TLC: Primates Hold Key to New Province’s Recognition

“with the assent of two-thirds of the primates of the Anglican Communion.”

I presume this means the ascent of the two-thirds who show up and are there is required.  A voice vote should be sufficient.

God Is My Parliamentarian.

I check with my advisors and they assure me this means primates that represent two-thirds of the communion.

It doesn’t really matter. What matters is that the new province needs to kick the TEO’s but in terms of evangelism. The Metropolitan Church now has about 50,000 members. In 2018, the metropolitan church will have about 25,000 and the TEC will have about 25,000.

Rather interesting, though, isn’t it - that Rowan Williams and his wife just recently invited Bob Duncan and his wife into their home? 

Anglican diplomacy is British diplomacy, is it not? At some point, perhaps, TEC will figure that out and stop suing and deposing everyone in sight, as though that makes a difference.  Pass the tea and crumpets.

bb

Rather interesting, though, isn’t it - that Rowan Williams and his wife just recently invited Bob Duncan and his wife into their home?

Indeed, we may just find out in the coming weeks just how interesting it is. One does wonder if ++Rowan ever used the words “Bishop Robert” or “Bishop Bob” or “Bishop Duncan” during the visit.  Because, let’s face it, +Robert was supposedly not a bishop of the Communion, according to TEC. But, if ++Rowan thinks +Bob Duncan IS a bishop of the Communion, well, wouldn’t that be rather interesting?
While I am guessing that the outcome of the conversation was probably not “I will recognize the new province on Dec 4” it was also clearly not “get the ____ out of my house you impostor, and leave Katharine’s keys on the table on your way out.” 
I also suspect that somewhere in his heart, ++Rowan has some sympathy for +Ackerman and +Iker and +Schofield.  He grew up in the same Church (yes, in Britain, but you know what I mean) they (we) did.  And he sees the writing on the wall in his own church, as they follow TEC’s lead in the treatment of Anglo Catholics. I know, silly of me, but somehow I still like the man.  Those of us who would like the Communion to survive can only pray that God grants ++Rowan the wisdom to hold things together.

You know, just for fun and your own information, you might want to take a look at the schedule of membership (at the end of the Constitution linked below) of the ACC.  Note that the growth of Churches in Uganda, Tanzania and Rwanda now grants them 3 votes each.  Start counting.  I am not sure how the vote would go down for a new province (particularly if ++Rowan or several primates were to staunchly oppose it), but I wouldn’t be assuming, if I were 815, after reading the CAPA statement, that I could just push through whatever I wanted to push through.
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/communion/acc/resources/docs/constitution.cfm#s3

This is getting very interesting.

The constitution explains that a new province may be admitted “with the assent of two-thirds of the primates of the Anglican Communion.”

No, actually, it doesn’t. The constitution explains that membership in the ACC is altered or added to with the consent of 2/3 of the Primates of the Anglican Communion.

Here it is. Read it yourself. This section of the ACC constitution has been misread many thousands of times. It speaks only to the ACC’s own membership, not to membership of other bodies. The Schedule of Membership is documented about halfway down. The Schedule of Membership is not a list of formally-declared Anglican Provinces, in communion with Canterbury or not. It is membership in the ACC Council, that’s all.

So the questions remain:

1. Where is authority granted to anyone to formally declare any corporate church an Anglican Province?

2. As the ABC may declare who is or is not in communion with Canterbury, and therefore by declaration he makes any Province or corporate church an AC Province/church (very specifically an AC Province, not merely an Anglican Province out of communion with Canterbury), who else may declare a Province/church specifically an AC Province/church? Where is their authority written?

As to the first question, I’ve been trying to find an answer for the past 2 years with no luck. It seems to just sort of happen with enough consents from the Primates, the ACC and ABC.

As to the second question, I doubt anyone has such authority other than Rowan. Primates can declare a Province to be an Anglican Province and recognize it all they like, but only Rowan can declare that Province to be part of the AC.

TJ McMahon et al., TLC has it a little backwards. First, the ACC has to “advise on . . . the formation of [a] new province[]” (pursuant to para. 2 (c) of its Constitution), so the ACC has to be the body that originates the recommendation to recognize a new province.  It could vote on the question at its meeting in May 2009.

There are 10 provinces each that have, respectively, 3 (or 2) delegates each to the ACC, depending on their size, and 19 who appoint one delegate each, for 69 in all. The Council in addition may designate up to six additional members (two of whom must be women and two of whom must be 28 or younger). The ABC is an ex officio member, along with two current extra members, and a resolution was adopted at the 2005 meeting to make all the Primates ex officio members—-assuming the Primates’ Meeting have given their consent, this change could be adopted effective with the 2009 meeting. According to ENS, the membership of the ACC in May 2009 could increase to 115 (or 113, if the “extra members” no longer qualify). Thus the recommendation to admit would require either 57 or 59 votes, depending on the status of the two holdover members. The Global South/CAPA provinces had 35 of those votes before the changes, and if their primates become additional members they would have (not counting ++Anis) another 19 votes to cast, so such a recommendation would probably carry.

Any recommendation of the ACC could be voted on by the Primates at their next meeting (probably not until 2010, since they are called at the discretion of the ABC). But the Constitution of the ACC does not require that the Primates’ consent has to be given at one of their meetings; they could vote (or consent) on their own, without a meeting. Given 38 current Primates, it would thus take the affirmative vote of at least 26 primates to approve the recommendation to admit the new province. Once that admission was approved, the ACC would have to vote to amend the membership schedule to its Constitution to add the new province. Again, that decision would be taken by a simple majority vote, the numbers to be dependent on the number of members at the time of the vote.
I will close with an apposite summation by the Anglican Curmudgeon:

My best guess is that it will be the Covenant that will be decisive in determining when (or if) the new Province is formally recognized and admitted. If TEC votes down the Covenant (either at GC2009 or GC2012), there will have to be a change in the way the ACC and the Primates’ Meetings are structured. Presumably, both TEC and ACoC, along with any other churches refusing to sign the covenant, would step down to a lower tier of membership in the Communion, and would no longer have the power to decide on membership matters. So that in turn might allow for those approving the Covenant to welcome the new Province by 2012 or so at the latest.

Bottom line: it seems to me that nothing will happen at the February 2009 Primates Meeting, since the ACC will not have acted yet; and any possibility of being admitted will not come to pass before 2012 at the earliest. But I’m just a lowly canon lawyer—I would wait until the ABC decides to speak on the procedure before concluding anything definite.

Sorry, it’s too late to be doing even simple mathematics, apparently. The foregoing comment should say: “Thus the recommendation to admit would require either 57 or 58 votes . . .” (57 in case the membership is 113, and 58 in case it is 115).

I was having a good day until I heard the covenant mentioned again…

Chancellor writes,

...so the ACC has to be the body that originates the recommendation to recognize a new province

This issue of initiation is not really that clear. If 2/3rds of the primates vote for recognition in January, then I believe the TLC article has it right when it states:

Assuming that at least two-thirds of the primates of the Anglican Communion do consent to the formation of another province in North America when they meet in February, it is likely that the matter would come before the ACC when it meets in Jamaica next May.

The emerging province will wait for formal moves until it has the support on the ground from the necessary number of individual Primates (plus a few). This is a near-truism, I hope. They won’t want to put something up for a vote that will fail and cast a pall on their efforts.

Does anyone have an idea of the number of Primates that would vote for or recognize the new Province now?  Any knowledge of their willingness to approve or disapprove before the May meeting?

It just seems that if the approval votes are there, the ABC would have quite a bit of pressure to approve on him.  More than there is at this moment.

Folks, you are dreaming if you think there are 26 primatial votes that will approve or initiate or vote to receive or pretty much anything a new Anglican entity as a province.

There might be a dozen to 15 at the most.

Sarah thats kinda what I was getting at. Just how close is it.

What difference does it make if a province is ‘officially’ recognized or not?  If there is no agreement on beliefs and no coordination on mission at the level of the entire communion then membership is irrelevant.

If GAFCON emerges as a coordinating body in which church leaders agree on which churches require additional resources and the GAFCON members consent to coordinate their activities then it does not matter what the rest of the communion does.

If people of all faiths (not just Christians) are welcome at communion then everyone is individually ‘recognized’ already.  If there is no meaningful activity being coordinated at the level of the entire Anglican Communion then recognition by the AC is irrelevant.

Folks, you are dreaming if you think there are 26 primatial votes that will approve or initiate or vote to receive or pretty much anything a new Anglican entity as a province.

There might be a dozen to 15 at the most.

Sarah,
You are absolutely right, barring the possibility of the Holy Spirit lighting a fire over the heads of those dozen primates at the next primates meeting, which might get you a few more votes from the primates who believe in such things.
But a dozen is a lot, for an entity that will have existed for a couple months, and still be in the process of formation, waiting on diocesan and district and convocation synods and conventions and such.
The challenge before the new province is for its members to conduct themselves in such a manner that worship, character, charity, and very lives give glory to God in a way that will be impossible to deny, even for Anglican primates.  Especially, to make it impossible for one particular Anglican primate to deny, because he will carry a dozen or more with him.
That said, I wonder how many primates will take communion with KJS?

Sarah, on the numbers, I think you are correct.  I have wondered if the new strategy is to create a church within a church.  GAFCON looks like a church, acts like a church, has created for itself (its self-appointed primatial council) a governing body and created a confession of faith, the Jerusalem Declaration.  It has defined who will and will not be invited to membership.  It has refused to accept Windsor’s and Lambeth’s injunction against border crossing.  In its behavior, it seems to have, for now, adopted the “inside strategy” toward the communion in the same manner as the Network did to TEC.  In essence, a church within a church.  I am assuming that, like the Network, it will simply maintain this status until it thinks itself strong enough to gain the votes it needs to control the ACC. It will bring up at each primates meeting a resolution to admit the CCP into the Communion.  It does not have the votes but will continue.  It will assume TEC will remain on its current trajectory and eventually become so “left” in its theology that the communion will allow the NA church/province to replace it.  By then, maybe the primates will have forgotten how the GS and their North American allies did it.

The major point that you are missing Emily is that while the Network was about 10% of the dioceses, and somewhat less of the baptized membership of TEC, Gafcon is the majority of the Anglican Communion.  More people attended an FCA church last Sunday than all the other Anglican Churches combined.  Makes a huge difference.  The major error of the elite who took over TEC (and I would maintain that to this day, if you took a vote on it across the country in every parish, VGR and KJS and many other bishops would be looking for work, communion without baptism would be out, and Jesus Christ would once again be proclaimed as the Way, the Truth and the Life in the vast majority of dioceses).....sorry, not enough coffee tangent…

But the major error of the elite who took over TEC was that they assumed that the Anglican world would go the way of TEC.  Well, it ain’t happening.  The orthodox around the world are now organized, proclaiming the faith, and taking the reins of power. There are more people in Anglican Churches that are signatory to the Jerusalem Declaration than not. The Communion structures must come to terms with that.  And a tiny, dwindling denomination in the US can’t prevent that happening, regardless of treasure or lawsuits.

EmilyH nails it although I would call it a communion within a federation. I think for now, the situation will be like what it is in the Philippines. There are two Anglican entities, the Episcopal Church of the Philippines which is a province (a creation of ECUSA) and the Philippine Independent Church which is not.

One strategy would be to press for a strong Covenenant (like Stephen Noll+‘s version). 815 could not possibly sign it but the new Anglican Province of North America could.

I don’t know what will happen, but I tend to think there will be discussion of this at the primates’ meeting.  I also think that the new province will begin to accrue supporting primates rather rapidly.  Whether, where or when a vote will occur does not seem clear.  But it is not immaterial as a practical matter, nor will it be unrecognized by those inside and outside of the communion, that those primates in support of the new province, whether they reach half or two-thirds of the total number of primates, will constitute more than half of the membership of the communion.  The growing half.  And that those primates will treat it as part of the communion is likely to make it so, depending upon what the Archbishop of Canterbury does.

It seems to me the Archbishop has choices - ignore it, or at least delay doing anything except kicking it down the road, which would likely become a sort of de facto acceptance; oppose it and split the communion; or accept it, lose TEC’s money (not that it is all that dependable) and anger TEC’s supporters in the UK.  I’d bet on the first of those.

#9 This position I think is correct, unfortunately.  It is very troublesome to link the recognition of a province to the covenant, and then have to wait around to see what the province that is the epicenter of the whole matter will actually do when confronted with the covenant, and how the remainder of the AC will react to that, before taking precipitous actions.  We already know, there is no chance the covenant will be considered in 2009 by TEC, ++Schori is on record to that effect.  I think it is very debatable that the covenant will be favorably considerd by a majority of provinces before 2012.
This is what makes the ecclesiastical necessity of another Anglican expresion presently self evident.  This is a political and strategic reality. It is also the reason why formal recognition, while the desired goal, is NOT a necessary condition to the commencement of the new province.  There are absolutely no guarantees what the form or condition the AC will be in in 2012.  The strategy of TEC and it allies has been to delay, delay and delay.  The results of delay has been further weakening of the orthodox position both within TEC and the AC.  The present situation should have an indirect effect of advancing the time period within which a resolution will occur.  If the new endeavor meets with tepidness and or outright hostility then the long term results to the covenant process are foretold.  If it meets with some hospitable response, then prospects for legitimacy are enhanced.
We’ll have to wait and see.  Very exciting things are happening here.

Emily, you said: “I have wondered if the new strategy is to create a church within a church.  GAFCON looks like a church, acts like a church, has created for itself (its self-appointed primatial council) a governing body and created a confession of faith, the Jerusalem Declaration.  It has defined who will and will not be invited to membership.  It has refused to accept Windsor’s and Lambeth’s injunction against border crossing.  In its behavior, it seems to have, for now, adopted the “inside strategy” toward the communion in the same manner as the Network did to TEC.  In essence, a church within a church. “

Essentially your words boil down to Gafcon is behaving as a church within a church.  There is a lot of truth in what you say.  It does,  of course, mirror the liberal church within a church that TEC has been developing over the past half century with little regard to the majority of the AC’s traditional beliefs.
  A distinction between the two is the relative size since Gafcon and those provinces close to the Gafcon statements of belief is includes the vast majority of the world’s Anglicans while the energy that has driven the TEC led (Am I correct in saying this) has been primarily initiated from the American and Canadian churches with a liberal input from elements of the CofE.
With regard to the ‘cross-border’ situations, these were largely a reaction to the liberal drift of ECUSA and not self-driven movements.  furthermore, as has been said many, many times on these and other conservative sites, the cross- border events have been very largely initiated out of desperation from individuals, congregations and dioceses within the TEC umbrella and not eternally initiated.  A parish calls for help and relief from within TEC, nothing is often provided (In fact, often the opposite), so help is sought from beyond the borders of the U.S.  and Canada -and in other countries (such as the diocese of Recife in Brazil.
C.S. Lewis said: “They have pulled down deep heaven upon their heads”.  Well, with apologies to C.S.L, it is an extreme example, but the essential thought is there.  A ‘conservative’ reaction (call it ‘rebellion’. ‘reaction’. ‘reformation, ‘reformation’) is taking place in the Anglican Communion.  consider Gafcon to be Luther’s theses nailed to the door, Crammer, Ridley and Co.‘s stand against Mary and many others, but it is there. 
Is Gafcon a communion within a federation, a communion within a communion, a reformation/rebellion with a communion/federation?  At this point it is too soon to label.  What matters is that the direction taken by one side is perceived as driving the communion away from and against beliefs that are held by the ‘other side’ (which is in the majority although not at the center of historical power).  It is too early to tell.

Chancellor,

Clarifications, please, if I may so ask:

ACC has to “advise on . . . the formation of [a] new province[]” (pursuant to para. 2 (c) of its Constitution), so the ACC has to be the body that originates the recommendation to recognize a new province.

Aren’t you confusing the verbs “advises” and “recommends?” Is this your own assumption and reading, or do you have a document you refer to other then the constitution? For the moment, though, I have to suggest you’re putting too much into the meaning of “advises” especially since the word “exclusively” is noticably absent (i.e., it does not say, “exclusively advises…”. The ACC has the right to comment like any other instrument of communion. If they have the right of sole presentment of new candidates for a province, they don’t get that right from the wording in their constitution. They have to get that right from some other place.

Thus the recommendation to admit…

Here you’ve swapped to your own verbiage, using “recommendation” instead of “advice.” The word “recommendation” occurs precisely once in the constitution, in secton 6 (Officers). Here it refers to recommendations and reports that the ACC is charged with producing in its year-by-year operations. It is a collective noun referring in whole to any and all recommendations about any and all subjects. It does not specifically refer to a recommendation for a new Province.

Once that admission was approved, the ACC would have to vote to amend the membership schedule to its Constitution to add the new province. Again, that decision would be taken by a simple majority vote, the numbers to be dependent on the number of members at the time of the vote.

Sorry, no. You have it almost correct, per section 3 of the constitution, but not entirely correct. Your sentence would be more accurate if it read: Once that admission [of the province] was approved [by whomever], the ACC would have to vote to amend the membership schedule to its Constitution to add [a new member from] the new province [approved elsewhere by whomever, and any such new member must then be approved by 2/3 of the Primates].

As you pointed out, some provinces have 3 members. Some have 2 and some have 1. Additionally, the ACC itself may “co-opt” (elect) up to 6 additional members, 2 of which must be female and 2 of which must be under 28 at the time of election.

To suggest, then, that the sechedule of membership is a list of valid provinces is a serious misreading. Last I checked, most provinces are neither male nor female. Most provinces are 1 in number. I’m unaware of any province which is 2 or 3 in number.

Section 3 clearly states the ACC is dealing with its OWN membership schedule, not the membership of the Anglican Communion. Where Primatial approval is needed, the Primates are approving the proposed changes to the ACC membership, not the AC membership.

Your reading of the ACC constitution is at serious odds with what is contained within that document itself. You wrote so officially, though, that I gather you must have another, related document you are using for reference. Please tell us the name of it and where we might find a copy so we might all finally get to the reality of what is and isn’t the authority of the ACC and the Primates Meeting. Thanks.

Some of the statements made in response to this posting about how churches/provinces become members of the Anglican Communion are incorrect.

A province becomes a member of the Anglican Communion, as a province, by virtue of its membership in the Anglican Consultative Council.  Membership of a province in the Anglican Consultative Council assumes communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury.  However, not all churches in communion with Canterbury are members of the ACC—-e.g., the Porvoo churches.  While the Archbishop of Canterbury issues the invitations to the Lambeth Conference as Archbishop of Canterbury, he does not issue the invitations to the primates meeting in that same personal capacity.  The primates meeting invitations are sent automatically to each primate or moderator of the provinces of the Anglican Communion—-under the signature of the Archbishop as president of the meeting, acting on the authority of the primates standing committee.  The Anglican Consultative Council does not initiate the process of a province becoming a member—-it acts in response to the initiative of primates—-and before the primates meeting was created, the provinces.  But never has the ACC been the engine for the creation of the province.

The process has never worked by the ACC initiating action, sending it to the primates for approval, who then endorse/reject, send it back to the ACC who then endorse/reject.

The ACC has always been the last stop.  The history of the ACC and the Primates meetings on this point are clear.

At its first meeting in 1971 the ACC laid out how Provinces were formed, see resolution 21, and offered a series of recommendations on how to do it which concluded with the statement, “Before the creation of a new province there should be consultation with the Anglican Consultative Council or its Standing Committee for guidance and advice, especially in regard to the form of constitution most appropriate.”
The Primates Meetings did not begin until 1978, and they evolved over the years from Coggan to Runcie to the present function created by George Carey.  In its early days, the ACC offered resolutions of advice on how to proceed with the creation of provinces, addressing concerns about the United Churches of South Asia, for example—or the viability of West Africa when it was separated from Nigeria.

However, you will find no resolution initiating the process for the creation of a province.  The resolutions on the creation of provinces have always been in response to the initiatives of others.  For the past twenty years or so the ACC has been a rubberstamp for the primates. At ACC-11 in Dundee—-the last ACC meeting where provinces were added and the first meeting I attended as a reporter for the Church of England Newspaper, the ACC received the primates vote to admit Central American and Hong Kong.  The first order of business was receiving Central America was resolution 1, then Hong Kong 2.  Upon passage of these votes, the representative from Hong Kong was seated—- (Central America was not present).

Also, the assumption that membership in the Anglican Consultative Council is presumptive membership in the Anglican Communion is born out time and again by the resolutions approving the primates request that a province join the ACC.  Look at resolution 47 from ACC-9 Cape Town (Jan 1993) which admitted Burundi, Rwanda and Zaire (now the Congo).

It reads:  Resolved, that this Joint Meeting of the Primates and the Anglican Communion and the Anglican Consultative Council welcomes the creation of the Province of Burundi, the Province of Rwanda, and the Province of Zaire and requests the Primates to add them to the list of Member Churches of the Anglican Communion, and that they be added to the Schedule of Membership of the Anglican Consultative Council.

The issue of who gets to go the primates meeting was raised at Dar es Salaam, as John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, was included in the gathering.  Questions were put to Dr. Williams as to who invited Sentamu.  Williams said the invitation had come from the primates standing committee—a move he endorsed by the way.  In other words, the primates meetings are not like Lambeth.  Williams does not choose who comes.

Getting down to the present.  Could the question of a third province come before the Alexandria primates meeting—-yes it could.  Will it?  The agenda has not yet been created so no one knows.  If the primates endorse it by the requisite 2/3 margin could it go to the ACC in Jamaica?  It would.  Could the Third Province send delegates to Jamaica?  Yes the y could, and if the ACC adopts a resolution confirming the primates actions, a third province in North America could be part of the ACC, part of the Anglican Communion as early as May.

Will this happen?  I have no idea.  Is it possible for this to happen if the Archbishop of Canterbury disapproves.  Yes it could happen as he has no veto.  Would it happen?  I don’t know.

The question might arise as to what might entitle The Episcopal Church, since they are a member of the ACC, to refuse the admission of the new Anglican province to the Anglican Communion.  What would TEC stand to lose by that admission?

This is an important article. I would have to admit to harboring under a false understanding of the role of the ABC in all of this. I also appreciate Mr. Conger’s follow up and correction. I’m going on TLC’s website and sending the link to every bishop and clergy person that will accept emails from me, and slip it into some that don’t. Thanks!

#26 Very interesting, thank you.

However, you will find no resolution initiating the process for the creation of a province.

and

Also, the assumption that membership in the Anglican Consultative Council is presumptive membership in the Anglican Communion

Thank you for that clarification, George+. That’s pretty much what I had concluded: all parties just sort of meld their acceptance of a new province into a cohesive agreement. But there is no formal, written, process documented anywhere, and no instrument has been given specific and unique authority to nominate a new province because the ACC works with its own membership and everyone else just assumes if you’re on the ACC membership, you’re a province. Which is troublesome, as you noted, because there are members on the ACC which aren’t Anglican provinces. A very sticky situation. Like fudge. 

What I also learned, thank you, is that if a province has its name on the schedule of members of the ACC, then it is otherwise assumed they are members of the AC. Again, apparently there is no formal document to permit any instrument of communion the exclusive and specific governance over this matter. It just sort of happens by unwritten agreement. So:

1. If your church is on the ACC membership list, then you’re a province because everyone sort of agrees that’s the case, but there is no written formality on this point. And this point is true even if you aren’t a province, becaue you’re assumed to be a province. Hmmm…

2. Likewise, if your church is on the ACC membership list, then you are also part of the Anglican Communion, even if your church isn’t a province. Also likewise, this is more a gentlemen’s agreement than a written authorization.

3. No one can say who has formal authority to nominate and admit a church as a province, because there is no formal authority.

Well, can’t say I’m surprised. After 2 years of looking for the document that attributed governance to various instruments (and failing to find same), I gathered it was all a sort of pooling of concensus—something “understood” but not formally documented and approved.

Then someone needs to inform TEC that they have no business deciding on whether or not the new province will be a member of the Anglican Communion, or even in advising the ACC and ++Rowan Williams.

[30] Antique wrote:

But there is no formal, written, process documented anywhere…

This is truly disturbing. This means that there is no way on God’s green earth that TEO could possibly be considered ISO-9000 compliant. The implications of this are truly astounding! I am, quite simply, shocked by this fact.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist