What really happened at the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC 17)?
In a longer than usual post, Andrew Atherstone offers a fascinating account of the meeting in Hong Kong:
It has been a swell privilege, and in many ways a joy, to attend the seventeenth meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC-17) in Hong Kong, as function of the Church of England's delegation. We spent eight days enjoying the abundant hospitality of our hosts and discovering the impressive ministry building of Hong Kong Anglicanism, particularly its serious investment in programmes for social transformation like schools and hospitals. In our business concern sessions, we were introduced to many global Anglican initiatives such as the nurturing of Anglican women leaders, the promotion of intentional discipleship (and a new suite of resources called Jesus-Shaped Life), the vital work of the Anglican Communion Safety Church Committee, the relief coordinated by the Anglican Brotherhood in areas of catastrophe like cyclone-hit Mozambique, and the worldwide reach of Thy Kingdom Comein praying for Christian conversions. Nosotros nodded at ecumenical agreements, were briefed on the latest plans for Lambeth 2020, and engaged with multiple Anglican networks concerning 'peace and justice', wellness care, church planting, liturgy, and environmentalism. In line with the V Marks of Mission, there was something for everyone, both gospel proclamation and social justice, with a weighting towards the latter. Information technology was an excellent week for building better cohesion in the Anglican world, and forming new friendships.
But ACC-17 also raises a number of significant questions about the future of Anglicanism and the interrelationship of the four Anglican 'instruments of communion'. This commodity offers some personal reflections and critique.
Facing our Disunity
One of the greatest joys of ACC is the opportunity to encounter Anglicans from and so many different contexts and cultures across the globe. The number of provinces continues to rising: currently forty, with the recent addition of Sudan in July 2022 and Chile in November 2018; soon to be 42 with new provinces of Sri Lanka and North Africa. Every province may send two delegates to the ACC (one laity, ane clergy), and larger provinces besides ship a bishop, so there are approximately 100 members, of every Anglican variety, speaking Standard arabic, Bengali, Cantonese, English, French, Korean, Japanese, Maori, Portuguese, Samoan, Spanish, Swahili, Zulu, and other tongues. It was beautiful to hear the Scriptures being read in many different languages, and to hear the testimonies of Anglicans from the other side of the globe who share a mutual faith in Jesus Christ.
Unfortunately our times of worship did non reflect that global diversity, and felt more like sitting in a monochrome centre-to-high English parish church. Iv of the five midday Communion services were led by white Westerners – from Canada, United mexican states (an American ex-pat), Scotland, and New Zealand – robed in Anglo-Catholic vestments. The 5th was led by a black bishop from Tanzania, in rochet and chimere, though in identical liturgical format. In that location was no sign of the vibrancy of worship that nosotros might expect from an international gathering, especially one with such a large number of Africans nowadays. No extempore prayer, no hand raised in praise, no dancing, no exposition of Scripture at any signal in the week (apart from the opening and closing sermons in St John's Cathedral). The daily modest grouping Bible studies on the Walk to Emmaus (Luke 24) limped along mournfully. The joy of the gospel was to exist found in personal encounters, just non oft in plenary.
Overseeing the ACC's piece of work is the standing commission of fourteen elected representatives: a chair and vice-chair, five primates elected by their fellow primates from five global regions, and seven others elected from the ACC membership. The current standing committee are spread beyond the 5 regions:
- iv from Africa – Kenya, Southern Africa (x 2), Tanzania
- 3 from the Americas – Canada, Central America (x 2)
- three from Asia – Hong Kong, Jerusalem and the Middle Due east (10 2)
- 3 from Europe – England, Ireland, Scotland
- 1 from Oceania – Australia
But of these 14, in that location are 10 men and 4 women; or 8 bishops, 1 clergy and v laity. So in that location are lots of imperial shirts, and a male-dominated committee, even in what is intended equally the most representative of the 'instruments of communion'.
Amongst some wonderful moments of delight in the gospel of Jesus Christ, our deep doctrinal disagreements every bit Anglicans also rumbled forth in the groundwork, occasionally breaking encompass. One unresolved question is the impact upon the ACC of the 'consequences' imposed upon provinces which accept changed their doctrine of union. In June 2015, The Episcopal Church (TEC) formally inverse its matrimony canons, and so the primates meeting in January 2022 announced that, for a period of three years, members of TEC would
no longer represent usa on ecumenical and interfaith bodies, should non exist appointed or elected to an internal standing committee and that while participating in the internal bodies of the Anglican Communion, they will not take office in decision making on any problems pertaining to doctrine or polity. (Primates Communique, 2016)
The Scottish Episcopal Church building changed its marriage canons in June 2017, and so the primates meeting in October 2022 applied identical restrictions to that province for iii years (i.e. until October 2020), though with the added force that 'The Archbishop of Canterbury will accept steps within his say-so to implement this agreement' (Primates Communique, 2017). The Anglican Episcopal Church building of Brazil likewise inverse its union canons in June 2018, but considering the primates have not met since so, they remain unrestricted. Meanwhile the restrictions on TEC timed out in Jan 2019. And then although TEC, Scotland, and Brazil accept all inverse their doctrine of marriage, only Scotland is restricted. Formal doctrinal change is likewise expected soon in Canada, New Zealand, and Wales. This situation is farcical. When the primates side by side come across in Amman, Jordan, in January 2020, they demand to clarify whether these restrictions apply to any and every province which has, or might henceforth, change their canons, and what precisely it means to be excluded from continuing committees and decisions on doctrine or polity, so far every bit the ACC and the Lambeth Conference are concerned. The 'consequences' need more substance. We are facing a situation in which a growing group of progressive provinces is increasingly marked out from the rest of the Anglican Communion, and some form of clearer differentiation between us is needed or the Communion will implode.
Ane visible form of differentiation is to decline eucharistic fellowship. This was my approach to ACC-17. Although I attended all eight communion services, to heed to the Word of God, and to engage in prayer and praise, I did not receive communion because it would be misleading to share the sacrament of unity when our unity is so badly cleaved. We are all part of the Anglican Communion, but nosotros are not all 'in communion'. If receiving communion together is a sine qua nonof inter-provincial Anglican gatherings like the ACC and the Lambeth Conference, so the but pick is to stay abroad. But past making our lack of communion explicit, infinite is opened upward for us to come together in the same room for consultation and briefing. A greater number of orthodox bishops volition experience able to attend Lambeth 2022 if the organizers explicitly make provision for those who practise not feel able, as a affair of theological conscience, to share communion in that setting.
Events like the ACC or the Lambeth Conference are likewise hands spun as a show of Anglican unity. We coffin our heads in the sand, keep controversial topics off the table, and smile for the cameras, as if all is well in the Anglican world. But the best fashion to promote unity is to face up our disunity total in the face. And when we do and so, then information technology becomes possible to continue to meet together to discuss our differences and topics of common business organisation, without pretense. At the ACC, I happened to be placed on a tabular array including delegations from Scotland and Brazil. Our spiritual unity is disrupted, and we were not able to share communion. Only we were able to study the Bible together, to pray for one another, to heed and learn and laugh together. Indeed those interactions were, for me personally, one of the highlights of the ACC, as we sought to sympathise one another amend. In preparation for attending ACC-17, I began a addiction of praying the collect used past the St Anselm Community at Lambeth Palace:
Lord Jesus, who prayed that nosotros might all be one,
nosotros pray to you lot for the unity of Christians,
according to your will, according to your means.
May your Spirit enable united states of america to experience the suffering caused past division,
to see our sin, and to promise beyond all hope.
Amen
In God'due south grace, the suffering caused by division has begun to strike home to me in new means, not least in the daily pain of separation at the Lord's Table. But experiencing and acknowledging the pain of our disunity motivates united states of america to renewed efforts towards unity, and is healthier than the pop proclamation of a false peace.
Silencing the ACC's Voice
In some ways, the ACC is remarkably breezy. There are very express standing orders, with nearly total discretion given to the chair. Members are encouraged to seek consensus in conversation, perhaps in the bar late at dark, rather than to disharmonism in public. And resolutions are ordinarily put with a broad question, 'Are you content to give your general assent to this resolution?', to which the room simply replies, 'Yes'. Votes are simply taken in rare circumstances, and the proceedings are nearly always good-natured. It is mercifully unlike any normal synodical procedure.
On the other hand, nevertheless, the ACC is very tightly controlled. It is designed to prevent the voices of ACC members being heard. Partly this is the result of a strong English-language institutional bias which disenfranchises Anglicans from other cultures. The Archbishop of Canterbury'southward presidential address was printed in English, French, Portuguese, and Castilian, but almost every other presentation or contribution from the floor was entirely in English language. Likewise every resolution – some of them circuitous or controversial – was only in English. But English is a offset-language just for a minority of delegates, and although those who struggle in the medium were invited to bring a translator with them, very few did. Even when discussing lilliputian questions in the breaks, similar the weather or the food, some institute it impossible to understand each other. So the likelihood of being able to build a common cause, or to converse constructively on the effectively points of Anglican polity, is minimal unless much more is washed to facilitate cross-cultural communication. As a effect, it is easy for the executive to command the agenda, while the delegates remain as confounded as the builders of Babel.
I strategy was to keep talking at u.s.. Although delegates were arranged around circular tables, for most of the week we might as well have been in a lecture theatre. The agenda was filled by long presentations, all in themselves splendid but allowing only a few cursory questions from the floor or snatched comments at tables which were then scribbled on scraps of paper as feedback. It would take been more than economic just to send us the presentations on a DVD in the mail, rather than flying usa all to Hong Kong for data download.
Some other strategy was to quash any give-and-take of sensitive subjects, with the frequent protestation that at the ACC 'nosotros don't do doctrine' (reminiscent of New Labour'southward 'we don't exercise God'). Repeated requests that 'gratuitous time' in the plan be devoted to facilitated minor group discussion were met past the executive with a brick wall. They argued that according to the ACC's constitution, its object is 'to accelerate the Christian organized religion and in particular to promote the unity and purposes of the Churches of the Anglican Communion in mission, evangelism, ecumenical relations, communication, administration and finance' (Constitution 4). This object does non mention doctrine, so information technology is outside our competence to discuss information technology. QED! For this reason, a presentation on the Church of England'south 'Living in Love and Faith' project on man identity, sexuality and marriage was put in a special category all of its ain. It was on the ACC's programme, but non technically part of the formal agenda, lest ACC members mistakenly causeless that such a subject might be their business.
This statement is irrational and felt to delegates similar a dodge. Information technology is clearly not the ACC'south office to define Anglican doctrine. Simply it is perfectly within its competence to discuss the human relationship betwixt provinces, the actions of the other 'instruments of communion', and reasons behind our strained relationships. Recent meetings of the ACC take passed resolutions on subjects such as the Anglican Communion Covenant, the Continuing Indaba Process, and the primates desire to 'walk together', not to mention numerous ecumenical agreements, all of which have doctrinal dimensions. Indeed ACC-17 has just assumed potency for the reception of ecumenical texts in the Anglican Communion, a deeply doctrinal undertaking.
If the ACC is to live upwardly to its name as a consultative council, so delegates must be allowed to consult. The fact that the agenda is besides total to allow much discussion is a poor excuse. ACC-17 was five days shorter than ACC-16, but if we have saved fourth dimension by undermining our consultative function, then the coming together has been pruned too much. To fly 100 Anglicans effectually the world, at nifty expense, and not allow them to engage properly, for fear of what they might say, is a travesty and a missed opportunity.
Oklahoma and Oxford
The executive strategy of silencing sensitive topics backfired spectacularly on the final afternoon. Two resolutions which touched on Anglican polity were held dorsum until the last session, squeezed for fourth dimension and without any prior discussion. The Bishop of Oklahoma brought forward a resolution which was in many ways excellent. It rightly affirmed the 'respect and dignity' due to every human existence, regardless of their sexuality, and chosen upon the ACC standing committee to collate the results of various 'intentional listening processes' which have taken place around the Communion. The difficulty was a phrase in the preamble: 'and that they should be fully included in the life of the Anglican Communion'. The pregnant of 'full inclusion' is ambiguous and hotly contested, and delegates were concerned that these words might exist taken to imply the ACC'due south support for a new doctrine of marriage, or new canons of ordination, and thus provide ammunition for those seeking to undermine the ACC amidst conservative provinces and further exacerbate our Anglican divisions. It would also exist spun by the press as a veiled censure of the Archbishop of Canterbury for non inviting all episcopal spouses to the Lambeth Conference, and thus exist used to bulldoze a wedge between the ACC and its president.
The contrast between English and African styles of engagement became apparent. The English language method was commencement to express concerns to the Bishop of Oklahoma in private, and when this did not resolve the dilemma, to use synodical procedure to propose a simple last-minute subpoena from the flooring (brokered in a lunch-time crunch meeting). My amendment asked that "all should exist fully included in the life of the Anglican Communion" be changed to "all are fully welcomed in the life of the Anglican Communion". The Bishop of Oklahoma graciously, if reluctantly, accepted the amendment, which passed by 38 votes to twenty. This transatlantic entente was intended to clear the fashion for enthusiastic back up of the Oklahoma resolution. But then, unexpectedly, the silent Africans establish their voices, and stood one subsequently some other to denounce the resolution. Full-blown crisis ensued, tears flowed, delegates sabbatum in bewilderment and daze, the meeting was suspended, bishops gathered in animated huddles, and a tense peace was only restored when the Archbishop of Canterbury focused the ACC's malaise upon himself. An entirely different resolution emerged, requesting the Archbishop to initiate a widespread listening process around the Communion, and expressing business at his invitations to the Lambeth Conference. The real nature of that concern – whether at his inclusion of bishops in same-sex activity marriages, or his exclusion of their spouses – was not explained.
Delegates were therefore emotionally exhausted by the fourth dimension we reached the next resolution concerning the unity of the Anglican Communion. The absence of three African provinces had been ignored for the unabridged week, apart from some rude comments in the General Secretary's opening accost, so I brought frontward a resolution which struck a note of lament rather than of self-vindication. It gave the ACC an opportunity to acknowledge the hurting of our broken Anglican family, and read every bit follows:
The Anglican Consultative Council, as one of the four Instruments of Communion:
- recognises our particular responsibility to promote the unity of the Anglican Communion
- laments the strained and broken relationships between us, as evidenced by the absenteeism of representatives from Nigeria, Rwanda, and Republic of uganda at ACC-17
- acknowledges that these broken relationships are frequently the result of serious theological disagreements
- requests the Archbishop of Canterbury to consider establishing a theological job grouping to clarify the core identity and boundaries of the Anglican Communion in the 21st century.
Just three minutes were given to explain the resolution, in which I emphasized the importance of articulating the grief we feel at the divisions betwixt united states, and that we still need further ecclesiological work to clarify the Anglican Communion's polity in a fast-changing context, but that this was categorically not the ghost of the Anglican Covenant revived. The Archbishop of Canterbury welcomed the resolution; the Bishop of Oklahoma firmly resisted information technology, fearing that any exploration of Anglican boundaries might signify exclusion. After the intense stress of the previous debate, none had the centre to prolong the conversation, and the resolution fell by 35 votes to 43, with 8 abstentions. On another day we might have had opportunity to discuss the resolution carefully, but it was collateral harm of the earlier boxing.
Both the Oklahoma and the Oxford resolutions were well-intentioned. The fact that both savage is a reminder of the deep sensitivities surrounding our Anglican identity, and that it is very difficult to draft simple resolutions which are not open up to misinterpretation. Simply information technology is besides prove of the failure of the ACC procedure to foster an environment in which delegates tin can engage constructively together on these important questions. The ACC executive spent all calendar week trying to keep such topics off the agenda, only for them to accident up on the final afternoon of business organisation. The next day we dispersed to our different corners of the globe, not to run into once more for another three years. There must be a better way.
ACNA and the Anglican Communion
One particularly urgent ecclesiological question is the human relationship betwixt the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) and the Anglican Communion. The 2022 primates meeting observed that:
The consideration of the required application for admission to membership of the Communion of the Anglican Church of North America was recognised as properly belonging to the Anglican Consultative Council. The Primates recognise that such an awarding, were it to come forrad, would raise significant questions of polity and jurisdiction. (Primates Communique, 2016)
In 2022 they added, more than bluntly: 'Information technology was confirmed that the Anglican Church of North America is not a Province of the Anglican Communion. Nosotros recognised that those in ACNA should be treated with dearest as young man Christians' (Primates Communique, 2017). This is to export ACNA to the category of ecumenical relations, firmly beyond the boundaries of the Anglican Communion. Information technology is a bald assertion, with no explanation or defence. That narrative is repeated in the contempo Anglican Communion Office printing release nigh invitations to the Lambeth Conference, that ACNA is 'formed by people who left the Anglican Communion', to which Archbishop Foley Beach (primate of ACNA) responded robustly:
I take never left the Anglican Communion, and accept no intention of doing so. I did transfer out of a revisionist trunk that had left the teaching of the Scriptures and the Anglican Communion and I became canonically resident in some other province of the Anglican Communion. I have never left. For the Anglican Church building in Due north America to be treated as mere 'observers' is an insult to both our bishops, many of whom have made costly stands for the Gospel, and the majority of Anglicans around the world who accept long stood with united states as a province of the Anglican Communion. (Press release, 27 April 2019)
So here's the ecclesiological question: is ACNA part of the Anglican Communion or not? And if non, what steps do they demand to take to join the Anglican Communion? Who is going to take up the challenge to reply the 'significant questions of polity and jurisdiction' to which the primates allude? It volition not practice simply to tell ACNA (or whatsoever other province created nether similar circumstances) that they are free to use for permission to enter the Anglican Communion, and that nosotros will begin to consider the case when they do and so. On the contrary, the Anglican Communion must first take responsibleness for investigating these questions, in a serious and rigorous manner, before any progress can exist made. That is why my defeated ACC resolution appealed for clarity on 'the core identity and boundaries of the Anglican Communion in the 21st century'. Which side of the purlieus practice ACNA fall? If currently outside, then how do they transfer across the boundary? Nosotros need an reply!
The Anglican Communion, of course, has no constitution and no legal definition. In that location is, in that sense, no membership list. But the ACC does have a constitution, fastened to which is a Schedule of member churches entitled to appointed members to the ACC. In common parlance the Schedule doubles equally a membership list of the Anglican Communion, though technically information technology is only a list of ACC member churches. At the most prosaic level, this is probably the closest we take to a formal definition of the Anglican Communion. It is non a question almost doctrine or liturgy or bishops, simply simple whether or not a province is listed on the ACC Schedule. ACNA is not on the listing. Provinces may exist added to, or deleted from, the Schedule by the ACC standing commission, at the request of ii-thirds of the primates (Constitution 7.ii). No answer from the primates within 4 months is deemed equally assent. Then for ACNA to be added to the Schedule, reckoning at 42 existing provinces, 15 would need to register their opposition for this proposal to fail.
The ACC standing committee too has responsibility to scrutinize the viability of new provinces, equally a matter of due diligence. According to the electric current guidelines, they must exist satisfied that the new province is a coherent and sustainable entity, normally equanimous of at to the lowest degree four dioceses, with a provincial constitution, a strategy for theological education, and proof of financial competence (Guidelines for the Creation of New Provinces and Dioceses, 2012). The first ACC meeting in Limuru, Republic of kenya, in 1971, adds a further stipulation: 'There must be the practiced will of the existing province in social club non to create difficulties of disunity after division' (Resolution 21 on 'Creating and Dividing Provinces'). All current provinces have been created by the segmentation of provinces, by multiplication within the existing boundaries. There is no precedent for calculation a church from outside the Anglican Communion, or a church similar ACNA which has separated from an existing province on doctrinal grounds, and therefore the ACC guidelines are non fit for purpose for the current realities facing global Anglicanism. We need a leap in our thinking.
The 'significant questions of polity and jurisdiction' which demand urgent consideration, include the following: Start, what does it hateful to exist 'in communion with the meet of Canterbury'? The 1930 Lambeth Conference famously described the Anglican Communion as 'a fellowship, within the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, of those duly constituted dioceses, provinces or regional churches in communion with the see of Canterbury' (Resolution 49 on 'The Anglican Communion'). ACNA, nosotros are told, is not part of the Anglican Communion, considering they are not in communion with Canterbury. It sounds like a knock-down answer. Simply what does it really mean? And how would ACNA enter communion with the see of Canterbury? What's the mechanism? Information technology can't mean communion between ACNA and the Church building of England, otherwise the Church of England would replace the Archbishop as an 'instrument of communion'. Information technology tin't mean communion between ACNA and the Anglican Communion, because that would be tautologous. Does it mean that ACNA and the Archbishop would sign an agreement of some sort? On what terms? Nosotros demand an answer!
Second, can split up Anglican jurisdictions intermingle or overlap in the same geographical area? Some assert non, and therefore that information technology is incommunicable for ACNA to enter the Anglican Communion unless they supercede TEC or reintegrate with TEC. This is a zero sum game. For alternative possibilities we might look to the precedent prepare by continental Europe (where several separate Anglican jurisdictions intermingle) or to the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia which since the 1990s has three culturaltikanga, each with their own ecclesial jurisdiction,overlapping in the same territory. It must be possible to describe upwardly sensible, applied, negotiated guidelines for how ii provinces occupy the same space. But what would this await similar? We need an answer!
Third, tin can ii separate provinces be part of the Anglican Communion, if they are not in communion with each other? ACNA and TEC are unlikely to be reconciled doctrinally whatever time soon. Their relationship would exist anomalous, but the Anglican Communion already has a proven capacity for begetting with anomalies. Broken relationships between provinces are already,de facto, a reality of Anglican life. Nosotros don't live in the idealistic world described by the standard textbooks on Anglican ecclesiology. In fact, that world has never existed. Information technology is ameliorate to bring the fractured parts of global Anglicanism together as closely every bit possible inside the 'instruments of communion', even if non in communion with each other, and live with that tension for the time being, rather than keep them at arm's length until they are fully reconciled. Of course, in that location may exist need for mediated reconciliation on temporal questions (such as property and money), and public repentance for previous bad behaviour on all sides, but full reconciliation betwixt provinces need not be a prerequisite to Anglican Communion membership. The textbooks need to exist re-written. What should be the new terms of our human relationship in the 21st century? We demand an answer!
Nosotros demand some urgent ecclesiological thinking at this level of detail, focused on ACNA equally a worked example. And rather than throwing around brickbats in rival press releases about who is, or who is not, a member of the Anglican Communion, a more nuanced approach is required. For example, one way through the impasse is to think of ACNA as a province inside the Anglican Communion (because grown from an existing province, like Sudan, or Republic of chile, or Sri Lanka, or N Africa), but because it has jumped the gun past forming a new province without the agreement of two-thirds of the primates or the ACC standing committee, it is in an anomalous position and its relationship with the 'instruments of communion' needs to be retrospectively regularized.
At the request of the 2022 primates meeting, the Archbishop of Canterbury appointed a task group 'to maintain conversation among ourselves with the intention of restoration of human relationship, the rebuilding of mutual trust, healing the legacy of injure, recognising the extent of our commonality and exploring our deep differences, ensuring they are held betwixt us in the love and grace of Christ' (Primates Communique, 2016). The task group is due to evangelize its study to the next primates meeting in January 2020. Edifice on this work, what we need next is a chore group with a more limited remit, commissioned specifically to hammer out the relationship between ACNA and the Anglican Communion, to face the 'significant questions of polity and jurisdiction' head-on, and to describe up a practical map for what integration might await similar. The Archbishop of Canterbury could bring together a representative group of church historians, ecclesiologists, and catechism lawyers, and lock them in a room until they come up up with some much-needed answers to these pressing questions. For the sake of the unity of the Anglican Communion, this work is urgent, and nosotros cannot afford to wait another three years until ACC-eighteen for it to be initiated.
Andrew Atherstone is Latimer research fellow at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, and a member of the Church of England's General Synod, The Faith and Order Committee, and the Liturgical Commission.
If you lot enjoyed this, do share it on social media, perhaps using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo.Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance ground. If you have valued this post, would you considerdonating £ane.twenty a month to back up the production of this weblog?
If y'all enjoyed this, exercise share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Similar my folio on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If yous have valued this post, you tin can make a single or repeat donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Adept comments that engage with the content of the mail, and share in respectful debate, tin can add existent value. Seek offset to understand, then to be understood. Make the about charitable construal of the views of others and seek to learn from their perspectives. Don't view contend equally a conflict to win; accost the argument rather than tackling the person.
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/what-really-happened-at-the-anglican-consultative-council-acc-17/
?){kind=link}
Post a Comment for "What really happened at the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC 17)?"