Should ECUSA Have Told the Primates to Go …

We’ve recently been hearing howls of outrage from traditionalists about the next meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC or “Council”).  As you probably know, the Windsor Report suggested, and the recent Primates’ Meeting requested, that the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada not send their usual delegates to Council meetings leading up to the next Lambeth Conference.  This is intended as a sort of time-out, a period of penance, for the North American churches’ having strayed from the traditionalist party line about gay bishops and same-sex unions. 

The Episcopal Church’s Executive Council decided that the Church would partially accede to the Primates’ request:  It would not send delegates to the next ACC meeting, and would instead send observers.  Some traditionalists, however, seem to be in a snit that we’re doing even that much, instead of staying away entirely. 

See, for example, this editorial in The Living Church, a traditionalist organ, which complains, “By sending its members to the meeting in Nottingham, the council is not fully respecting the primates’ request. By having members present, there will be an opportunity for lobbying their cause or to influence ACC members who may not be clear about a particular issue.”  (My goodness — lobbying!  Oh, the shame of it!)  Other commenters have characterized ECUSA’s actions as, for example, “defiance of the wishes of the primates.”

Legally, the Executive Council would have been within its rights to be defiant; they could have politely told the Primates to go jump in a lake, and said that at the next ACC meeting, our delegates would be there with bells on, calmly insisting on their right to voice and vote.  The Primates’ request that American delegates stay away from an ACC meeting seems little different from, let say:

• the mayors of various Texas cities asking that Houston’s state senators and representatives not attend the current session of the Legislature; or
• the governors of 48 states requesting that New York and Connecticut keep their senators and congressmen home from the next session of the Congress.

In either of those situations, we’d greet such a request with hoots of incredulous laughter.  The Episcopal Church would have been entitled to do the same in response to the Primates’ request (that’s not to say it would have been wise). 

The ACC’s Web page makes it clear that the Council derives its authority directly from the member churches of the Communion, not from the Primates.  For example, the Web page says:

The ACC was formed following a resolution of the 1968 Lambeth Conference which discerned the need for more frequent and more representative contact among the Churches than was possible through a once-a-decade conference of bishops. The constitution of the Council was accepted by the general synods or conventions of all the Member Churches of the Anglican Communion. The Council came into being in October 1969.

(Emphasis added.) That’s not unlike the U.S. Constitution, which was drafted by a convention whose delegates were chosen by the states — but once the Constitution was ratified, the new federal government it created became independent of the states. 

The analogy doesn’t necessarily end there.  Just as U.S. state governors have little or no formal authority in the federal government, the Primates have essentially zero formal authority in the ACC.  Under the ACC constitution:

• The Primates have exactly one power: If the Council approves changing its list of member churches, by adding or (presumably) expelling a member, the Primates must assent to the change by a two-thirds vote (sec. 3a).
• Delegates to the Council are not selected by the Primates, but by the member churches of the Communion in accordance with their own internal procedures (sec. 3b). (The constitution refers to delegates as “members”; I refer to them here as delegates to avoid confusion with the member churches.)  Even if a Primate has the internal authority to unilaterally choose his church’s delegates, his choices must still conform to the ACC constitution’s eligibility requirements; for example, the Primate may not reappoint a delegate whose term has expired until a certain time has passed (sec. 4c).
• Amendments to the ACC constitution must be approved by the council and by a 2/3 vote of the member churches.  There is no provision for a primatial veto of a proposed amendment (sec. 10).
• Under the ACC by-laws (scroll down on the ACC constitution page), Council delegates are eligible to speak at Council meetings, but Primates and others may speak only at the invitation of the chair (sec. 4.2).
• Only Council delegates are entitled to vote; the Primates have no vote (sec. 6.1).

So we see that ECUSA’s Executive Council is being quite gracious in going along with the Primates’ request even to the extent that it has.  Purely as a tactical matter, that was probably a smart move (to say nothing of the virtues of graciousness and cooperation). 

True, it’s unlikely to win us any friends among the implacable traditionalists such as ++Akinola & Co.  Big deal; we were never going to be able to compromise with those folks anyway.  Most of them evidently belong to the school of “give us an inch and we’ll take a mile” (or, "my way or the highway").

No, the people we need to influence are the rationalists of the Communion, who might not completely agree with us on the merits, but who aren’t possessed by invincible certainty that They Know The Truth.  We especially need to be working to keep the Archbishop of Canterbury on our side.  After all, the Anglican Communion is formally defined by communion with the see of Canterbury.  On the merits of same-sex unions and gay bishops, the incumbent, Rowan Williams, seems to see things much as we do.

In going out of our way to be cooperative, we make it less likely – to the extent it was ever likely in the first place – that ++Rowan and other liberal-minded bishops would ever declare a break in communion with us.  Then if ++Akinola & Co. decide our supposed sinfulness on this issue requires them to "walk alone," it’ll be their choice.  Maybe that would be a good thing, although I tend to think it woud not be.  In any event, I’m guessing the Global South churches will be reluctant to sever their ties with Canterbury. 

(See also this perceptive comment by Dale Rye.)