THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

DELIVERS MORE BAD NEWS TO

 THE ANGLICAN CHURCH IN NORTH AMERICA

Today, February 15, Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, used his presidential address to the General Synod of the Church of England, in London, to describe the primates' gathering of last month which he is now calling a gathering and a meeting (www.anglicannews.org/news/2016/02/archbishop-justin-welby-unpacks-primates-communique.aspx ).

He included a paragraph that is bad news for the independent Anglican Church in North America, the independent "Diocese of South Carolina" and the myriad of other "Anglican" splinter groups in the U.S. and elsewhere:

As you know, it was described as a Primates' Gathering and Meeting, as the Meeting proper could only include those provinces which are recognized as institutionally part of the Anglican Communion (as distinct from churches which have an Anglican tradition and identity). To be part of the institution of the Anglican Communion a province must be in communion with the See of Canterbury. That was upheld as it had been understood previously at the Lambeth Conference of 1930, and was often repeated, most recently in the Eames Report 3.32). And also a province has to be on the schedule of Provinces held by the ACC [Anglican Consultative Council] and supported by two thirds of the Primates in one way or another. There is no clear process or precedent for a new Province to join, except as an agreed spin-off from a previous Province.

Thus, the archbishop listed four requirements for a province to be in the Anglican Communion: 1-in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, 2-member of the Anglican Consultative Council, 3-"support" of two-thirds of the thirty-eight Anglican primates "in one way or another," or, 4-as a spin-off of an existing province (e.g., Philippines from the US Episcopal Church). 

# 1 is self-explanatory. Historically the archbishop has refused to recognize bishops consecrated irregularly, e.g. Chuck Murphy and John Rodgers in 2000; Robert Duncan in 2009; Foley Beach in 2014; and those who leave Anglican provinces, e.g. Mark Lawrence in 2012. 

# 2 would make it extremely unlikely for a province competing with the Episcopal Church to gain admission to the ACC. The ACC is set up in a three tier system. The top tier of provinces gets three representatives each, the middle two each, and the bottom one each. England, Canada, Australia, and the US. are all in the top tier. Only three equatorial African provinces are there. GAFCON and Global South do not control the ACC.

# 3. The meaning of this is uncertain. The archbishop did not explain what he meant by this or from where this idea came. Anyway, two-thirds of the primates would be 26. Neither Global South nor GAFCON has that many primates.

# 4. From time to time, a province is created by geographical division from an existing province.

Too, the archbishop said there is no clear process or precedent for a new province to join the AC.

Using the criteria laid out by Archbishop Welby there is virtually no chance the ACNA will get recognized as a legitimate province of the Anglican Communion. However, as I have said before, Welby set up a process in last month's meeting in which the majority of primates can set the agenda of a meeting and make decisions by majority vote, decisions that can be backed up by sanctions ("consequences"). It is possible that a future primates' meeting could vote in ACNA. This is possible, but most improbable given the enormous emphasis the archbishop is putting on the present Anglican Communion "walking together." Even on the extremely remote chance the primates should vote in a new province that was overlapping geographically of TEC, it would be virtually impossible to get that new province into the ACC.

It should be recalled that the Canterbury Communiqué of last month required that the ACNA would have to seek admission to AC from the ACC and recommended against such. 

The Archbishop of Canterbury's statement of today nails the lid on the coffin of ACNA's chance of getting into the AC.

What does this mean for the independent diocese of South Carolina? The diocesan leaders' claim that DSC is an extra-provincial diocese of the Anglican Communion is absurd. If there is virtually no chance ACNA will be admitted to AC, there is much less chance that DSC would ever be recognized by the AC in any legitimate capacity. The Global South primates can "recognize" DSC and provide all the "oversight" they want. This is meaningless in the Anglican Communion. 

As it has been since day one, the independent diocese of South Carolina has no identity. It is in fact its own little independent church controlled by an authoritarian system. It is not the Episcopal Church diocese. It is not in the Anglican Communion. It is all but certain that it will never be in the Anglican Communion.

The delegates who attend next month's DSC convention ought to take a good hard look at where they have been, where they are, and where they are going. As of now, they have no discernible future. If they think otherwise, they should read the Archbishop of Canterbury's speech of today to the ruling body of the Church of England.   

BANNED IN BLUFFTON

I regret to have to inform my readers that I have been banned in Bluffton. The independent diocese will hold its fourth annual convention next month in Bluffton, SC, near Hilton Head. Diocesan officials have refused to allow outside visitors to attend the meeting. Registration was limited to members of the diocese only. Registration has been closed.

Last year the diocesan-powers-that-be allowed Steve Skardon and myself to register as visitors. We did attend and both shared our observations and thoughts on the proceedings of the convention that were very popular with our readers. Apparently the diocesan leaders did not like what we wrote about them, so this year we are banned. I sent requests for admission to the communications director, the canon to the ordinary and the bishop. None would respond to my request for admission as a visitor. I will contact the media to see if newspaper, radio, TV reporters will be allowed in to the meeting.

Anyway, Skardon and I will report what we can about the meeting. Last year the proposed resolutions were not published in advance. They were presented to the delegates on the spot in order to rush them through. It did not quite work as some of them actually caused real discussion in the meeting, to my astonishment, and delight.

Unfortunately, the Diocese of South Carolina has a long history of secrecy. It started in earnest in August of 2003 when the DSC delegation returned from the General Convention of 2003 that had affirmed Gene Robinson, a non-celibate homosexual, as a bishop of the Church. The outraged diocesan leadership formed a union with the standing committee to make decisions for the diocese in secret (I have the minutes of the standing committee). Before this, the standing committee had conducted only routine, non-controversial business as approving clergy and property deals. From August 2003 onward, the bishops, canon theologian, and lawyers often met with and advised the standing committee as they made major plans of action for the diocese, almost always by unanimous vote. What the leadership did in secret is too much to detail here, but their two most important clandestine acts were to vote a conditional secession from the Episcopal Church in 2011 that was not enacted and a secession from the Church in 2012 that was enacted. The decisions were made under cover at the top by no more than two dozen people then passed down to the clergy and the communicants/public. It was a top-down process. This was a counter-revolution against the Episcopal Church from a small group delivered to the people. Indeed, when Bishop Lawrence addressed the special convention in St. Philip's on Nov. 17, 2012, he told them the diocesan "disassociation" from the Episcopal Church, i.e. schism, had already been legally enacted by the standing committee. The schism did not come from a popular counter-revolution of the masses. (The history that I have written will explain all this in detail.)

So, unless DSC lets in the credentialed media, it will continue its policy of secrecy in its annual convention next month. In time, we will learn at least what resolutions were passed, and Skardon and I will relay information to the public as it becomes available.





THE FAILURE OF

THE REPLACEMENT STRATEGEM

Lost in all the sensational news about the Anglican primates' punishment (or "consequences") for the Episcopal Church, is a story from the primates' gathering of 11-15 January that has been underreported and underappreciated. I would like to draw everyone's attention to that subject, the failure of the replacement stratagem.

For twelve years, Episcopalian/Anglican ultra-conservatives in America (those who refused to accept the Episcopal Church's reforms for homosexuals) have worked to destroy or diminish TEC and replace it in the Anglican Communion with an anti-homosexual-rights denomination as the only legitimate Anglican province in the United States. The primates' gathering last month demolished that stratagem. That was a major event of the gathering.

The Final Communiqué of 15 January included this paragraph:

The consideration of the required application for admission to membership of the Communion of the Anglican Church in North America was recognized as properly belonging to the Anglican Consultative Council. The Primates recognize that such an application, were it to come forward, would raise significant questions of polity and jurisdiction.

1-The gathering refused to consider the admission of ACNA to AC, 2-The gathering said the ACC was the proper place for the issue, 3-The gathering did not recommend ACNA's admission, 4-The gathering discouraged ACC from considering ACNA's admission. Bottom line, ACNA's admission as a province of AC is a dead issue at least for the time being.

Now, it is possible that future primates' meetings can resurrect the issue of admitting ACNA, but they have already set a difficult precedent. They would have to revoke their statement of 15 January before considering the issue again. That is possible but not probable. Having the Anglican Consultative Council take up the question is likewise possible but not probable. The ACC is weighted to favor the Anglo-centric part of the AC, not the Third World part.

As everyone knows, Foley Beach, the archbishop of ACNA was invited to the gathering. He was apparently present in the sessions. The only reason he was invited was to get the GAFCON primates to attend. It worked. But, once there, Beach played no significant role in the meetings. In a later interview with David Virtue, Beach tried to emphasize his importance, but an official statement from Lambeth Palace made it very clear that Beach was only an observer and not a voting participant. Given the above statement in the Final Communiqué, Beach obviously held no sway in the gathering.

There were two important letters issued by GAFCON figures. In the first, primate Ntagali of Uganda, who walked out of the meeting when his proposal to expel TEC was denied on Tuesday, issued an official letter on Wednesday, the 13th. No where did he mention Beach or the ACNA. His only concern was that he had failed to expel TEC. On the 14th, Eliud Wabukala, chair of GAFCON, published a letter. His only remark about ACNA was: "We are pleased that Archbishop Foley Beach of the Anglican Church in North America has played a full part in the Canterbury meeting of Primates." He went on to call the actions "sanctions" but doubted their effectiveness. Most of all, Wabukala regretted that TEC had gotten off without having to repent of its sins. He did not mention the issue of the admission of ACNA to AC.

My take is that the GAFCON/Global South primates mustered up all their strength to get the punishment for TEC, weak as it was. They had no strength left to press on for other issues. They even gave in on homosexuality by defending the rights of gay people (while not condemning the criminalization of homosexual acts). They threw Beach and ACNA under the bus. Now, it is possible that the GAFCON/Global South primates were not present for the wording of the Final Communiqué. All we know for sure is that they all fled Canterbury before the TV cameras were turned on for the subsequent press conference. However, it was obvious that Beach/ACNA were unimportant to them.

The failure of the replacement stratagem must be a bitter disappointment to the American schismatics who have worked so hard and so long to make it happen. The stratagem has a long and fascinating history. It had its origins in 1996 when the Institute on Religion and Democracy, a right-wing political PAC funded by a few very conservative foundations and individuals, set up the American Anglican Council (likewise funded) whose goal was to defeat and/or diminish the role of liberalism in TEC, specifically on the issue of homosexuality. AAC played a major role in the TEC General Convention of 1997 defeating a resolution to set up a blessing of same-sex unions. They organized a coalition to get into the Lambeth conference statement of 1998 a condemnation of homosexuality. However, their real work began in 2003 when TEC confirmed an openly gay bishop. AAC sponsored a movement to split up TEC. An officer of AAC issued the Chapman Memo in Dec. 2003 as a blueprint for schism. Led by several US bishops, AAC created the Anglican Communion Network as the nucleus of a movement for schism. Of the ten dioceses that joined ACN, five later voted to leave TEC. South Carolina played an important role in ACN. The American ultra-conservatives' goal was to create an "orthodox" (anti-homosexual) church to take the place of TEC in the Anglican Communion. Even early on (Oct. 7, 2003), the ACN leader, Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, told a reporter of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, "'We are asking the leaders of the church to rule that those who continue to uphold the historic faith represent the legitimate, bona fide expression of Episcopalianism in the United States.'"

The core of the ACN gradually left the Episcopal Church and formed a "replacement" church called the Anglican Church in North America in 2009. GAFCON, many of whose primates had already broken off communion with TEC, recognized ACNA as the replacement province and installed ACNA's archbishop, Duncan then Beach, as a "primate." The Archbishop of Canterbury and the official structure of the Anglican Communion have never recognized ACNA.

The original deal between the American ultra-conservatives and the African bishops in 1997 was entirely based on opposition to homosexuality. Both sides needed each other. That worked 1997-2003. After that, however, the Americans wanted more, they wanted their African allies to throw TEC out of the AC and make them the replacement church in America, that is, the official Anglican province in America. That did not happen and it is not likely to happen. Once the African bishops got the Americans' support for their anti-homosexual agenda, they had no further need of the Americans who, stunningly, have now been left out in the cold. It turned out the Americans needed the Africans more than the Africans needed the Americans.

This is not to say that ACNA has been shut out forever. It seems to me the most important news from the gathering was the process not the product. ABC set up a process where the majority of primates can set the agenda and make decisions concerning the whole AC by majority vote. The majority can also impose punishment on the minority. Under this scenario, the majority can do whatever they wish. If they choose to throw out TEC and bring in ACNA, they conceivably could.

It appears to me that the whole momentum of schism, division, and dissention is fading. It may well be that the crisis of homosexuality has passed its peak and is on the downslope. If so, the impetus to split up the AC will fade too. Indeed, I suspect the punishment of TEC was less about TEC, since the sanctions are unenforceable, and more about intimidating the numerous other Anglican provinces that are following TEC's lead on homosexuality. If so, GAFCON/GS's new agenda is to contain and not eradicate homosexual rights. This would be a major turn of events. 

At any rate, due recognition should be given to an important story from last month. The long stratagem of the anti-homosexual ultra-conservative Americans to destroy and replace the Episcopal Church has failed.