The Anglican Communion Institute: The Dublin ‘Meeting’

Posted by Kendall Harmon

A little candor by those in attendance would be nice: there is a problem, and it is a major problem. Are the Primates who have gathered in Dublin facing it, or are they still pretending that everybody has “moved beyond” the resolute disrespect of TEC and The Anglican Church of Canada towards their previous commitments and the commitments of the Communion at large?

Read it all.

Filed under: * Anglican - Episcopal- Anglican: CommentaryAnglican PrimatesPartial Primates Meeting in Dublin 2011

13 Comments
Posted January 27, 2011 at 7:06 am [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]



1. Brian from T19 wrote:

1. I recall ++Ernest being the first to state that he was nor coming.  Then there was the Oxford Statement from Gafcon which contained signatures from only 6 Anglican Communion archbishops. Where are the other statements?

2. Redefining membership to suit your argument doesn’t really work well.  The membership of the AC is routinely stated at 80+ million.

3. Even if the ACI was able to redefine “members” to ASA, there is no such thing as proportional representation.  One Archbishop, one vote.

A little candor by those in attendance would be nice

I agree…if those remaining 7 bishops wish to correct Can Kearon, they are free to do so.

January 27, 9:36 am | [comment link]
2. SC blu cat lady wrote:

WOW. A meeting of primates that represent about a third of Anglicans?  I have great respect for those primates who are not attending as they realize the meeting is a waste of time and resources. I sure hope the group that is meeting has some fun. I doubt anything of great relevance or importance will be decided at this meeting. Surely there must be better ways to use our money and resources.

January 27, 9:49 am | [comment link]
3. Sarah wrote:

RE: “Then there was the Oxford Statement from Gafcon which contained signatures from only 6 Anglican Communion archbishops.”

Right—there’s no doubt that the Gafcon Primates of Kenya, Tanzania, and Rwanda [two of which signed a statement saying they wouldn’t attend two months ago] didn’t attend because of personal reasons and diary commitments.

They have been Brutally Misjudged—they are, in reality, moderate and institution-supporting Primates.

January 27, 11:21 am | [comment link]
4. phil swain wrote:

The pie chart is a nice touch.  It’s like a large-print book for the hard of seeing.

January 27, 11:40 am | [comment link]
5. frdarin wrote:

Brian - when you say “redefining membership”, you are avoiding the reality at the heart of the matter.  The vast majority of practicing Anglicans are not represented at this meeting, and there is a reason as apparent as can be:  the ACI nails it, and the clarity and brevity of this article is a testament to the compelling moment of crisis at which we have arrived.  When these folks, who have been committed to working from within TEC and through the usual channels in the Anglican Communion, arrive at this place, it’s significant.  You dismiss their assessment too quickly.

Darin+

January 27, 12:44 pm | [comment link]
6. Loren+ wrote:

This is a money line:  “By and large, the breakdown goes along Anglo vs. Global South lines.”

For all of the talk of “Progressive Christianity” about inclusivity and diversity, there is an obvious racial split in the Communion.  The predominately Anglo north refuses to accept as equals the Global South, who are in the majority persons of color.  “We are educated, they are not” is the attitude coming from the north.  It is a betrayal of Progressive Christianity’s own claims to being inclusive and diverse.

The Global South are standing tall, refusing to be belittled by the Anglo north.  The demands of justice stand with our brothers and sisters in the Global South.  Indeed God shows no favorites and commands the Church to do the same (James 2).

The Primates of the North must respond to the Global South—first in regards to the division over Scripture, and second, in regards to their own claims.  If they do not, then they will be shown to be impostors on both accounts.

January 27, 1:20 pm | [comment link]
7. Bookworm(God keep Snarkster) wrote:

That’s a great post, Loren+.  But, re:  this

“If they do not, then they will be shown to be imposters on both accounts”

I think they’re already “there”. 

And yes, my traditional family felt most “included” when a revisionist bishop made every last effort to run us out of our thriving church.

January 27, 1:30 pm | [comment link]
8. frdarin wrote:

Loren+

Indeed - and let’s not forget how many “progressives” spoke as did Bishop Spong after Lambeth 1998, for all intents and purposes branding the African bishops as uneducated, yet noble, savages when it came to Resolution I.10.

Darin+

January 27, 3:48 pm | [comment link]
9. Brian from T19 wrote:

They have been Brutally Misjudged—they are, in reality, moderate and institution-supporting Primates.

Perhaps Canon Kearon is reporting what he was told by the 2 Primates?  When they return from their personal problems and diary commitments, they’ll have to let us know.

Brian - when you say “redefining membership”, you are avoiding the reality at the heart of the matter.  The vast majority of practicing Anglicans are not represented at this meeting

I agree with your assessment of the heart of the matter.  I also agree that Primates missing represent a large number of Anglicans. And further that they are Global South vs Anglo.  Where the ACI went wrong is in attempting to discount accepted membership numbers.  They want to bolster the percentage of people not being represented in Dublin.  Artificial numbers never help an argument, they hurt it.

January 27, 5:27 pm | [comment link]
10. dwstroudmd+ wrote:

Really, Brian?  Then there is the matter of ASA versus claimed membership in EcUSA and CoE.  Be careful what you design.  Numbers will rise up and bite the hand that manipulates them.  (Same for folks that create canons, doctrines, and “power of invitation”, too, not to mention constitutional revisions out of whole cloth!)

January 27, 6:52 pm | [comment link]
11. Sarah wrote:

RE: “they’ll have to let us know . . . “

They already did.  And in writing too.

Maybe the New Rule now is that they must let us know—and in writing—before, during, and after the “Primates Meetings.”

January 27, 7:07 pm | [comment link]
12. MichaelA wrote:

Perhaps Canon Kearon is reporting what he was told by the 2 Primates?  When they return from their personal problems and diary commitments, they’ll have to let us know.

And perhaps you are desperately trying to spin this any way you can… The two primates have already stated their decision and their opinion clearly, and publicly. Thus Canon Kearon’s (totally unsupported) claim that their real issue is “personal problems” is worthless.

Where the ACI went wrong is in attempting to discount accepted membership numbers.  They want to bolster the percentage of people not being represented in Dublin.  Artificial numbers never help an argument, they hurt it.

Exactly our point, Brian. Its good to see you finally agree!

Where you are wrong is in calling the ACO’s figures “accepted membership numbers”. Let’s just go with a really basic definition - people who self-identify as Anglican. Yet even on this simple question the ACO can’t get it right: It claims 3.9 million Anglicans in Australia, even though at the last census, only about 2.5 million Australians self-identified as Anglicans. That doesn’t mean they attend church even once a year, just that they see themselves as Anglican, in some sense. And on this simple basis, the ACO is out by 1.4 million or 35%!

Similarly, the ACO claiming 25 million Anglicans in England is pretty desperate stuff. The majority of these people never go near a church in their lives, except to attend a friend’s wedding. Of course all figures are representational to some extent - I am sure that not all Nigerians who call themselves Anglicans are devoted. But “25 million Anglicans” in England is just absurd.

And “pathetic” would be a good description of Canon Kearon’s and ABC’s behaviour relating to this Primates’ meeting.

January 27, 8:00 pm | [comment link]
13. Dan Ennis wrote:

It is rather odd to make a “numbers” argument about a meeting where each individual primate represents geographic province.  Every Primates’ Meeting is undemocratic—Scotland gets the same number of “votes” as Nigeria.  So what else is new?

January 28, 5:27 pm | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.




Next entry (above): Jonathan Clark responds to Dr. Goddard: Could we lament together our inability to remain united?

Previous entry (below): The Diocese of Viriginia Council Resolutions results

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)