There is a lot to commend this approach. While Canon Brooks does perhaps too easily assume that the ACC Constitution acts as the entire constitutional framework of the Anglican Communion, he is correct in his argument that the only formal expression of membership of the Communion is contained in the Schedule to the Constitution of the ACC, as this is the way in which new Provinces become members of the ACC. Arguments over "exclusion" of provinces in the Anglican Communion cannot ignore the reality of this framework. This basic line of argument is one of which serious note has to be taken.

In the course of his paper, however, there are a number of observations about which it is probably appropriate to exercise a greater degree of caution.

1. In the first place, and most fundamentally, it is important to recognize that in human terms the Anglican Communion is a voluntary association. Irrespective of participation in the Anglican Consultative Council, a Province cannot be compelled to maintain the bonds of Communion. Rather, the Communion has a relational basis, and it is from this base, rather than from any formal juridical or jurisdictional standpoint that the Instruments of Communion speak, and through which fellowship is maintained.

When the Instruments of Communion make any sort of statement therefore, they are offering suggestions as to the way forward; these can never have constitutional or binding significance unless the duly empowered authorities at provincial level enact them. They carry only the "moral authority" which they command because of the nature of the body making the statement. As such, references in the Schedule to the Dar es Salaam Communique by the whole body of Primates to "pastoral councils ... (or) ... schemes" do not arise from within a constitutional framework, but rather from a pastoral desire to discern mechanisms which could command confidence amongst all parties if or when they were accepted and adopted. They do not have any constitutional force, but can only be in the nature of requests or advice on the best way to proceed.

2. Canon Brooks suggests in the course of his paper that there were "secret sessions" at ACC-13. I am not aware that any such sessions took place. There were two sessions which were closed to the public, but this is consistent with the usual practice of ACC (and many other bodies) when dealing with sensitive matters. When the ACC addressed the situation in North America, both the American and Canadian delegates were present and active in contributing to the presentations made in that session. They were not present at an earlier closed session when their presence and participation was itself the subject of discussion.

3. In discussing the Dar es Salaam Communique itself, Canon Brooks chooses a very strong register of language. He speaks of an "ultimatum" and suggests that in the Communique, it was linked to a proposal to expel the Episcopal Church from the Anglican Communion. He speaks of the Communique as having "demanded" actions which would "violate the Constitution" of the Episcopal Church. The danger of such language is that it carries a risk of misrepresenting the situation. In fact, the 30th September "deadline" in the Communique referred to the date by which the primates requested an answer from the Episcopal House of Bishops to the questions posed in the Communique. No ultimatum or threat is attached to that request in the text. There is an acknowledgement that without a clear and positive response to the questions posed in the Communique, and consideration of the issues set out in its Schedule, relationships in the Communion will remain broken or strained until a resolution is found: this is no more than a statement of current reality. To describe the Communique as demanding unconstitutional actions coupled with a threat of expulsion does not reflect the reality of the Dar es Salaam wording.

4. Nor is it clear how the requests of the Dar es Salaam Communique "violate" the Constitution of TEC, even though this understanding has been adopted at high level within the councils of TEC. In particular, Canon Brooks suggests understandings of several provisions of the Dar es Salaam Communique, for which there is little evidence in the text or schedule: there is no proposal for "a 'pastoral council' appointed by the Primates' Meeting to exercise primatial oversight of any primate of this Communion", nor for "a 'primatial vicar' appointed by the so-called pastoral council that reports to that "council" instead of to the Primate of the Province" in those terms as stated in his memorandum. The terms "pastoral council" and "primatial vicar" are used in the Schedule to the Communique, but not in the way interpreted by Canon Brooks. The Communique does not in fact propose the transfer of dissident groups or parishes to an "outside jurisdiction" in the way in which it has sometimes been represented. Rather it asks for a scheme of pastoral care to be developed within the Episcopal Church in accordance with the Constitution of the Episcopal Church. Alongside this scheme, there is a proposal for a "Pastoral Council" which could represent Communion-wide concerns to the Episcopal Church, and through which all other Provinces should act in their relations to TEC, thereby ending the current pattern of ad hoc "interventions".

Overall, Canon Brook's paper makes two fair points: that the leadership of the Communion should proceed in a constitutional manner as they address the situation before them, and that the Constitution of the ACC is one of the few established mechanisms by which that may be done. It is important however that some of the background assumptions in the paper, concerning events at ACC-13, about the intentions of the Primates and the nature of the contents of the Dar es Salaam Communique, are not accepted without careful interrogation.

---Gregory K Cameron is Deputy Secretary General of the Anglican Consultative Counci. He is based in London