“(a) recognise and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family;
(b) acknowledge that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and
(c) invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011”.
1. Cennydd wrote:
Are we to assume then, that the Bishop of Bristol is presenting a stalling amendment to the motion…..an amendment designed to ensure that the Episcopal Church will be able to prevent the ACNA’s being accepted as a member province of the Communion in the event that it is adopted? It looks to me as if he is.
January 29, 7:41 pm | [comment link]
2. Islandbear wrote:
I must agree with Cennydd—sounds like a new serving of Anglican Fudge and delay from the Bench of Bishops ... However, it might pose an interesting test on the main motion
January 29, 7:46 pm | [comment link]
3. Eugene wrote:
This is a good ammendment. The CoE does not decide who is in the AC: The AC does. If the AC decides to accept the ACNA I think the CoE will as well. Makes sense to me.
I guess numbers 1 and 2 above think the AC will not recognize ACNA.
January 29, 8:36 pm | [comment link]
4. Fr. Dale wrote:
January 29, 8:52 pm | [comment link]
It looks to me like they are kicking the can down the road so to speak.
Do you think that at some point down the road, ACNA may wish not to be in fellowship with the CofE?
5. Pageantmaster [KJS to Coventry] wrote:
The current motion is:
That this Synod express the desire that the Church of England be in communion with the Anglican Church in North America
I am not surprised. It has been on the cards since +Hill’s [for whom I usually have a lot of time] extraordinary report to his diocesan synod, which when talking of North America bore little relation to reality. I assume that the drafting of this amendment and Hill reporting to his synod is on the basis of the papers submitted to the bishops at the behest of Rowan Williams, along with the risible report of William Fuller again transparently at the behest of Rowan Williams as I predicted here.
I think what this will do is to strengthen the voices of those within ACNA and the Communion who see no future with Rowan Williams occupying his current role in relation to the Communion, and weakens the argument of those who wish to keep the Canterbury connection.
It is what it is - it will be interesting to see how this plays out at Synod.
January 29, 9:06 pm | [comment link]
6. Pageantmaster [KJS to Coventry] wrote:
It is again worth remembering the recent exhortation and instruction of the Global South Primates to Rowan Williams:
January 29, 9:13 pm | [comment link]
“We urge the Archbishop of Canterbury to work in close collegial consultation with fellow Primates in the Communion, act decisively on already agreed measures in the Primates’ Meetings, and exercise effective leadership in nourishing the flock under our charge, so that none would be left wandering and bereft of spiritual oversight.”
7. Pageantmaster [KJS to Coventry] wrote:
If you see secrecy, behind the scenes manipulation, appointments and reports and committees being conjured out of thin air and sleight of hand, you can be pretty certain that Rowan Williams is behind it.
If you look at the text of “Bishop Hill’s” amendment it shifts the motion from the desire of the CofE to formally state their communion with ACNA, which is within their power to recognising, affirming and acknowledging the desires of ACNA to be Communion. That is something any dumbo knows, and makes the resolution, already backed by 1/4 of Synod who put their names to it and 8+ bishops pointless. But the arrogance and manipulation of Rowan Williams, coupled with his lack of leadership and political ineptness knows no bounds. And he has ignored the instruction of the Global South Primates.
Oh well. Hope he had a nice time in America and got some money out of Trinity Wall Street.
January 29, 9:27 pm | [comment link]
8. Dan Crawford wrote:
This is the classic ploy: the substitute motion that effectively kills the intent of the original motion. The CofE learned well from TEC. I saw this game played in far too many diocesan conventions in the US. As for RW paying any attention to the Global South Primates . . .
January 29, 9:52 pm | [comment link]
9. Cennydd wrote:
Hopefully the conservatives will see this amendment for what it is, and allow it to die a peaceful death by taking no action on it.
January 29, 10:47 pm | [comment link]
10. Islandbear wrote:
Interestingly, Archbishop Duncan is reporting regularly that more provinces are declaring themselves in communion with ACNA, making the ACC process largely irrelevant. It would be most interesting if the CofE Synod decides to follow this route.
I have no problem with them defeating the main motion, but why not have a clean up or down vote rather than this typical motion which means little and says less?
January 29, 11:47 pm | [comment link]
11. Cennydd wrote:
Eugene, if “++“Katharine Jefferts Schori does as what I think she’ll do, she’ll do her best to see that the Anglican Church in North America is not recognized by Canterbury. The rest of the Anglican Communion, however, is another matter, and their recognition is what matters. For me, at least, Rowan Cantuar’s recognition is not important. He is not the Communion.
January 30, 12:24 am | [comment link]
12. Ian Montgomery wrote:
I would hope that the original motion stays un-amended. What this amendment does is shift the focus to AC membership from the recognition/acceptance of ACNA orders and the inter-changeability between clergy etc. Sadly the amendment is a delaying and obfuscating way to take any of the desired effect from the original. I hope the amendment is opposed and certainly not accepted by the proposer of the motion. Sadly I do not trust +++RW when it comes to procedural stuff - remember Jamaica - and he is certainly in the pay of those wealthy TECites who he has been entertaining this last week. Maybe someone in the Synod will stand up to him and maybe we can have a majority reject the amendment and vote in a majority for the original motion.
January 30, 12:41 am | [comment link]
Not holding my breath.
13. driver8 wrote:
FWLIW I think this is reasonable and in one way follows the precedent of other churches with whom the CofE has recently entered into full communion. The legal advice indicated that the decision as to which churches are in full communion with the CofE in fact rests with the Archbishops of Canterbury and York. One might see that ACNA is being treated similarly to the churches of the Porvoo Agreement - when there was a period of theological reflection before the Archbishops gave their permission, and then Synod was invited to give their approval.
January 30, 12:44 am | [comment link]
14. driver8 wrote:
#13 I think the legal point point may be that Synod has no jurisdiction concerning the recognition of ACNA orders. Of course, the original motion doesn’t claim any jurisdiction and even if passed only states a “desire”. At the moment presumably those serving as ordained ministers in ACNA who sought to take up posts in the CofE would be responded to on a case by case basis.
January 30, 12:53 am | [comment link]
15. Brian from T19 wrote:
Bad day for ++Duncan - losses in court and this too.
January 30, 12:54 am | [comment link]
16. Pageantmaster [KJS to Coventry] wrote:
The legal advice indicated that the decision as to which churches are in full communion with the CofE in fact rests with the Archbishops of Canterbury and York.
the legal point point may be that Synod has no jurisdiction concerning the recognition of ACNA orders
Not so. It was certainly the case that William Fittall, Secretary General of Synod attached his name to a paper suggesting some such thing, but in doing so he conflated delegation by Synod to the Archbishops of some specified functions in relation to particular churches with whom we have relationships, with the right of Synod to determine which other churches it recognises and accepts communion with; it is not the case that Synod does not have this right and duty, nor that it has alienated its ability to make such a decision in relation to ACNA. In any event this was not what the original motion proposed, merely that it “desired” to be in communion with ACNA. I set this out more fully here:
No, it is a case of the usual manipulation and control freakery of Rowan Williams who is like a railwayman on the footplate of the runaway engine heading for a trainwreck. Unwilling to take any action himself to save the situation by touching the instruments or apply the brakes, he spends his time undermining, blocking and generally obstructing the attempts of others to avert impending trainwreck. He has brought his efforts to bear on the CofE Synod having undermined each and every one of the Communion Instruments other than himself, the focus of disintegrating unity.
The Pope and the Queen sideline him, says it all really.
January 30, 2:03 am | [comment link]
17. Pageantmaster [KJS to Coventry] wrote:
BTW who does the foggy language remind you of?
recognise and affirm the desire ... to remain
acknowledge .... aspiration, in respect
raises [unspecified] “ISSUES” which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further
invite ... report further to the Synod
And guess who is invited to report further?
The Creep’s pawprints are all over it.
January 30, 10:15 am | [comment link]
18. Fr. Dale wrote:
January 30, 11:20 am | [comment link]
I assume you mean the ABC. This a purely a speculative question but do you think the Anglican Communion could have been better served by someone else as ABC? And also how would you classify “creep” in more theological terms.
19. Jeremy Bonner wrote:
I would hope by now that most members of General Synod were sufficiently savvy to appreciate the distinction between the motion and the amendment and vote accordingly (and certainly an up or down vote on the motion is to be preferred).
Any indication of how the motion’s episcopal sponsors are reacting to this?
January 30, 11:30 am | [comment link]
20. seitz wrote:
Is part of +Hill’s concern not that the amendment as put might well fail and that would not look good for ACNA? I have never thought of +Hill as suspect in the manner being stated. But as 19 says, Synod can itself indicate its wishes in the matter.
January 30, 11:45 am | [comment link]
21. kb9gzg wrote:
After 30+ years of being concerned about the things that have resulted in such matters as discussed in this news piece, I am no longer able to feign interest in any of it.
January 30, 12:27 pm | [comment link]
22. Pageantmaster [KJS to Coventry] wrote:
#20 Thanks Professor Seitz
If you consider not just the ACNA Hill amendment but take it together with
 Hill’s report to his diocesan synod [on T19 a while back] on the position in North America;
 the William Fittall briefing paper
one sees a pattern:
1. To claim [Fittall paper] that it is outwith the powers of Synod to make a decision on communion with ACNA [which it is not].
2. To give a negative briefing on the situation in North America, ACNA and FCA [Hill address to diocesan synod]; and
3. To turn a motion about the desire of the CofE into a statement of the obvious about Communion processes [or perhaps non-processes would be a better term] to provide recognition and relief to those Anglicans in ACNA.
I am afraid taking all these into account I see a typical and wilful attempt to deflect the original motion, which had an astounding level of support when tabled [put on the table in English usage].
Now it is possible that the original motion might have failed, but even the fact that it had been debated would give an indication of support in Synod for ACNA, even if not a majority.
Sorry, I agree with you that it is indeed surprising to see this coming out of Bishop Mike Hill.
#19 Jeremy Bonner - there is very little coming out from the English bishops which I have seen - nothing on their blogs. We have to assume that +Mike Hill’s amendment comes out of the recent pre-Synod discussions of the House of Bishops and thus has their imprimature. With the House of Bishops ranged against the original motion, it has no prospect of success as they have a veto at Synod as one of the constituent houses which makes decisions.
All the indications are that the HOB have been briefed by Lambeth Palace and that the +Mike Hill diocesan address, Wm Fittall’s briefing paper and +Mike Hill’s amendment are the result. One might say the motion has been nobbled.
Of course the reason may become clear from looking at what +Mike Hill talks about immediately after ACNA - FCA and in particular this comment:
The third thing is the formal setting up of an alternative to TEC known as the Anglican Church of North America. I can’t say much about ACNA other than the fact that my experience earlier this year was visiting the Episcopal Conference Centre in Kanuga, North Carolina. It’s an absolutely stunning place in the Blue Mountains and I was speaking to a conference of Episcopalian Christians who incline to a more conservative view of the issues that at the moment are in the forefront of the life of the Communion but who are determined not to leave the Episcopal Church. You can imagine what a difficult place they are in at the moment because their conservative friends are trying to persuade them to leave TEC and join ACNA and the liberals are pleading with them to stay and have nothing to do with it. I think they are in the middle of a rather uncomfortable sandwich and together with the TEC in the States does need our prayers.
Fourthly, the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans. This is not the same as ACNA in the sense that certainly the intention is made clear that it is a parallel group rather than an alternative group as such although some of you will be thinking in practice what’s the difference between the two? I can’t answer that question, I guess only time will tell what that actually looks like as things develop or don’t develop within the Church.
I have a great anxiety which I have shared with you before that it seems to me that the wrong way to deal with our differences is to be forming alternative groups. The reason I say that and have repeated it time and time again is that my great anxiety is that at the moment issues of human sexuality, issues about women bishops, are not the only potentially divisive things within our Church. In effect what we are doing is, we are giving anybody who falls out with the Diocesan Bishop for whatever reason a kind of quick escape route out of the mainline life of the CofE. I can’t think that in that context anybody ever grows up.
So I am nervous of this though it has to be said that a lot of people who I respect greatly have aligned themselves with some of these networks. It is not my own intention to do so for what it’s worth
Contrast this with the support given by Evangelicals in the CEEC to conservatives both within and without TEC?
January 30, 12:35 pm | [comment link]
Resolutions of the CEEC at its residential meeting held at High Leigh on 14th & 15th October 2009
A. Concerning the Anglican Communion
The Church of England Evangelical Council has already expressed its support to evangelicals who are seeking to witness to the historic faith in the Anglican Communion. We have done this both by support of the Jerusalem Declaration and of those who see the proposed Anglican Covenant as the appropriate means to secure the same end.
1. The Council welcomes the encouragement and support which has been given to orthodox Anglican people in North America.
2. The Council welcomes the statement by the Archbishop of Canterbury recognising that ACNA is an authentic expression of Anglicanism.
3. The Council urges the formal recognition of ACNA as a constituent Province of the Anglican Communion.
http://www.ceec.info/Resolutions at High Leigh October 2009 .htm
23. Jeremy Bonner wrote:
In which case, why post?
January 30, 12:35 pm | [comment link]
24. Jeremy Bonner wrote:
Which was obviously addressed to #21 NOT #22.
January 30, 12:36 pm | [comment link]
25. Cennydd wrote:
I wonder what would happen if a bishop of the Church of England stood up in Synod and proclaimed “I formally recognize the Anglican Church in North America, and urge my fellow bishops to do the same”......and then started a chain reaction among his fellow bishops proclaiming the same?
Food for thought?
January 30, 3:44 pm | [comment link]
26. NoVA Scout wrote:
A subsidiary legal point here (although one of perhaps only parochial interest to Virginians) is that the trial court ruling in favor of letting departing groups take over property that had been Episcopalian prior to the departure vote was based on the judge’s analysis that both the departees and the remaining Episcopalians continued to be part of the Anglican Communion, an entity that he felt was akin to a religious denomination. His analysis enable the facts to be crammed into the language of Virginia’s unusual “Division Statute” and the whole mess is now on appeal to the Supreme Court of Virginia. For the statute to work in favor of the seceding parishioners, there has to be a conclusion that the “division” is within a denomination, rather than some new entity created. I personally found the judge’s analysis factually strained and not particularly tuned in to the rather loose nature of the Anglican Communion, but I suppose reasonable people can differ on that. What I really have the heebie-jeebies about is watching secular judges trying to sort this stuff out. IF the resolution were adopted, or if some other action were taken that somewhat formally recognized ACNA as “in communion” with the AC or the Church of England, I think it would bolster what up until now has been a fairly shaky understanding by the Virginia court of what the Anglican Communion is. I also suspect that CANA’s (or at least the Virginia CANA parishes) somewhat nuanced relation with ACNA reflects the awareness that the property loot may be endangered unless there is something relatively official to point to to indicate that ACNA and either the Anglican Communion or the C of E are “in communion.” Rank theorizing on my part, but seems to fit external evidence.
January 30, 5:55 pm | [comment link]
27. Pageantmaster [KJS to Coventry] wrote:
#27 Quite so, and there you see the drift of the actions of Wazzer Williams, once again undermining.
January 30, 6:08 pm | [comment link]
28. MichaelA wrote:
A couple of things leap out at me from this alternative resolution:
(a) the House of Bishops as a body do not want to openly offend conservative anglicans in the united states - hence the somewhat respectful language; but
(b) the House of Bishops does NOT want the original motion to go before Synod, because they fear it will be passed.
I don’t think anyone can afford a naive view of +Hill anymore - he is one of a great many bishops in CofE and elsewhre who may be sympathetic to orthodoxy, but in the end their greatest god is that the existing power structures in the Church of England and other Anglican churches remain inviolate.
Anyway, this drives home that the conservatives in the CofE are following the right track: oppose the amendment, press the original motion. If it fails, bring the motion again. Keep urging Synod, and keep working behind the scenes. A failure this year or next year or for the next ten years will not stop us.
January 30, 6:59 pm | [comment link]
29. MichaelA wrote:
Eugene at #3 and Cennydd at #11,
I agree, recognition by the Communion is what is important, not recognition by Canterbury. It is unfortunate that that must be the case, but the lack of spiritual leadership by Canterbury in recent years has led to this loss of status. At the moment, a strong and godly ABC could restore Canterbury’s standing in the eyes of orthodox Anglicans all over the world, but that opportunity is steadily slipping away.
A few more years of the sort of non-leadership and open toleration of apostasy that +++Williams epitomises, and Canterbury will find that it is too late - for good or ill, its leadership position in the Communion will be gone and it will be no more than one more primate among 37 others.
All of +++Williams’ shenanigans (e.g. not calling a primate’s council in 2009) will not prevent this. 80% of the Communion are orthodox, and their voice will be heard.
January 30, 7:07 pm | [comment link]
30. tjmcmahon wrote:
On the CoE “ACNA resolution”, it seems to me that what the bishops supporting the amendment are in process of is an enormous political error. Proper course would be to vote through the “desire to be in communion” resolution. If it passes, then vote a separate resolution stating that the proper process to pursue it is for the Archbishops to put their heads together and report back to Synod in a year on the process to be followed and any obstacles they see. That way, we have some hope of a future in communion with CoE, Anglo Catholics in CoE have some reason to think ++Rowan et al may have some genuine concern for them (keep in mind that in refusing communion with ACNA, the CoE would then not be in communion with the last active Anglo Catholic bishops in N. America- there are none left in TEC who are not retired) , Evangelicals can look forward to true fellowship with their contemporaries across the Atlantic, and +Rowan and +Sentamu get the delay they want before anything actually happens. No one who was a realist thought that the immediate outcome of the resolution would be a proclamation of full communion by +Rowan at the closing of Synod.
The course taken has the appearance of being choreographed in NYC. Why the bishops proposing it in England do not see the damage it will cause in terms of division within their own church, is beyond me. It is also sending a terrible signal to the GS churches, which will be meeting in April (in effect, a meeting of the majority of the Primates of the Communion, and a majority of the regular ACC delegates, and representative of a majority of the bishops, although they won’t all be there). By the end of that meeting (if it is not true already), more Churches of the Communion may be in communion with ACNA than with TEC. More of the baptized of the Communion already are.
January 30, 8:17 pm | [comment link]
31. Cennydd wrote:
January 30, 8:39 pm | [comment link]
32. pendennis88 wrote:
Yes, it is quite clear that, effectively, the substitute motion is a declaration that the CoE is not in communion with ACNA. And because ACNA is a daughter of the orthodox global south provinces, that is tantamount to the CoE saying that it is not in communion with the churches of the global south, Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya, et al.
Which is exactly what TEC wishes the CoE to say.
So this is a serious matter, perhaps more serious than Williams imagined. It’s proponents may seek to spin that it only says “not now”, but there is no doubt how the global south will take it. Lambeth Palace may think it can fudge the language, but it cannot fudge how it will be taken. After the vote, the ACNA and the global south will be in communion with the CoE, or they will be out. Synod must measure its vote carefully with that implication in mind. I for one cannot predict how it will turn out.
I would also refer back to Anis’ remarks in The Living Church. He is troubled by the exclusiveness of the current process being led by Williams. As others have observed, when the first order of a church is to declare who cannot belong, that church has a very, very serious problem.
Synod, the ball is in your court. Is the CoE inclusive of other churches? Or does it seek to exclude?
And, finally, to the extent that HM is taking an interest in proceedings, I wonder if it is not so much theological as that Canterbury’s open and disrespectful attitude towards archbishops of the global south has begun to have implications for the country’s interests in the commonwealth. It is hard to imagine much would be done about that, though.
February 2, 9:43 am | [comment link]
33. tjmcmahon wrote:
February 2, 10:22 am | [comment link]
You make a very important point. EVERY member of Synod should read and carefully consider Bishop Mouneer’s letter and subsequent interview. The same mechanisms used to manipulate the Covenant are being used to manipulate the resolution on communion with ACNA.
Sacramental communion is an either/or thing. Vote yes or no. To say that “you are not in communion now, but we can’t put our finger on why, but we’ll think about it some more, and see if we can’t find a legitimate reason to say no” (which is what the amendment says when translated from Anglican into English) is contemptuous of the Blessed Sacrament- what it is that puts the “Communion” into “Anglican Communion” and “full communion” and “communion between churches.” The vast majority of clergy of ACNA were in full communion with a short time ago, many less than 18 months ago. At least 3 of the bishops were at Lambeth. If the CoE recognizes their deposition by KJS, then the CoE HoB are utter hypocrites unless they formally cast out +Henry Scriven- (the continued recognition of his orders means that they are not in full communion with TEC, either). Please understand this is the last thing I would like to see happen.