Reported in Church of England Newspaper, by George Conger (Web source here)
The Primates have returned a vote of no confidence in the Episcopal Church. Lambeth Palace reports that a majority of primates have rejected the conclusions of the ACC/Primates Joint Standing Committtee (JSC), and have told the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams the Episcopal Church has failed, in whole or in part, to honor the recommendations of the Windsor Report and the Primates’ Dar es Salaam communiqué.
The majority rejection of the JSC report comes as a blow to Dr. Williams’ hopes to avert a showdown between the liberal and conservative wings of the Communion. It also marks an unprecedented repudiation of the competence and judgment of the central apparatus of the Anglican Consultative Council.
Following the publication of the positive assessment by the JSC of the actions of the New Orleans meeting of the US House of Bishops, Dr. Williams wrote to the primates asking “How far is your Province able to accept the JSC Report assessment that the Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops have responded positively to the requests of the Windsor Report and those made by the Primates in their Communiqué at the end of their meeting in Dar es Salaam?”
Of the 38 primates, including the Archbishop of York, Dr. John Sentamu, Lambeth Palace reported it had received 26 responses, and no reply from 12. Of the 26, 12 stated they could accept the JSC’s findings, 12 stated they rejected the JSC’s findings, while three offered a mixed verdict, and one said it was continuing to review the matter.
Of those who had not responded, three were from Africa, three from the Indian subcontinent, two from Central and South America, and four from other areas. However, based on past statements from the African and South Asian provinces, the majority reporting a mixed or negative response will be increased to roughly a two third’s margin once their views are communicated to London.
Details of who voted how were not released, nor did the summary stand close comparison to the body of the report. While the summary graph reported 10 provinces as not having responded, the paper identified 12 no responses. Twelve provinces were stated to have rejected the report in the summary, while the body of the paper stated this number was 10. Three provinces were listed as having given mixed responses in the summary, while the body of the paper said two provinces had so spoken.
In characterizing the differences between Provinces that accepted and rejected the JSC’s conclusions, the report said “that the former have looked for the spirit of the HoB’s communiqué (and the JSC’s analysis), whilst the latter have looked more closely at their language.”
Dr. Williams’ queries to the individual members of the ACC were inconclusive. Of the 75 members, 13 reported they agreed with the JSC’s conclusions, 8 disagreed, two offered a mixed response, with the remaining members not responding.
Lambeth Palace stated Dr. Williams would offer his views in his Advent letter to the primates.
29 November 2007 at 6:52 pm
As has been pointed out, Mr Conger has got the sums wrong. The Report and graph both agree that there were 12 positive responses, 10 negative, and 12 ‘no responses’. Where they fail to agree is that the Report states there were 2 mixed responses, while the graph shows 3 mixed responses and 1 ‘coming response’. The graph adds up to the stated 26 replies and 38 provinces, the Report does not (24 replies, 36 provinces), which means one must assume the graph is correct. Nowhere does it state there were 12 negative responses.
30 November 2007 at 9:08 pm
Conger’s report is a typical example of Con Evo mendacious spin.
30 November 2007 at 9:53 pm
Bsides playing with theology, the Anglican Church now does gymnastics with numbers.
There were 38 eligible to vote and only 12 supported cmttee finding, even with 26 received, it still doesn’t add up to 50% +1. No vote equals a vote against and proved no defense in the end for Sir Thomas More.
On the other topic raised, the church lost the ability to enforce its theology on its clergy when the state lost interest in using the pulpit as an instrument of control.
The down-side of state churches.
01 December 2007 at 4:36 am
R Sorfleet: They were all invited to reply by a certain date. The fact that most didn’t bother to could indicate many things, one of them being that the issue is smply not very important to most Anglicans. That is not an argument against TEC, but is an argument for the conservatives to stop all this childish tantrum-throwing.
01 December 2007 at 6:03 am
The tantrums was not really my point of reflection but rather the idea that not replying to something is a poor option to take and too often with the hopes of it will all go away or trying to please both sides while satisfying none and at times showing shameless duplicity in doing so.
People deserve clarity from their church leaders and deciding not to make a decision one way or the other does a disservice to all.
01 December 2007 at 8:25 am
Regardless of how one counts the votes, this is not a vote of confidence in TEC. Things are so bad in TEC that the Episcopal Church Center in NYC is trying to come up with a strategy to turn things around.
“Declining Church attendance, low morale at the Episcopal Church Center and reports of conflict from an increasing number of congregations are evidence of the need to develop and implement a turnaround strategy, according to an interim report released by the Committee on the State of the Church.” (The Living Church, Nov. 29, 2007)
Unfortunatley TEC’s leaders will likely ignore God’s strategy: repentance.
01 December 2007 at 1:33 pm
Well said Alice.
04 December 2007 at 10:48 am
The malcontents who generally appear as authors of the above responses to the outcome of George Conger’s article in the Church of England newspaper are clearly rejoicing in what they see as the ‘defeat’ of Canterbury’s efforts to keep together the dissident elements of the Anglican Communion.
Such disloyalty to the basic Anglican ethos ought rather to be a cause of shame to all of us who love and value the inclusive nature of our Anglican foundations and witness in the world.
It is not too surprising to recognise these contributors as fundamentally dissatisfied with their place in the world-wide Communion. They seem to have lost sight of the salvific nature of the Gospel, perferring instead to cast stones at anyone whom they see as a ‘sinner’ - forgetting that we all are intinsically fallen creatures.
To consistently take the puritannical and legalistic line on ‘sins of the flesh’, while indulging most energetically in those more subtle ‘sins of the spirit’ against which Jesus was most insistently engaged in his minstry of redemption, is to claim the moral high ground which none of us is entitled to pursue.
A little more prayer and a little less preaching might help us all to be messengers of Christ’s Good News to all creation.
04 December 2007 at 11:42 am
No one is rejoicing, Fr. Ron. All Anglicans are injured by this division. You seem unable or unwilling to recognize that the division is caused by departure from Anglican foundations. This “inclusivity” of which you speak isn’t a mark of historic Anglicanism, certainly not as you are defining that term.
Why do you say that “none of us is entitled to pursue” the moral high ground? Just curious.
06 December 2007 at 6:35 am
Your question, Alice, in your last posting begs the question of whether the advice of Jesus in the Gospels is authentic: “Judge not, that you be not judged”.
It seems to me that you are seeing yourself and your co-protesters as entirely without blame in the present threatened ‘parting of the ways’ in the Anglican Communion. It must surely be naive to think that anyone can measure up to the righteousness that God wants for his children. This was the whole point of the redeeming life and death of Jesus.
To ever base salvation on our human ability to earn it by our own righteousness, is surely to have missed the point of the whole process
Perhaps you haven’t been an Anglican long enough to remember one of the older prayers of the Church
“O God, for as much as without you we are not able to please you; mercifully grant that in all things your Holy Spirit may rule and direct our hearts and minds, so that the fruit we bear may be pleasing to you, and glorify your Holy Name; through Christ our Lord, to whom with you and the Holy Spirit be all honour and glory, now and for ever. Amen”
This prayer admits our simple human need of God’s power to ‘make us good’. Another prayer states that “We have no power of ourselves to help ourselves”. This is a much-needed correction to any thought of holiness without God. We need to keep reminding ourselves that ‘God alone is Holy’ - as Jesus had to remind his listeners, in St. Matthew’s Gospel, chapter 19, verse 17 “There is One alone who is good”, reminding the rich young man that “If you wish to be perfect, go and sell what you own and give money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me”.
It is important to remember that the rich young man had fulfilled all that the Law commanded, expecting that this would guarantee salvation.
It obviously did not. What Jesus was asking him to do was to fulfil the need of social justice!
Is that not still a paramount need in the Church?
The parable of the Pharisee and the Publican makes the very same point. We cannot earn salvation. It is God’s free gift to those who acknowledge their own frailty, and admit their need of God in their lives. Simple, really! That’s why it is known as Gospel - Good News to all who know their need of God.
06 December 2007 at 6:59 pm
Father Ron says .. “Your question, Alice, in your last posting begs the question of whether the advice of Jesus in the Gospels is authentic: “Judge not, that you be not judged”.
It’s interesting isn’t it? You quote from Matthew 7:1.
Why not Matthew 7:3? “Why do you look at the speck of saw dust in your sister’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your sister, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?
Or perhaps more pertinently, Matthew 7:6, “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may truample them under their feet, then turn and tear you to pieces.”
Now how are we to refrain from throwing our pearls to the dogs or pigs .. without judging which is which?
07 December 2007 at 5:47 am
I guess, Rosemary, that you are not a native New Zealander, otherwise you would have been able to discern the difference between a dog and a pig - as if that is what theological discernment is all about.
07 December 2007 at 6:10 am
“I guess, Rosemary, that you are not a native New Zealander, otherwise you would have been able to discern the difference between a dog and a pig.”
Sigh .. there is no need to attack me personally Ron, it reflects on your character rather than mine.
You then said .. “As if that is what theological discernment is all about.”
The Oxford definition of ‘discernment’ is .. “Good judgement or insight.” The Webster definition is .. “The quality of being able to grasp and comprehend what is obscure.”
The Oxford definition of ‘judge’ is .. “The critical faculty; discernment, good sense; an opinion or estimate.” The Webster definition is .. “To form an opinion about through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises.”
Would you say that the Primates have used ‘judgement’ or ‘discernment’ in reaching their decision above?
07 December 2007 at 2:35 pm
13 Primates agreed; 8 Primates disagreed.
It does seem that all, so far, have used judgement. Whether that turns out have been been also ‘discernment’, we shall see - at the end of the process.
Like the process of choosing a bishop (say for the Diocese of Christchurch in Aotearoa/NZ in the near future): If the Holy Spirit is invited to affect the outcome, by all concerned, then it will have been a case of true discernment.
This represents the difference between the two; between ‘judgement’ and ‘discernment’. Sometimes the Holy Spirit has been invited into the process by all parties concerned; at other times, it seems politics will have had more influence.
We all have to wait and see.
However, in the present situation in the Church in the USA, there have been precedents of similar factionalism, whereby certain elements have withdrawn from the Anglican Church there, and have remained isolated from the Communion. This could well happen again.
I strongly doubt whether the dissidents of any Province of the Church will be able to sway the true mainstream (I am speaking of true mainstream and not the newly-coined ‘Mainstream’ genus) of Anglicans to move with them into apostasy. God, I believe, wants the Church to strive for unity in diversity. Now, I wonder whether I am exercising judgement or discernment.
14 December 2007 at 8:44 pm
I attend TEC for the liturgy and quality music, although I prefer the 1928 BCP.
Who can abide some of these weak pulpits? I read Paul’s Epistle to the Romans in Greek during the mercifully short sermon. Little of merit or depth is evinced. A once grand, noble and biblical tradition is dissipating into a mystery-religion. I dare to say in 40 years, there may no longer be a TEC, but will dwindle into something that looks like New England Unitarianism, only with vestments.
Can anyone argue that the TEC leadership is in “Communion with Christ” in their anti-Christ views?
I wish I could be a joyful exile, but find Lamentations 3 to adequately express the sorrows of these losses. Were it not for Christ, I could hardly abide these pulpits. Our new interrim rector favours the liberalism and LSGT-issues.