The final statement of the 2nd All Africa Bishops Conference is published (H/T Thinking Anglicans). More than a Via Media offers an excellent reflection on it here.
I simply draw attention to two statements. One about the Covenant. The other about Anglican voices.
"5. Whereas we accept the rationale for an Anglican Covenant, we realise the need for further improvement of the Covenant in order to be an effective tool for unity and mutual accountability.
7. While we will always be prepared to listen to voices from other parts of the global Communion, it is pertinent that the rest of the world listens to the unique voice of the Churches in Africa. In this context, the Anglican Churches in Africa commit itself to a renewed engagement in global mission, recognising that in the 21st Century mission goes from ‘everywhere to anywhere.’ "
In other words, that final draft is not the final draft of a Covenant which is going to be agreed to by Africa. And the final final draft, if agreed to by Africa is unlikely to be agreeable to TEC. As well, the continued interchange of support, networking, and fellowship between African Anglican churches and ACNA and AMiA will continue.
Oh, and just in case anyone is wondering about the significance of Archbishop Bob Duncan being present at the conference, note this:
"Our meeting was honoured with the presence of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the head of the Anglican Communion, The Most Rev. and Rt. Hon. Dr. Rowan Williams; the Chairman of the Global South, the Most Reverend Dr John Chew (Primate of South East Asia) and the Most Rev Bob Duncan, Archbishop of the Anglican Church in North America."
Difficult to see this group of bishops heading to Lambeth 2018 without their colleague coming too ...
So I think we can expect some pretty serious discussion at the Primates Meeting in January about the Covenant. African drums are beating for change.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Monday, August 30, 2010
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I took the road to the south
The CAPA meeting in Africa is over and various statements have been issued (see here, here, and here). One of the communiques is from the Primates of CAPA: their communique is now published courtesy David Virtue. Relating to the Communion I note, in particular, these paragraphs (with my italics):
"4. We were very happy and appreciated that the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev. Dr. Rowan Williams, accepted our invitation to attend the 2nd All Africa Bishop's Conference. We were encouraged by his word to us. We also appreciated the opportunity to engage face-to-face with him in an atmosphere of love and respect. We shared our hearts openly and with transparency, and we have come to understand the difficulties and the pressures he is facing. He also came to understand our position and how our mission is threatened by actions which have continued in certain provinces in the Communion. We therefore commit ourselves to continuously support and pray for him and for the future of our beloved Communion.
5. We were very saddened with the recent actions of The Episcopal Church in America who went ahead and consecrated Mary Glasspool last May 2010, in spite of the call for a moratorium(1) and all the warnings from the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion and the 4th Encounter of the Global South.
This was a clear departure from the standard teaching of the Anglican Communion as stated in Lambeth Resolution 1.10. We are also concerned about similar progressive developments in Canada and in the U.K.
6. Being aware of the reluctance of those Instruments of Communion to follow through the recommendations of the Windsor Report(2) and taken by the Primates Meetings in Dromantine(3) and Dar es Salaam(4) we see the way ahead as follows:
A. In order to keep the ethos and tradition of the Anglican Communion in a credible way, it is obligatory of all Provinces to observe the agreed decisions and recommendations of the Windsor Report and the various communiqués of the past three Primates Meetings, especially Dar es Salaam in 2007. We as Primates of CAPA and the Global South are committed to honor such recommendations.
B. We are committed to meet more regularly as Global South Primates and take our responsibilities in regard to issues of Faith and Order.(5)
C. We will give special attention to sound theological education as we want to ensure that the future generations stand firm on the Word of God and faithfully follow our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
D. We are committed to network with orthodox Anglicans around the world, including Communion Partners in the USA and the Anglican Church in North America, in holistic mission and evangelism. Our aim is to advance the Kingdom of God especially in unreached areas." [End of citation].
Nothing new or unexpected here, save for one interesting detail re "the UK" being brought unambiguously into the ambit of concern, but an underlining of the following facts relevant to the future of the Communion:
First, a large section (a majority?) of the Communion's bishops continues to define 'orthodox Anglican' in terms which excludes most of TEC, possibly Canada, and now, possibly, the Anglican churches of the United Kingdom. Machinations on the Standing Committee of the AC will change nothing in this understanding.
Secondly, there is a reiteration of where orthodox Anglicanism is to be found in North America: 'the Communion partners in the USA and the Anglican Church in North America.' Again, a large section, if not a majority of the Communion views as thoroughly Anglican those whom TEC now views as thoroughly not Anglican enough to be part of the Communion. Is it merely a matter of time before the inclusion of ACNA in the 'beloved Communion' will come to a vote? Are the Global South primates biding their time: when they are sure of a majority on the matter in the relevant forum will they force this issue forward? (Admittedly the situation is complex: as David Virtue and others observe, two (Southern Africa, Central Africa) of twelve provinces represented at CAPA have dissociated themselves from an 'anti-TEC to the point of excluding them, pro-ACNA to the point of replacing TEC' line - see here - but this raises certain questions. Is the CAPA Primates Communique essentially also a Global South Primates' communique? (Global South is a much larger grouping than CAPA). What would the voting be if the motions were (a) include ACNA as a member alongside TEC? (b) include ACNA as a member, but exclude TEC as a member? The dissociating statement suggests any motion along the lines of (b) would fail, but (I suggest) leaves open the question of success for (a).
Thirdly, if nothing changes in the way the Communion does its business on 'Faith and Order', a sizeable section of the Communion will simply continue to meet, and 'more regularly', to do this business. Indeed, on this matter it will be 'the Global South primates' who take their 'responsibilities' seriously, that is, a larger section of the Communion than simply the African primates.
In the end it looks like the Communion will conform to the lead of the Global South or the Global South will evolve into the largest organised grouping of Anglicans around the globe.
Two roads are diverging in the wood, the thicket of Anglican controversy. Which one will churches such as my own travel along?
Incidentally, the conference was not all about Communion issues. Jan Butter tells us that the most pressing concerns addressed were human concerns in a continent full of troubling challenges.
"4. We were very happy and appreciated that the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev. Dr. Rowan Williams, accepted our invitation to attend the 2nd All Africa Bishop's Conference. We were encouraged by his word to us. We also appreciated the opportunity to engage face-to-face with him in an atmosphere of love and respect. We shared our hearts openly and with transparency, and we have come to understand the difficulties and the pressures he is facing. He also came to understand our position and how our mission is threatened by actions which have continued in certain provinces in the Communion. We therefore commit ourselves to continuously support and pray for him and for the future of our beloved Communion.
5. We were very saddened with the recent actions of The Episcopal Church in America who went ahead and consecrated Mary Glasspool last May 2010, in spite of the call for a moratorium(1) and all the warnings from the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion and the 4th Encounter of the Global South.
This was a clear departure from the standard teaching of the Anglican Communion as stated in Lambeth Resolution 1.10. We are also concerned about similar progressive developments in Canada and in the U.K.
6. Being aware of the reluctance of those Instruments of Communion to follow through the recommendations of the Windsor Report(2) and taken by the Primates Meetings in Dromantine(3) and Dar es Salaam(4) we see the way ahead as follows:
A. In order to keep the ethos and tradition of the Anglican Communion in a credible way, it is obligatory of all Provinces to observe the agreed decisions and recommendations of the Windsor Report and the various communiqués of the past three Primates Meetings, especially Dar es Salaam in 2007. We as Primates of CAPA and the Global South are committed to honor such recommendations.
B. We are committed to meet more regularly as Global South Primates and take our responsibilities in regard to issues of Faith and Order.(5)
C. We will give special attention to sound theological education as we want to ensure that the future generations stand firm on the Word of God and faithfully follow our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
D. We are committed to network with orthodox Anglicans around the world, including Communion Partners in the USA and the Anglican Church in North America, in holistic mission and evangelism. Our aim is to advance the Kingdom of God especially in unreached areas." [End of citation].
Nothing new or unexpected here, save for one interesting detail re "the UK" being brought unambiguously into the ambit of concern, but an underlining of the following facts relevant to the future of the Communion:
First, a large section (a majority?) of the Communion's bishops continues to define 'orthodox Anglican' in terms which excludes most of TEC, possibly Canada, and now, possibly, the Anglican churches of the United Kingdom. Machinations on the Standing Committee of the AC will change nothing in this understanding.
Secondly, there is a reiteration of where orthodox Anglicanism is to be found in North America: 'the Communion partners in the USA and the Anglican Church in North America.' Again, a large section, if not a majority of the Communion views as thoroughly Anglican those whom TEC now views as thoroughly not Anglican enough to be part of the Communion. Is it merely a matter of time before the inclusion of ACNA in the 'beloved Communion' will come to a vote? Are the Global South primates biding their time: when they are sure of a majority on the matter in the relevant forum will they force this issue forward? (Admittedly the situation is complex: as David Virtue and others observe, two (Southern Africa, Central Africa) of twelve provinces represented at CAPA have dissociated themselves from an 'anti-TEC to the point of excluding them, pro-ACNA to the point of replacing TEC' line - see here - but this raises certain questions. Is the CAPA Primates Communique essentially also a Global South Primates' communique? (Global South is a much larger grouping than CAPA). What would the voting be if the motions were (a) include ACNA as a member alongside TEC? (b) include ACNA as a member, but exclude TEC as a member? The dissociating statement suggests any motion along the lines of (b) would fail, but (I suggest) leaves open the question of success for (a).
Thirdly, if nothing changes in the way the Communion does its business on 'Faith and Order', a sizeable section of the Communion will simply continue to meet, and 'more regularly', to do this business. Indeed, on this matter it will be 'the Global South primates' who take their 'responsibilities' seriously, that is, a larger section of the Communion than simply the African primates.
In the end it looks like the Communion will conform to the lead of the Global South or the Global South will evolve into the largest organised grouping of Anglicans around the globe.
Two roads are diverging in the wood, the thicket of Anglican controversy. Which one will churches such as my own travel along?
Incidentally, the conference was not all about Communion issues. Jan Butter tells us that the most pressing concerns addressed were human concerns in a continent full of troubling challenges.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
The Cranmer I Never Knew
Notwithstanding my professed conservatism on things Anglican, I have not known much about Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, other than the usual things: hero of the Reformation, martyr, English prose stylist par excellence, slightly wobbly at the end of his life on what he did/did not believe. But now I am getting up to speed with the aid of Diarmaid McCulloch's superb, and impressively dense yet well told story of his life. (Currently at the point where Henry is about to die). Readers here probably read MacCulloch years ago. Some thoughts from me might serve as revision for you.
First, I had not appreciated how complex, how uncertain, and how controversial the progress of the English Reformation was through the period of Henry VIII's and ++Cranmer's joint presidency over the Church of England. At times the pathway between being burnt for evangelicalism or being burnt for catholicism was very narrow indeed. Cranmer himself narrowly avoided execution prior to Henry VIII's death. One reflection is that if ++Rowan Williams has read this book too (surely he has), then he must sleep well at night. Like Cranmer he faces ever shifting shades of opinion, and the prospect that overnight the political landscape of Anglicanism will change dramatically. There is no new Archepiscopal territory Williams is exploring through these years ... and he does not have to worry about being burnt alive. He can even proudly walk in public with his wife!
Secondly, I had not realised how far Cranmer travelled in his own theological journey, how long he held onto certain convictions before changing them, and how many times those convictions changed significantly (especially on the meaning of the eucharist). There is a sharp reminder here that to be a 'Cranmerian Anglican' is best done with a full knowledge of the range of possible forms of being Anglican which could be described as 'Cranmerian', along with a need to have reasons for being the particular form of Cranmerian which one is, (i.e. other than 'if Cranmer believed it, it is good enough for me.' That only raises the question 'the Cranmer of which year?'). On the one hand, Cranmer's journey in theology is something of a licence for Anglicans to change their minds as time goes by and reasons for doing so come to hand. On the other hand, Cranmer's clarity of expression of his theology is potentially helpful, and may set him apart from other Anglican theologians: 'I follow Cranmer at point X because he clearly sets out why X is true. No one else does this so well as he.'
Thirdly, it is clear to me (now!) that there never was a golden era in Anglicanism when all Anglicans not only believed the same things, but did so joyfully and without nostalgia for a different day and age. In any endeavour to secure the imprint of truth upon a human society the ideal is that all should freely agree to the truth. Taking just the Henrician period of Cranmer's reforming archepiscopacy, the most obvious observation is that the battle for hearts and minds was not won by Cranmer and his evangelical fellowship of courtiers and clergymen. They tried. They preached. Some even gave their lives in the cause. But they did not win all to their side. Not hard to be reminded that in today's controversies in the Anglican Communion it is important to attempt to win hearts and minds if some kind of security of establishment of doctrine is to be achieved. Conversely, without that security, we should expect that a familiar pattern in Anglicanism will continue: one controversy after another, though hopefully without the burnings.
But Cranmer is no less a hero for my better knowledge of his life. He grasped the revelation offered him concerning justification through faith in Jesus Christ and stuck to it. A true evangelical, if ever there was one.
First, I had not appreciated how complex, how uncertain, and how controversial the progress of the English Reformation was through the period of Henry VIII's and ++Cranmer's joint presidency over the Church of England. At times the pathway between being burnt for evangelicalism or being burnt for catholicism was very narrow indeed. Cranmer himself narrowly avoided execution prior to Henry VIII's death. One reflection is that if ++Rowan Williams has read this book too (surely he has), then he must sleep well at night. Like Cranmer he faces ever shifting shades of opinion, and the prospect that overnight the political landscape of Anglicanism will change dramatically. There is no new Archepiscopal territory Williams is exploring through these years ... and he does not have to worry about being burnt alive. He can even proudly walk in public with his wife!
Secondly, I had not realised how far Cranmer travelled in his own theological journey, how long he held onto certain convictions before changing them, and how many times those convictions changed significantly (especially on the meaning of the eucharist). There is a sharp reminder here that to be a 'Cranmerian Anglican' is best done with a full knowledge of the range of possible forms of being Anglican which could be described as 'Cranmerian', along with a need to have reasons for being the particular form of Cranmerian which one is, (i.e. other than 'if Cranmer believed it, it is good enough for me.' That only raises the question 'the Cranmer of which year?'). On the one hand, Cranmer's journey in theology is something of a licence for Anglicans to change their minds as time goes by and reasons for doing so come to hand. On the other hand, Cranmer's clarity of expression of his theology is potentially helpful, and may set him apart from other Anglican theologians: 'I follow Cranmer at point X because he clearly sets out why X is true. No one else does this so well as he.'
Thirdly, it is clear to me (now!) that there never was a golden era in Anglicanism when all Anglicans not only believed the same things, but did so joyfully and without nostalgia for a different day and age. In any endeavour to secure the imprint of truth upon a human society the ideal is that all should freely agree to the truth. Taking just the Henrician period of Cranmer's reforming archepiscopacy, the most obvious observation is that the battle for hearts and minds was not won by Cranmer and his evangelical fellowship of courtiers and clergymen. They tried. They preached. Some even gave their lives in the cause. But they did not win all to their side. Not hard to be reminded that in today's controversies in the Anglican Communion it is important to attempt to win hearts and minds if some kind of security of establishment of doctrine is to be achieved. Conversely, without that security, we should expect that a familiar pattern in Anglicanism will continue: one controversy after another, though hopefully without the burnings.
But Cranmer is no less a hero for my better knowledge of his life. He grasped the revelation offered him concerning justification through faith in Jesus Christ and stuck to it. A true evangelical, if ever there was one.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
One or the other or both?
Can the Western Anglican churches of the Communion have their cake and eat it too? Kendall Harmon on T19 publishes this excerpt from a Riazat Butt Guardian report on the meeting of African bishops in Uganda:
'The archbishop of Uganda yesterday urged hundreds of African bishops to shake off their fears, shame and superficial dependency and re-evangelise the "ailing" churches of the west.
In a rallying cry to the biggest constituency of the Anglican Communion, the Most Rev Henry Orombi said it was time for Africans to "rise up and bring fresh life in the ailing global Anglicanism".
His call came on the same day that US Episcopalians published a guide on liturgical and ceremonial resources for clergy and same-sex couples.'
[CORRECTION: Riazat Butt has written erroneously here, as pointed out in a comment below by Mark Harris. The guide was published by the United Church of Christ. The connection to TEC is that Bishop Gene Robinson has written the foreword. But that does not make it a 'US Episcopalian publication.']
Nice juxtaposition of "ailing global Anglicanism" and "US Episcopalians published a guide ..."! When 400 bishops gather in Africa at such a meeting, the "ailing" description does not refer to the African (or Asian) part of global Anglicanism. It is meant to point to Western Anglican churches where we struggle with numbers that at best are not increasing, and aging profiles that are not decreasing for typical congregations. The "US Episcopalians published a guide ..." line in some minds is always about whether TEC (in particular) has caused its own ailing by wrong-headed moves, and other churches (such as my own ACANZP) are ailing because of similar wrong-headed moves. "Wrong-headed" of course being some kind of foolish, self-destructive embrace of progressive theology.
There are many reasons why Western churches, including Western Anglican churches are either in decline or treading water. Embrace of progressive theology is just one of those reasons. But there is a searching question here which does not readily go away: if we are interested in stemming decline, reversing decline, and generally not "ailing", can we both embrace progressive theology and strategies which lead to growth? Is it one or the other or both?
Back to the Guardian article. Look at the photo. Seated in the front row are the Archbishop of Canterbury andthe Presiding Bishop of TEC as the twin heads of the Communion's leading Western Anglican churches the Archbishop of ACNA. Now there is another interesting juxtaposition to consider ... in a dynamic future for healthy global Anglicanism, distinct from "official" Anglicanism via the Standing Committee (where TEC is healthily represented), will TEC play any significant role?
'The archbishop of Uganda yesterday urged hundreds of African bishops to shake off their fears, shame and superficial dependency and re-evangelise the "ailing" churches of the west.
In a rallying cry to the biggest constituency of the Anglican Communion, the Most Rev Henry Orombi said it was time for Africans to "rise up and bring fresh life in the ailing global Anglicanism".
His call came on the same day that US Episcopalians published a guide on liturgical and ceremonial resources for clergy and same-sex couples.'
[CORRECTION: Riazat Butt has written erroneously here, as pointed out in a comment below by Mark Harris. The guide was published by the United Church of Christ. The connection to TEC is that Bishop Gene Robinson has written the foreword. But that does not make it a 'US Episcopalian publication.']
Nice juxtaposition of "ailing global Anglicanism" and "US Episcopalians published a guide ..."! When 400 bishops gather in Africa at such a meeting, the "ailing" description does not refer to the African (or Asian) part of global Anglicanism. It is meant to point to Western Anglican churches where we struggle with numbers that at best are not increasing, and aging profiles that are not decreasing for typical congregations. The "US Episcopalians published a guide ..." line in some minds is always about whether TEC (in particular) has caused its own ailing by wrong-headed moves, and other churches (such as my own ACANZP) are ailing because of similar wrong-headed moves. "Wrong-headed" of course being some kind of foolish, self-destructive embrace of progressive theology.
There are many reasons why Western churches, including Western Anglican churches are either in decline or treading water. Embrace of progressive theology is just one of those reasons. But there is a searching question here which does not readily go away: if we are interested in stemming decline, reversing decline, and generally not "ailing", can we both embrace progressive theology and strategies which lead to growth? Is it one or the other or both?
Back to the Guardian article. Look at the photo. Seated in the front row are the Archbishop of Canterbury and
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
That's the thing about prison, it does not change a man
I wonder if the NZ Herald writer intentionally, or accidentally wrote the following byline:
"Freed double murderer John Barlow says 15 years in prison hasn't changed him a bit."
Bit of a worry that. A double murderer, unchanged, now loose in the community ...
"Freed double murderer John Barlow says 15 years in prison hasn't changed him a bit."
Bit of a worry that. A double murderer, unchanged, now loose in the community ...
Meanwhile, Across the Tasman
Possibly in order to distract from the Australian rugby team being thrashed, yet again, by the All Blacks, a discussion is arising about the consistencies of the Australian Anglican legal approaches to certain questions of the day. Cunningly, the recent election in Australia, producing a hung parliament - somehow appropriate following the 'political execution' of Kevin Rudd - has also been contrived in order to distract from this imminent thrashing. The lengths some people will go to ... :)
Anyway, the Anglican discussion is well captured by David Ould and posted on Stand Firm. In essence it boils down to this question: has the 'Tribunal' level of examination of the question of women bishops taken a generous view of the wording of the canons of the Anglican Church of Australia to permit women assistant bishops*, but taken a miserly view of the wording of the canons to prohibit diaconal presidency at communion? (*I understand that no amount of expansive interpretation of the canons could support women diocesan bishops. All agree that this would require actual change to the canons by synodical process of the church).
Naturally, a dispassionate, overseas Australophile observer such as myself is intrigued by this discussion.
Intrigue (1): the Sydney Diocese, via its Synod, has also been very keen on lay presidency, but this does not seem to figure in the discussion. Why not? If lay presidency and diaconal presidency are being supported on the basis (as I understand it) that Scripture does not prohibit both and so neither should the canons of the church, why a concern that focuses only on diaconal presidency?
Intrigue (2): is the matter important to the Diocese of Sydney? It has been noticed on the blogosphere that the person fronting the Sydney case has been [Assistant] Bishop Glenn Davies, not Archbishop Peter Jensen himself. Perhaps one rather than the other is inconsequential. But is it at all possible that Archbishop Peter's credibility in the wider Communion needs him to be less rather than more associated with diaconal presidency? If so, is it possible that one day Sydney might 'get' the point that priestly presidency is Anglican, diaconal presidency is, well, something else?
Intrigue (3): Why the focus on the minutiae of canonical interpretation? Is there not a bigger theological picture here? Surely the two questions the Australian church should focus on, in a spirit of Anglican collegiality and communion, is whether (a) bishops being male, and (b) presidents at communion being priests or bishops is essential to being an Anglican church or not?
Still I may be misunderstanding things here. Including this fourth intrigue:
Intrigue (4): Is the Australian Anglican church one church made up of dioceses or a collection of dioceses which functions from time to time as one church?
Keen on the Communion as I am, and hopeful that one day we might become a worldwide church, even I have to recognise that if the answer to the question immediately above is the latter rather than the former, then the future unity of the Communion has a very, very long way to go, because, perhaps, it first has to start in Australia.
Perhaps if we let them win the next rugby test they will feel better about things and more open to change ... :)
Anyway, the Anglican discussion is well captured by David Ould and posted on Stand Firm. In essence it boils down to this question: has the 'Tribunal' level of examination of the question of women bishops taken a generous view of the wording of the canons of the Anglican Church of Australia to permit women assistant bishops*, but taken a miserly view of the wording of the canons to prohibit diaconal presidency at communion? (*I understand that no amount of expansive interpretation of the canons could support women diocesan bishops. All agree that this would require actual change to the canons by synodical process of the church).
Naturally, a dispassionate, overseas Australophile observer such as myself is intrigued by this discussion.
Intrigue (1): the Sydney Diocese, via its Synod, has also been very keen on lay presidency, but this does not seem to figure in the discussion. Why not? If lay presidency and diaconal presidency are being supported on the basis (as I understand it) that Scripture does not prohibit both and so neither should the canons of the church, why a concern that focuses only on diaconal presidency?
Intrigue (2): is the matter important to the Diocese of Sydney? It has been noticed on the blogosphere that the person fronting the Sydney case has been [Assistant] Bishop Glenn Davies, not Archbishop Peter Jensen himself. Perhaps one rather than the other is inconsequential. But is it at all possible that Archbishop Peter's credibility in the wider Communion needs him to be less rather than more associated with diaconal presidency? If so, is it possible that one day Sydney might 'get' the point that priestly presidency is Anglican, diaconal presidency is, well, something else?
Intrigue (3): Why the focus on the minutiae of canonical interpretation? Is there not a bigger theological picture here? Surely the two questions the Australian church should focus on, in a spirit of Anglican collegiality and communion, is whether (a) bishops being male, and (b) presidents at communion being priests or bishops is essential to being an Anglican church or not?
Still I may be misunderstanding things here. Including this fourth intrigue:
Intrigue (4): Is the Australian Anglican church one church made up of dioceses or a collection of dioceses which functions from time to time as one church?
Keen on the Communion as I am, and hopeful that one day we might become a worldwide church, even I have to recognise that if the answer to the question immediately above is the latter rather than the former, then the future unity of the Communion has a very, very long way to go, because, perhaps, it first has to start in Australia.
Perhaps if we let them win the next rugby test they will feel better about things and more open to change ... :)
Monday, August 23, 2010
Let's get this right
The ACI has made a helpful suggestion about the body which is key to the effectiveness of the Covenant, the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion. This is the introduction to their essay:
"As we have noted several times in recent months, the final text of the Anglican Covenant assigns important tasks defined in Section 4 to a committee designated the “Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion.” There is currently no committee in the Anglican Communion bearing that title or capable of performing those tasks. The ACC standing committee was briefly referred to by the Section 4 title, but that name was not given it by the ACC. In any case in July 2010 the standing committee of the new company intended to replace the former ACC, noting objections to the title, agreed that it would be known simply as the standing committee.
Moreover, the ACC committee cannot fulfill the role defined by the Covenant, which makes the Section 4 committee “responsible to” both the Primates’ Meeting and the ACC, in the case of the latter as it was defined by its former constitution. Under the ACC’s new corporate arrangement, the members of its standing committee now comprise the entire membership and management of the ACC for legal purposes. Nor is there any meaningful way in which that committee could be said to be responsible to the Primates’ Meeting as contemplated by the Covenant."
Read it all here.
"As we have noted several times in recent months, the final text of the Anglican Covenant assigns important tasks defined in Section 4 to a committee designated the “Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion.” There is currently no committee in the Anglican Communion bearing that title or capable of performing those tasks. The ACC standing committee was briefly referred to by the Section 4 title, but that name was not given it by the ACC. In any case in July 2010 the standing committee of the new company intended to replace the former ACC, noting objections to the title, agreed that it would be known simply as the standing committee.
Moreover, the ACC committee cannot fulfill the role defined by the Covenant, which makes the Section 4 committee “responsible to” both the Primates’ Meeting and the ACC, in the case of the latter as it was defined by its former constitution. Under the ACC’s new corporate arrangement, the members of its standing committee now comprise the entire membership and management of the ACC for legal purposes. Nor is there any meaningful way in which that committee could be said to be responsible to the Primates’ Meeting as contemplated by the Covenant."
Read it all here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)