Responses of the Primates to New Orleans communiqué

ACNS reports:

The Archbishop of Canterbury has written to Anglican Communion Primates and members of the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) with a summary of their individual responses to the outcome of September House of Bishops meeting of the Episcopal Church (USA). He made it clear that he was not at this stage advancing his own interpretation of these responses.

He would include his own reflections in his (annual) Advent Letter to the Primates in the coming weeks .

In his 2004 Advent Letter to the Primates (dated November 29) he wrote:

Any words that could make it easier for someone to attack or abuse a homosexual person are words of which we must repent. We are bound to ask, with the greatest care, how we best communicate the challenge of the gospel to homosexual persons and how we may free ourselves from unreasoning fear or even hatred.

His 11 page report is available here (pdf).


Of 38 Primates, 26 have responded had responded as of November 6. 12 of the responses agreed with the JSC report, 10 disagreed, 3 were mixed, and 1 was doing wider consultation. “All of the Provinces that have responded negatively to the conclusions of the JSC Report belong to the Global South alliance.”

About ACC members’ responses:

Of the approximately 75 ACC members (with existing vacancies in some Provinces and new members being elected to the Council to replace members whose term comes to an end just before the next full meeting, membership numbers will change), 64% of the membership has not replied to the Archbishop’s letter of early October. Of the 36% who have replied, the percentage of those agreeing with the findings of the JSC Report is 18%, whilst only 3% have written to say that the Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops have not gone far enough in offering the clarifications requested by the Primates’ Communiqué from Dar es Salaam. 11% of the membership (eight members) are members of the JSC [and one of those replied].

The report is a compilation of the responses including quotations (without specifically naming anyone). The familiar debating points show up regarding holding Lambeth, the role of the Primates, governance, an Anglican Covenant, the adequacy of the response of the Episcopal Church to the Dar es Salaam communiqué, etc.

The report itself avoids interpretation or inference. An exception might be this statement:

There seems to be a distinction between [those who agree with the conclusions of the JSC] and [those who do not] in that the former have looked for the spirit of the HoB’s communiqué (and the JSC’s analysis), whilst the latter have looked more closely at their language.

Past Posts
Categories