One does wish the press would agree. :)

There are three things which should be said arising from these reports:

First, on any view of it the vote on the resolution concerning Lambeth resolution 1998 1.10 and the Dromantine decision of the Primates is inconclusive. Of all the delegates to ACC 30 voted in favour of the resolution, 28 against, 1 voted 'disstent' (whatever that might mean - I would count it as a 'no'), 4 abstained and 7 delegates were, for one reason or another, not present. And, of course, another 6 had 'voluntarily withdrawn'. This was a big issue for those who supported the resolution, so it is reasonable to suppose that there was the ecclesiatical equivalent of the three line whip out on that side of the argument. So it was hardly a ringing endorsement, especially when we can be reasonably sure how the 6 would have gone had they not voluntarily withdrawn.

Secondly, paragraph 2 of that resolution taken with paragraph 3 raises interesting questions about the purpose of the resolution on the 'listening process'. If these paragraphs are intended to express a concluded view on the subject (a reading which is clearly open) then what is the purpose of collecting the information referred to in paragraph one of the 'listenting process' resolution and its dissemination in accordance with paragraph 2? Is this 'listening' or 'evidence gathering'?

Thirdly, the addition of the primates to the membership of ACC makes the body top heavy with clergy, and most of those are bishops. If the estimate that lay representation will now be about one third of the total is correct the picture of the church which is presented is of a professional class governing a more or less compliant underclass of pew fodder. In the modern church lay people are, on the whole, as well, or better, educated as most priests and bishops. In Australian synods the laity usually outnumber the clergy by about 2 to 1: a 'balance' has to be kept by allowing for voting by 'houses' (bishops, clergy and laity)so that it is still possible for the clergy to outvote the laity. ACC has turned into just another talking shop for those who earn their living by doing the talking. I propose a further amendment to the ACC constitution to double the number of lay representatives.

Rodney, hopefully on your point 3 more lay representation will come.... in proper proportion to their church's size. So hopefully the non-Western, non-liberal churches laity will indeed come to be properly represented. I think the Primates are far more likely to address this now they are members than the former membership body was ever likely to address it - seeing as it was clearly just being manipulated for Western purposes previously.

The press reports are all consistent, except for the Lawless article on AP which is embarrassingly inaccurate. However, even the reponse of Richard Kirker indicates clearly what took place.

This is but one part of a larger process as a global anglican family struggles to find its way forward with a gospel foundation at the beginning of the 21st century.

I agree, Kendall: in the sense ("larger process") that the AC takes one step back, as ECUSA/AngChCanada---led by the Holy Spirit (as apparently went unquestioned?)---takes two steps forward.

God is working God's Purpose out . . .

Hi JCF, you still seem to think that ECUSA knows the mind of God better than the rest of us. What is your biblical basis for that ....?

I would also be very interested why 28 ACC delegates thought that they were in a position to vote against their own Primate's express wishes... and what ECUSA/ACCanada planned to do if the vote went the other way!!?