Consultative Council, we thank God for the time we have spent with sisters and brothers in Christ from across the globe, and for the breadth and diversity of our global Anglican family. We are firmly committed to the Episcopal Church’s full participation in the Anglican Communion, and we hope that, in the future, our participation will be reported accurately by the Anglican Communion News Service.
Rosalie Simmonds Ballentine
Ian T. Douglas
Gay Clark Jennings
Episcopal Church members of the 16th Anglican Consultative Council, Lusaka, Zambia
In response to this, the ACNS report was modified on the website and the following note added at the end:
This article was updated on 2 February to make clear that no formal votes were held on issues of doctrine and polity at ACC-16. None was necessary because all such matters were agreed by consensus.
The copy of the article that appears below is the original unaltered. The revised version is here. You can see the differences for yourself.
This press release has appeared: Archbishop of Canterbury sets out vision for 2017 Primates Meeting. The actual text of the letter which this refers to has not been published yet. A significant part of this press release refers to the recently published document from the House of Bishops on Marriage and Same Sex Relationships.
[ACNS] The Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby has written to every primate in the Anglican Communion to set out his hopes for the next Primates’ Meeting, which will take place in Canterbury in October. He also gave details of last week’s report by the Church of England’s House of Bishops on human sexuality. In the letter, Archbishop Justin sets out his vision for the meeting in Canterbury as an opportunity for relaxed fellowship and mutual consultation. He invites the primates to submit items for the agenda and says he’s aware of the pressures under which many of them live.
“I certainly feel the need to be with you, to share our experience and in prayer and fellowship, to support one another and seek how best we can serve the call to preach the gospel, serve the poor and proclaim the Kingdom of God,” he says.
The Archbishop goes on to unpack the declaration on human sexuality which was published last week before a debate at the Church of England’s General Synod later this month.
He describes as a “key outcome” the recommendation that the Church of England’s teaching on marriage should remain unchanged, meaning there can be no same-sex weddings in the Church of England. But he adds that the current advice on pastoral provision for same-sex couples needs clarification and notes the Bishops’ acknowledgment that the Church needs to repent of the homophobic attitudes it has sometimes failed to rebuke.
Last week’s report has also been welcomed by the secretary general of the Anglican Communion, Dr Josiah Idowu-Fearon, who said: “The issue of same-sex marriage is highly emotive within the church. I understand the depth of passion on each side of the debate and I understand that any decision will leave some feeling disappointed and wounded by the outcome.
“I support the Bishops’ declaration that doctrine on marriage should not change – that marriage should be a lifelong commitment between a man and woman. The Anglican Communion position is set out in Resolution 1.10 from the 1998 Lambeth Conference. That is our lodestar.
“But it is right that we acknowledge that some of our brothers and sisters do have same-sex attraction and I support the move for a ‘fresh tone’ in the way the issues are debated. Anglicans are called to love all people, irrespective of their sexual orientation. We are committed to welcoming and loving people with same-sex attraction. More than that, we need to fight against homophobia and anything that criminalises LGBTQ people.”
Preparations for the Primates Meeting are well underway. Archbishop Justin’s invitation has been sent to the primates of the other 37 provinces of the Anglican Communion. It will be the first time the group has formally assembled since the gathering and meeting in January 2016, although many were in Rome last October at the invitation of the Anglican Centre there as it celebrated its 50th anniversary.
The 2016 Primates’ gathering drew worldwide attention. It concluded with a communiqué which set out consequences for the US-based Episcopal Church (TEC) following its decision to change its canon on same-sex marriage. As a result, members of TEC have stepped down from IASCUFO – the Inter-Anglican Standing Committee on Unity, Faith and Order – and also from the IRAD ecumenical dialogue. Members of TEC participated in ACC-16 in Lusaka, but none voted on issues of doctrine and polity – another stipulation of the Primates’ communiqué.
The January 2016 meeting also called for the setting up of a Task Group to explore differences and seek ways to restore relationship and rebuild trust. The Task Group, which draws members from across the Anglican Communion, subsequently met in September last year and is due to meet again during 2017.
“The Anglican Communion position is set out in Resolution 1.10 from the 1998 Lambeth Conference. That is our lodestar.”
Anyone who is navigating by a controversial resolution of a Lambeth Conference is lost already.
Members of the US based Episcopal Church voted in all votes at Lusaka. This press release is not accurate on that point. If I remember rightly, the ACC is a charity regulated by the Charity Commission of England and Wale. I’m uncertain that the Primates’ Meeting can legally determine who votes at ACC meetings. The ACC constitution is available online here: http://www.anglicancommunion.org/media/39479/the-constitution-of-the-anglican-consultative-council.pdf It does not seem to me to contain any provision for a group of Primates from the Anglican Communion (and elsewhere, let us not forget that a Primate of a non-Anglican Communion church was invited last time) can… Read more »
The idea, posited in the Bishops’ Statement, that the Doctrine of Marriage has remained unchanged throughout its history in the church is not true. The new rite omits reference to the need for openness to procreation. It also permits the (re) marriage of legally divorced persons. So how is it ‘unchanged’? The House of Bishops had the opportunity to affirm Civil Partnerships, which they fudged. Now that Equal Marriage is affirmed by the State, they are now faced with the need to recognize those in the Church who have legally married their same-sex partner. What other alternative is there, than… Read more »
Perhaps the change of tone suggested in the report from the CofE house of bishops last week could begin very simply. Drop the use of the term ‘same sex attraction’ and variants thereof. This is the language of oppressive forces in the church. It sounds ponderously detached and semi-academic, but it is dehumanising. Any bishop who signs up to anything using this language is identifying with these oppressive forces. They are perpetuating a source of harm and hindrance to LGBT people seeking to walk in the way of Christ, however that walking is expressed. If the CofE is as committed… Read more »
The General Secretary of the Anglican Communion welcomes last week’s report by the English House of Bishops, and notes ‘I support the Bishops’ declaration that doctrine on marriage should not change – that marriage *should* be a lifelong commitment between a man and woman (my emphasis)’. But he has clearly misread the document as that is not what GS2055 says. It says, in numerous places, citing e.g. Canon B30.1, *not* that marriage *should be* lifelong (that is, an argument based on ‘intention’) but that *it is* lifelong. The Bishops’ report states that ‘that marriage is in its nature a union… Read more »
“This article was updated on 2 February to make clear that no formal votes were held on issues of doctrine and polity at ACC-16. None was necessary because all such matters were agreed by consensus.”
Lambeth 1998.1.10 is less lodestar than millstone.
So there we have it. The entire purpose of the Shared Conversations becomes abundantly clear in this announcement. The enforcement of B30 and the quadruple locks are what the English bishops use to navigate the C of E ship towards the ‘lodestar’ of Lambeth 1:10, as if these were the entire sum of our ecclesiology, missiology and ecumenism nowadays. It seems as though the shepherds are huddled together, feeding each other rather than their flocks. There’s little spiritual nourishment in the Holocaust Memorial Day report, adding insult to injury by being published on that day. B30 is a blunt instrument… Read more »
Gillis and Haller. It may not suit your take on where things should be heading; I doubt it does…. But it does say where things are headed. Looks like +Welby believes the CofE have done what is necessary–and right–so as to enable the Primates to gather. The question he was facing was, How many can live with this? That is the question of course. It looks like he believes the vast majority of Primates can. So now the question is, will those with a novel understanding of marriage feel they want any longer to be a part of this Primates… Read more »
The Anglican Communion News Service is gaslighting us. People voted on resolutions in Lusaka. They also voted on the consent calendar. Perhaps the word “formal” is meant to suggest that asking a room full of people to raise their hands to suggest agreement or opposition to a resolution isn’t a “formal” vote. But, that is not work that word can do.
Those who inhabit the universe of alternative facts — such as novel understandings in which Lambeth is authoritative and the Primates speak for all Anglicans — are welcome to their views. Others will be happy to continue to see, and participate in, Lambeth and the Primates’ Meeting as these events were intended and constituted: as forums for conversation, fellowship, and cooperation in the mission of the church. No doubt the recent statement by the English House of Bishops will provide the Archbishop with sufficient material to continue the charade for those of the novel view, while actually getting on with… Read more »
Teresa May, Trump, Welby. All seem to wish to govern by executive fiat rather than through democratically elected bodies. In the case of Welby that is the General Synod and in acting this way before they have decided on the matter (which won’t even be February) he is most certainly not acting in a collegiate manner. Synod ought to censor him.
“This article was updated on 2 February to make clear that no formal votes were held on issues of doctrine and polity at ACC-16. None was necessary because all such matters were agreed by consensus.”
This an odd usage indeed. What bemuses me most is that it so twists the point: “None was necessary because all such matters were agreed by consensus” could hardly satisfy those who didn’t want the Episcopal Church’s representatives in the room in the first place, or participating in a decision in any way.
So, anyone brave enough to start a global, liberal communion? The alternative is just more years of time wasting.
“So, anyone brave enough to start a global, liberal communion?”
This is the question you must continue to put to people like Haller and Gillis.
I think you are correct to see where things are headed, at least from what we read.
BTW, just what doctrine was subject to formal voting at the last ACC meeting?
The 1948 Lambeth Conference said the vocation of the Anglican Communion was to disappear I believe…….
‘Gillis and Haller.’
( cseitz)
I regret to see this failure of courtesy and polite behaviour here.
Must Lgbt and our supporters expect this these days ?
It seems to me, from the U.S. side of the pond, that storming off and starting some competing version of the Anglican Communion is precisely what the conservatives (as represented by cseitz) are hoping for. After all, they can then say “you didn’t get what you wanted, so you took your ball and went home.” It validates everything that the conservatives accuse the Northern hemisphere progressives of being–absolutist, judgmental, high-handed. Instead, and it seems to me that this is Presiding Bishop Curry’s approach, the better way is to stick with the Communion while being clear about our perspective on these… Read more »
S Cooper, the question is not whether some new liberal communion is needed, but whether some new conservative, conciliar communion will emerge over the next decades. The Anglican Covenant has not been adopted by a majority of the provinces, and its failure in the “Mother Church” (so far) does not promise the transformation of the whole Communion into some sort of centrally governed world church. My guess is what may happen is a split, in which some of the Global South provinces will continue with the development of their own governing structure independent of the present Anglican Communion; it is… Read more »
s. Cooper “So, anyone brave enough to start a global, liberal communion?”
Christopher: This is the question you must continue to put to people like Haller and Gillis.
Me: There’s no reason to leave the Anglican Communion just because some primates elevated marriage to a doctrinal level that it never held before. This is clearly a bigotry of arrogant men. The men and women at Lusaka wanted nothing to do with it. That is the REAL Anglican Communion, Christopher.
Once again, it has be said that the Churches of the Anglican Communion are independent and autonomous as, for example, my Church of Australia’s Constitution makes clear. Lambeth Conference resolutions, including 1998’s 1.10 (reached by dubious means) do not bind any Church of the Communion. What is done by the US Episcopal Church (for which I have much admiration and which I have often visited) or any other Church of the Communion is not my business. However, there is no likelihood of the Australian General Synod ever approving “same sex marriage”. Though a traditional, liberal Anglican, I myself support what… Read more »
I must agree with Lauri here:
“‘Gillis and Haller’…
I regret to see this failure of courtesy and polite behaviour here.”
Couldn’t we please use first names, or at least titles like Mr?
It just seems good manners and respectful, and less de-humanising when we are in debate or disagreement.
My name is Susannah. I would be unhappy if someone referred to me as Clark. Fortunately no-one ever has.
“anyone brave enough to start a global, liberal communion” Not interested. Why would I want to be effectively pushed out of my own Church which I’ve been in all my life and which I love (in the process surrendering it to even more deeply embedded conservative values)? In reality, local churches are often made up of a cross-section of Christians with different views, all trying to serve their local community, and I love that about our Church. So to me, inclusion is the whole challenge, not running away, but working for a more inclusive church. If conservative primates want to… Read more »
Exclusion is homophobic, John. I’m tired of pulling my punches. It is saying there’s something wrong with us. That’s a message that is received loudly and clearly by bullies and their victims. The rate of LGBT teen suicide and abuse is horrific, and I’m not going to be polite about it. I’m married. In my church. Sacramentally married. And Christians who are called to marriage should have it, just as those called to ordination should be ordained. The CoE Bishops pussyfoot with language like a “new tone,” etc. But the fact is, either we’re all created in the Image of… Read more »
Lots of interesting prognostication. The GS is the largest bloc of Anglicans. The question not very long ago was whether the Gafcon contingent within it would split off. That hasn’t happened. In the meantime the HOB of the CofE has clearly sought to send a message to the GS that marriage is not going to be altered. The timing of that decision and the announcement of a meeting of Primates is obviously linked. Liberals like Haller and others probably believed that GS would split, with Gafcon leaving. That did not happen. The real question will be whether the majority bloc… Read more »
‘I’m tired of pulling my punches.’ Cynthia, I doubt anyone on TA would ever accuse you of doing that.
On names. Must be a cultural thing. Being called by last name is a typical practice. I prefer “Mr” as basic politesse but Gillis doesn’t like this. Makes him think his father is being addressed. I don’t typically refer to people by first name unless I have been introduced to them. So I suspect people will continue to see different practices. I have no problem with that. To my students and professional colleagues I am “Professor”; in church contexts “Father” from some and other usages from others; to friends and family, Christian name; with some one knows well, last names,… Read more »
Christopher, it is possible to “identify with” the Church of England, without identifying with the Anglican Communion as a whole. I am a member of the Church of England. Membership operates at a province by province basis. It’s lovely if provinces can find love for one another, but my Church is not the Anglican Communion: that is a constructed political entity, not a Church. My Church is, and always has been, the Church of England. Along with half the members of the current Church of England, I embrace and affirm gay and lesbian sexuality… regardless of what the Primate of… Read more »
People in England have changed their societal conscience on LGBT+ issues. Our Church is a Church for England, a mission to England. So yes, I “identify with” the Church of England, and it is the Church we ALL belong to as members, and it has a future, but it may be a future that involves pain, because pain is part of love. Love comes at a cost. It may involve resistance to overbearing authority, false media output, political manipulation, oppression of conscience. In some ways, though painful, these are exciting times to be alive and part of the Church of… Read more »
“Sadly, in the end, the demands and blustering of GAFCON are pretty much irrelevant to the development of conscience in our Church. And the Primates and bishops of our Church – the Church of England – should not be trying to placate Churches like the Ugandan and Nigerian provinces, with their very different cultures, at the expense of social conscience in the Church of England…”. The conservative portion of the AC is not ‘Gafcon’ nor is it Nigeria and Uganda. There are 28 provinces in the GS, most conservative, and many like SE Asia, Egypt, Burundi, Indian Ocean not a… Read more »
This would be “a TJ McMahon” otherwise well known for his support of Gafcon, ACNA and critique of ACC and the ABC. He wanted the ACC to have been crushed under the directives of the Primates and when this did not happen as he wanted he has wanted to make clear all know it.
Dr Seitz, I hope my note upstream (3 February 2017 at 3:17pm) has corrected your misconception as to what I may believe or may have believed concerning the Anglican Communion. I am pleased to see we agree on a number of points, including the lack of authority for the ACC to issue doctrinal judgments for the whole Communion. (I do not believe any of the Instruments has that authority, which likely goes beyond your view.) Meanwhile, I think it _possible_ that some of the GS churches may decrease their participation in the Communion structures — they have said so themselves… Read more »
John Bunyan, to clarify: I meant “peculiar” in two senses. The understanding of marriage as lifelong (or not, with the provision for remarriage after divorce) is widely held in Protestant churches such as ours, but it is not that of the Church of Rome, which holds marriage to be indissoluble once consummated. It is also, I believe, a bit odd and self-contradictory; and as a matter of fact I hold to that part of the definition myself, as a “should be” rather than an “always is.” This is why many Protestant church bodies have included phrases such as “by intention… Read more »
Fr Gillis What happened to lol?! ” Gillis and Haller”, lol! Starsky and Hutch, Marley and Scrooge, Martin and Lewis, Crosby and Hope, Rogers and Hammerstein, Bert and Ernie, Kenny and Spenny, Francis and Ratzinger, Gaga and Bennett, Phil and Don, Seitz and Radner….” Fr Haller, if the kind of polity that the ABC and Primates are modelling emerges, I think it clear that TEC will disapprove. Fr Gillis: I didn’t realise anyone in charge here was taking issue with how people were being referred to. Seems a bit silly. I don’t like referring to people I don’t know personally… Read more »
Dr Seitz, I don’t see anything “political” in the ABC’s letter or the commentary. He refers to exactly what I think most Anglicans would like the Primates’ Meeting to be: a gathering with time “to share our experience and in prayer and fellowship, to support one another and seek how best we can serve the call to preach the gospel.” The press release says the meeting is for “fellowship and consultation” — realizing that the English use the latter word with a somewhat stronger sense than do Americans it still seems to fall short of any kind of political restructuring.… Read more »
Hmmmmm. I do find it rather ironic that my post on the Cafe has been lauded by Fr. Gillis and panned by Dr. Seitz (I hope I have used everyone’s preferred title). Dr. Seitz is correct, I am THAT TJ McMahon (someone said my name too many times, and here I am), a person who is generally termed a conservative or traditionalist commenter on several blogs. I do take exception to the characterization that I wished to see the ACC “crushed”, I do not believe I said anything of the sort in any venue. I admit I would have liked… Read more »
“‘I’m tired of pulling my punches.’ Cynthia, I doubt anyone on TA would ever accuse you of doing that.” David, last summer, about a week before the Pulse shooting, a family in our parish had a young relative, nephew and cousin, commit suicide. He was an LGBT teen living in a very conservative religious community. It had long been hard going on him. And then he got raped and trafficked by a neighbor. This child wasn’t a cast out. But, it turns out that about 40 percent of homeless youth are outcasts from religious homes and most of those kids… Read more »
“would be happy with peaceful coexistence” — but of course all would prefer things like this. I think you misread the situation in that +Welby issued a call for the meeting precisely in the context of the HOB statement on marriage, and specifically referred to this. Why do this if you want a anodyne gathering for fellowship? You do it because you are trying to persuade the GS the CofE will not go in the direction of TEC or the ACoC and that you believe strongly in a common view on the issue as that which most Anglicans–and controversially for… Read more »
Apologies Mr McMahon. I assumed you would not take issue with the description of your view of the ACC, especially given that you were being held up by a clear progressive.
I do not disagree with your characterisation and with your hopes for greater clarity.
My only caveat is that I doubt the ACC is in a role where anyone believes it formally votes on doctrine. I don’t want to lift it above its remit in order to question its actions, much less the ripostes of the TEC delegation. There is a question of proportion here.
Sunday blessings.
“My only caveat is that I doubt the ACC is in a role where anyone believes it formally votes on doctrine.” – The Revd Dr Professor Christopher Seitz So which of the Instruments, Revd Dr, “formally votes” on doctrine? Or were the Primates talking through their hats when they dictated that consequence? “TEC shan’t do something, that we in the AC don’t actually do!” The other issue that leaves me with questions is how does an assembly such as the ACC know that it has reached a consensus? Does it not do so with some form of taking a vote,… Read more »
The Anglican Communion’s polity is a challenge for itself, especially given the growth of the communion internationally. The calls for enhanced responsibility for the Primates was an acknowledgement of this. I suspect the calls from the Primates for TEC not to be involved in doctrinal affairs was a sort of minimalism that would allow time to unfold. A holding action. Obviously a Communion in which Holy Communion does not take place at Primates meetings because provinces are not in communion with one another is a Communion in peril. The minimalism is a reflection of that. The Office of Bishop is… Read more »
The ACC constitution defines the ACC’s “objects” as: “The Council’s objects (“the Objects”) are specifically restricted to the following: to advance the Christian religion and in particular to promote the unity and purposes of the Churches of the Anglican Communion in mission, evangelism, ecumenical relations, communication, administration and finance” (Oddly, the online document frequently omits periods at the end of sentences, even when what follows is clearly a new paragraph or section) Section 5 goes on to enumerate the “powers” of the council, but indeed, these powers do not extend to the doctrine of the Church, other than in the… Read more »
There is also an irony here. Calling so much attention to what is viewed by the left as ACNS misreporting, joins up with a critique of the same by Gafcon (and McMahon, e.g.) and others, who want the problem sorted out in complete reverse direction than the progressives. One side says, “haha we voted on doctrine and the Primates are exposed as lacking force” and the other side says “let the Primates enforce what they said on the matter; we don’t like obfuscation or minimalising things so as to get along.” And of course certain Primates will feel they have… Read more »
Mr McMahon, thank you. I think the real point you have made is “and also implies that the ACC should not be in the business of contradicting Lambeth or the Primates.” Surely this is correct. The Instruments were not conceived as ‘balanced powers’ à la judicial, legislative and executive. The Primates simply assumed that TEC would respect what they said. After all, +Curry was with them and shortly after the meeting took no issue with its position. And as the ACC really oughtn’t to be arrogating to itself responsibilities for doctrine that don’t conform to its remit, perhaps none of… Read more »
” I don’t like being called by my first name by people I don’t know. “
Christopher It’s your Christian name. Do you refer to the apostles by their surnames? Do you ‘know’ them? The Christian name is the only appropriate name to use.
“Do you refer to the apostles by their surnames? Do you ‘know’ them?”
In fairness, Andrew, one cannot refer to the apostles by their surname as both family names and modern etiquette concerning their use are less than a millennium old. And surely you aren’t making an implicit argument for a quirky form of restorationism to be applied specifically to personal nomenclature.
Look, obviously people call you whatever they want in forums like this. Just read the thread. I was indicating preferences in my context of address. “Fr Gillis” prefers to be referred to that way. I had being using a generic (Mr/Ms)to even the terrain. It is a practice we used at Yale so that students and faculty were equally referred to. I’m sure those days are gone. You can and do call me what you want to, obviously. Sounds a bit rigid to insist there is only one way to refer to people. St Peter the Apostle must be referred… Read more »
“Sounds a bit rigid to insist there is only one way to refer to people. St Peter the Apostle must be referred to as Peter. This is the side of liberalism that comes across as totalitarianism.”
I am afraid I think that’s nonsense. It’s a Christian name. That’s how Christians refer to each other.