Posted on 06/22/2005 5:02:23 PM PDT by sionnsar
An amended resolution seeking the expulsion of the Episcopal Church and Anglican Church of Canada from all “official entities” of the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) until Lambeth 2008 narrowly passed in Nottingham, England June 22 following two hours of council debate in closed session.
A coalition of delegates from Southeast Asia, Nigeria, Congo, Kenya, the Southern Cone, Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, England, Pakistan and the Sudan originally submitted the resolution to committee on June 18. It was released from the resolutions committee June 21 and presented to the delegates the next morning with 30 delegates voting in favor and 28 against. There were four abstentions and one delegate whose vote was recorded as “dissenting.” Another resolution on listening unanimously approved “a means of monitoring the work done on the subject of human sexuality in the Communion.”
The resolution to suspend the North Americans affirmed as the official Communion position on sexuality Resolution 1.10 from the 1998 Lambeth Conference of Bishops in which they rejected “homosexual practice as incompatible with scripture.” The amended section defined precisely the scope of the suspension to include the ACC as well as the Standing Committee and the Inter-Anglican Committee on Finance and Administration, the two elected bodies which manage ACC business when council is not in session.
The resolution reads as follows:
The Anglican Consultative Council
(1) takes note of the decisions taken by the Primates at their recent meeting in Dromantine, Northern Ireland, in connection with the recommendations of the Windsor Report 2004;
(2) notes further that the Primates there reaffirmed "the standard of Christian teaching on matters of human sexuality expressed in the 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1.10, which should command respect as the position overwhelmingly adopted by the bishops of the Anglican Communion";
(3) endorses and affirms those decisions;
(4) consequently endorses the Primates’ request that "in order to recognise the integrity of all parties, the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Anglican Church of Canada voluntarily withdraw their members from the Anglican Consultative Council, for the period leading up to the next Lambeth Conference";
(5) interprets reference to the Anglican Consultative Council to include its Standing Committee and the Inter-Anglican Finance and Administration Committee.
Frank put on as brave a face as he could.
Commenting after the vote, Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold said: "The vote, which was contingent on the absence of the six votes of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada reveals a divide within the membership of the ACC. I very much hope that the listening process now mandated by the ACC will be one step in healing this divide. I also hope that the report submitted by the Episcopal Church to the members of the ACC, "To Set Our Hope on Christ," will be a useful contribution to that process. The work and mission of the Anglican Communion is carried out largely through international commissions and networks in which the Episcopal Church continues as a fully active and committed participant. It is through these means and our numerous other relationships focused on mission to our hurting world that we will, with God’s grace, find our way forward."
Frank? The Jim Rome Show has a standard reaction to statements like yours. "Scoreboard!" The ACC is the most liberal of the Anglican Communion's instruments of unity, the US and Canada still lost and their jobs just got a whole lot harder.
After discussion in three business sessions, the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) voted June 22 to change its constitution to include the 37 Primates as ex officio members, thereby increasing the membership from 78 to 115.
Originally introduced at Monday’s session, the action included a provision to attempt to ensure balance for clergy and lay members. Under the new configuration, laity representation would no longer be the majority of the ACC, one of the four "instruments of unity" within the Anglican Communion.
Those would be the same primates who asked the Canadians and Americans to stay home from the ACC meeting. Which brings up a question: did US and Canadian arrogance finally cost both churches? A few days ago, the American Anglican Council reported that:
A number of ACC members have expressed discomfort at the presence of ECUSA “observers” who have been present for all sessions, meals, social gatherings and even rode on the van transporting the ACC to Sunday’s worship service. Despite his so-called withdrawal, ECUSA’s ACC delegate Robert Sessum has participated in Finance Committee meetings and has been observed engaging in several private conversations with ACC staff and leadership. Both Ms. Hicks and Bishop Roskam are obviously “working the room” during breaks and social gatherings.
One ACC member expressed strong frustration saying that the Americans “have displayed arrogance in assuming that their status within the Council is undiminished.”
“They were included in the welcome and the official roll call. It was as if Dromantine simply hadn’t happened, and I find it very difficult to imagine frank discussions about their presence or even the actions of their provinces while they are in the room.”
Another ACC member was outraged by the unlimited access enjoyed by the US and said the delegation had been “party to the entire program in contradiction to the Dromantine Communique.”
“The Primates requested that US representatives withdraw and attend only when they make their case at the appropriate time. Their presence in the sessions is totally confusing to other ACC delegates from around the world. Can no one stop the ECUSA juggernaut?”
Would this vote have gone the same way if the US and Canada had done what the primates asked them to do and kept their respective members home from this meeting altogether? It's tough to say for sure. But actual humility certainly wouldn't have hurt ECUSA or the Anglican Church of Canada any and might have won them a vote or two.
Is this a defeat for the liberals? Although 815 and Church House will try hard, I don't see how you can spin this as anything but. Granted, the US and Canada were still only asked to "voluntarily withdraw" from the Anglican Consultative Council but I don't think their "attend but not participate" ploy will be permitted to fly next time.
American and Canadian lobbying doesn't seem to have won them any friends and they will now have to win over the Anglican primates who made the initial request at Newry and saw how the US and Canada treated it. So if the US and Canada show up at the next meeting or try to take their seats on any of the committees they were asked to voluntarily withdraw from, the next ACC resolution won't have the word "voluntarily" in it.
Anglican wheels grind slowly but exceeding fine. The Current Unpleasantness probably won't settled one way or the other until the 2008 Lambeth Conference. But with this vote and the Archbishop of Canterbury's opening speech of the other day, the odds of ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada remaining Anglican past 2008 are long and getting longer. What that means for conservative dioceses in the US and Canada or liberal dioceses in the Church of England and Europe remains to be determined. But the bill for same-sex marriages and practicing homosexual bishops is fast coming due.
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. Is there a process in the ECUSA to impeach and remove the presiding bishop?
I'm pretty sure there is, but they're not likely to have the numbers to make it go.
I say that because obviously Griswold has zip-zero credibility with the Anglican Communion right now.
It would seem to me the only hope ECUSA has is not only backtracking from its position, but electing a new PB who has some integrity and a grasp on reality. Unfortunately, I don't see that in very high supply among the bishops of ECUSA.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.