ACI: The Dublin gathering of Primates-is it a "Primates' Meeting" when so many are not attending?-is soon to happen. Many are the views on whether conservative Primates should attend, and the reasons pro and con equally many. We hold a range of views among ourselves, but we are unanimous in our hope that the Primates of the Global South will be united in their response.

VOL: They are united in their response in that they are NOT going because they won't be seen in the same room as US Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori. They think her views are not only unAnglican, but unchristian as well. (She denied the necessity for personal salvation at GC2009). They refuse to waste any more time on an expedition that gains them absolutely nothing nor does it move the communion forward. While it is technically the "Primates Meeting", it is more properly the Archbishop of Canterbury's meeting because he is the one who calls it and extends the invitations to all.

ACI: Moreover, opinions of others are irrelevant at this point: it will be the case that a major block of the Communion will not be represented at the Meeting. To say it is "only ten"; or to argue that the Primates don't represent their Provinces; or to say it should be more; or to question whether the Primates' Meeting is a bona fide gathering at all - all of this simply shows how degenerated the very basic life of the Communion has become, as measured against what has been a tacit fellowship in charity and mission, not that long ago.

VOL: How much "charity and mission" are the Global South archbishops supposed to have when, for the last dozen years, they have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and thousands of hours listening to the whine of Frank Griswold and now Jefferts Schori trying to sell the Anglican Communion on sodomy. THEY ARE SICK AND TIRED OF IT. They will not waste their time on these primatial gabfests any more. What about this do the ACI theologians not understand? It is not about ten or 12 or 15 Primates, it is what these meetings are about. The archbishops are through "listening" to the whine, first from Griswold and now from Jefferts Schori (and the Listening Process) as they beat the drum on the same old issues. It has "degenerated" because the content of these meetings has degenerated to the point that it is useless to attend.

ACI: Reasonable people may and do disagree about attendance at this meeting. Still, we are seeing a tragic development and a public scandal, which by now many have become accustomed to, if they have not simply turned away. Whatever one's view of the matter, there is one perspective that is particularly disturbing in its implications. It argues that the Archbishop of Canterbury and his fellow administrators - or in some versions, the Presiding Bishop of the American Episcopal Church - are conniving and manipulative, perhaps even heretical, and that the meeting is a sham. Surely people are entitled to this view, or for that matter, its opposite: such is the confusing state of affairs we find ourselves in. Manifold is the evidence used to draw this conclusion or that - indeed, by those who are otherwise opponents in our parlous season.

VOL: It IS a SHAM. That is why they are not going. The "scandal" is that these meetings degenerate into stories from homosexuals and why homosexuality should be accepted into the Communion. They have heard these arguments for years. They are not interested in hearing it argued about one more time. Why should they put themselves through the shuttle diplomacy of Rowan Williams trying to convince both sides that they can find common ground about gay sex? It will NEVER happen, never, and the Global South will never compromise on sexuality issues. They know their Bibles and they are not going to change their minds. They also know that western pro-homosexual pan Anglican primates are not going to repent and change their minds, either, so they are not going to go.

ACI: It is not that people have sized up this or that Primate in this or that way that is so disturbing. What is the truly serious area of concern is this: the claim that, given the character of e.g. the Archbishop of Canter bury, there is nothing that can be done about the Meeting. The Archbishop of Canterbury is held to be an immovable force, impregnable and beyond challenge. The effect of this is to give him an authority virtually beyond the scale of the Bishop of Rome. A council of the church, if we are right in holding that the Primates' Meeting is such, is not really a council and cannot be, according to this view. The will of the Primates cannot, must not, be capable of expression. The iron hand of the Archbishop of Canterbury is beyond the reach of fellow Primates. If Hilary were to appear in Dublin as the Athanasius of the West, in the very nature of the case, he would have to be defeated and sent packing.

VOL: No, it is NOT the Archbishop of Canterbury who is an immovable force. It is archbishops like Jefferts Schori, (USA), Fred Hiltz, (Canada), Philip Aspinall, (Australia), Barry Morgan (Wales). Carlos Touche-Porter (Mexico) et al who are the "immovable forces". Rowan Williams is trying to find an Hegelian synthesis approach to make it all work. There has never been any hint that Rowan Williams is immovable. He simply can't make the front wheels of the Anglican Communion go in the same direction as the back wheels so the Anglican bus stalls....over and over again.

ACI: It matters little in such an understanding of the situation whether ten, one, or twenty were not to appear. If the Primates Meeting is not really a Council of the Church and if the Archbishop of Canterbury has the power to defeat any influence from those fellow Bishops whose actual leadership and authority in the Provinces is not in question, then it must be renamed. It is The Archbishop of Canterbury Meeting. And if this is the true state of affairs, will the Primates as a total body accede to this? Whose responsibility is it to assure that the Primates' Meeting is a Primates' Meeting if not the Primates themselves? Perhaps, one does not need to be in Dublin in a couple of weeks to answer this question, but an answer must be found, all the same.

VOL: This is a non sequitur argument. The conclusion does not follow from its premises. The Primates meeting is not a Council. It is the Archbishop of Canterbury's meeting to call. The primates do not call it. He does. Furthermore, a lot of the meeting is controlled by the Anglican Consultative Council and Canon Kenneth Kearon, its Secretary General. His whole agenda is to see that the Western Primates "win" in any debate. The Global South Primates know this and they don't trust Kearon. Therefore, they are not going. (The biggest manipulator of the Primates ever is the former Secretary General of the ACC, John Peterson. His manipulations are legendary).

ACI: And that answer is not to create a parallel structure - leaving aside whether it can succeed in gathering a sizeable number of all the conservative Primates when the dust settles. For that would not solve the problem of how to have a Council of the Church called 'The Primates' Meeting', or one where the Primates did their job. It would merely defer and avoid the matter, and so leave it unresolved.

VOL: There is no "parallel structure" unless one argues that GAFCON and the Jerusalem Declaration are "parallel", but the ACI theologians conveniently don't mention GAFCON by name. So what parallel structure are they talking about? The Global South primates have sworn fealty to the See of Canterbury going back to Augustine, even though they will have no further truck with the present incumbent of Lambeth Palace. If one accepts that GAFCON is a parallel structure then it is fait accompli and there is nothing the ABC or ACI can do about it.

ACI: The Primates' Meeting must be in a place where the integrity of the Instrument is worked through. If one does not attend the Dublin gathering, it remains the case that the Primates as individual leaders and as a body must propose and resolve how they will gather and do their work. Physical attendance may not be necessary at the month's end. It is not going to happen, anyway. But it remains the case that the composition and good working of the Primates as a Meeting, as a council, must be addressed by the Primates. How will they do this?

VOL: What integrity? There is none. The Instruments have no integrity as far as the Global South Primates are concerned. They particularly distrust the Anglican Communion Office first under Peterson and then under Kearon. Furthermore, their failure to turn up at the last Lambeth Conference means they don't have much respect for that instrument, either. Ya think. They also don't believe the Archbishop of Canterbury is on their side. The Western Primates have bought into pansexuality. The Global South has not and will not. Furthermore, this is not a "council" as in the Early Church councils. That idea was proposed by the former Archbishop of Rwanda, Emmanuel Kolini, and was shot down. "Physical attendance" is not necessary. The Global South primates are proving that by staying away.

ACI: No one doubts that the Archbishop of Canterbury has certain rights and responsibilities in respect of the Instrument called the Primates' Meeting. What is disturbing is the apparent concession that his power is infinite. One need not attribute to him any nefarious actions at all to acknowledge that such a view of his role would be intolerable to the good working of the Primates as a Body. If this is the problem, then let us hear from the Primates on how they are prepared to address it. Anything less is just a counsel of despair and a sure way to watch the Communion slide deeper into dysfunction and distrust.

VOL: No one has said his power was "infinite", but the Global South knows their voices are not heard, that they are deemed irrelevant, and they will not be part of the process unless they acquiesce to Jefferts Schori's demands for full pansexual acceptance. The ACI theologians should re-read what the Presiding Bishop of the Middle East, Mouneer Anis had to say about the ACC Executive Council. This gathering of primates excludes the Global South and they will have nothing more to do with it. The ACI theologians are living in ivory towers and simply refuse to accept the facts on the ground. The Global South primates do not believe Rowan Williams can do anything about the present situation unless he makes a conscious choice as to where he stands on the issues. In their hearts, they know what the answer is. That is why they will not be attending in Dublin next week.

END