The real danger and promise from the tale of these two bishops hinges on whether this “defeat” of the Covenant will lead to a fresh wounding or to a healing of the Global South movement, which was cynically riven by the “divide and conquer” tactics of the powers that be in London and New York. There is now the potential for reassembling that movement, and Archbishops Mouneer and Orombi will be two key figures in it. Pray, brothers and sisters, for the unity of those who hold the common faith once for all delivered to the saints.
The Covenant itself is dead, felled by the machinations of the old ditherer himself. Really amazing.
Like, Dr. Noll, I initially had had doubts about ABp Orombi’s choice to go to the New Wineskins conference. There is a revisionist at StandFirm who was trying to sow discontent by playing on this. But rather than succeeding, it [url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/22457/#362128 ]made me realize[/url] that we have been delivered from a worse fate than the Covenant dying by the hands of Rowan, that of it passing. The TEClub should have embraced it and then defied it. There is no evidence to the contrary, that the TEClub wouldn’t have got away with it, resulting in further hand wringing and pointless talking by the orthodox, “What to do now?” We are spared of this.
What a blessing. ABp Orombi was exactly where he needed to be! This battle will be won, not by Windsor processing, but by evangelizing.
Could not disagree more vigorously. +Orombi being absent, and others, was critical. Again, +Mouneer having to do all the work. Will +Orombi absent himself from the next JSC meeting as well? An account of affairs from Kingston will be forthcoming. Conger and others were right there and many of us watched it schrit zum tritt. +RDW backed A. He was persuaded by others that mind-reading was a preferable way to take a vote, and that voting A down was because B and C were better! B and C should never have been discussed at all. +Mouneer is absolutely correct (lone warrior without support troops). It is not clear to this very moment that a vote was ever really taken on ‘B’ — can anyone show that this happened? The prior voting related to ‘B’ was to do with individual amendment clauses, not with the resolution ‘B’ itself. Why would the whopping majority defeating A suddenly decide to approve a ‘B’? Because the place was a hothouse of confusion and befuddlement, with +Mouneer alone to say, this is not right. I get the sense reading ‘liberal’ blogs that even they see the thing is very shaky, delivered by backroom mind-reading and manipulation. Conger nailed it in his interview with Kearon. The problem with getting a result like this is that it is ruinous to the entire business. If this is not an illegal result, it is a result which is transparently unreflective of the ACC’s mind — an unreflective result that would have manifestly been even greater had delegations showed up. Good for the Nigerians! Bless them. They defended the covenant and fought for it. Why is it that zeal for showing up and fighting belongs to the ‘progressive’ side of this, and not others, like +Mouneer and the Nigerians and all those who delivered a 47 to 17 defeat. I very much doubt that we have heard the end of this. Where was Gregory Cameron at the press conference? I doubt he had the stomach to defend the outcome. All descended into chaos and pandemonium, and a press conference was called to fig-leaf the reality in the chamber itself. I have yet to read a sober and clear account of just what happened, and a defense of the orderly and legal character of this. Strong votes were cast on behalf of the covenant, on the language of ‘affirm’ rather that the ridiculous ‘note.’ If all delegations had been present (tragically, illness forced the absence of one delegation before the vote, we read), the vote for all moratoria, not just the 3, would surely have passed — that is, including the vote on halting litigation. Schori and the TEC delegation was livid even at the thought of that. The ‘affirming’ language was something they opposed. The moratoria they opposed. Section 4 they opposed, and by a 47 to 17 vote, it held intact. Thank God for +Mouneer and others. There is still more story here, and I look forward to Conger’s account and others’.
Chris, I’m curious: do you disagree with the following:
[blockquote]Is there any question that the Covenant would have passed easily if Rowan Williams had used his bully pulpit, had campaigned with verve, had exercised his vaunted intellectual powers on its behalf? [/blockquote]
How does this get at the issue of attendance? How can you defend +Uganda’s being at a New Wine festival? I have spoken with those who were ten feet from +RDW. I saw him rise to defend A. I believe that the logic of the high-table propriety is a poor logic when Kearon, Patterson, and others are chairing. I said above that it was totally unclear to me, procedurally, why serial resolutions were under discussion at the same time. I think +RDW saw that, and called for a vote on A. Clearly the mood shifted. +Mouneer has spoken of rejoicing at the outcome. Watching it, it seemed odd that any discussion of B or C was allowed until we had a vote result published on A. The mistake was to speak of further voting on later amendments, and so forth, and I believe +RDW made a mistake. When the outcome of 47 to 17 came through, that was the outcome he expected and got. One might have assumed that same about (why are we doing this?) voting on next amendments and resolutions. We know that by this time people in the room were confused. This was worse than a second-form election for a frat president. Watching Kearon at the press conference was painful. The entire affair was risible. I can only guess what someone like Gregory Cameron thinks. Anyone watching saw a total charade of procedure.
Re: my comment above:
1. would the 4th moratorium, infuriating the TEC delegation, have passed? 2. would the covenant with section 4 have passed (as it did) and find vigorous defense from +Uganda alongside +Mouneer, in the light of floor maneuvering? 3. would an even more solid outcome than the above have been achieved? 4. when the ‘working committee’ is composed and the JSC reviews its (totally unwarranted) ‘editing’ of Section 4, will +Uganda be there?
+Mouneer and +Godfrey and the Nigerians speaking on AM are all absolutely right, that the resolutions committee and JSC are unbalanced (unless +Orombi is present, of course).
One more comment and I’m through. When I say the Anglican Communion Covenant is dead, that is not just an emotional reaction or a sign of impatience. I simply cannot conceive any outcome that leads to a reformed and revitalised communion. It was the very elements of the Ridley Cambridge Draft that I had seen as hopeful and commendable that the ABC and 32 others voted to revise. So how can it possibly come out the other end without losing its salt? Could the revised version somehow be stronger than the current draft? Could the ABC’s select group decide the RCD actually got it just right? I just don’t see it and don’t think there is any evidence from RW’s behavior over the past six years to warrant any confidence that he would guide things toward that outcome. It makes more sense to think he did not really like the direction the RCD took and collaborated with TEC & Co. to stop it.
So, I am to answer your questions, Steven, but you are through? If +RDW made a mistake, and he was not manipulating an outcome in some very arch way, then of course the covenant could remain as it is, and a working commitee could simply say that, and +Orombi and the JSC could assure that. It is also unclear to me whether the covenant actually requires the ACC’s approval anyway, and that the Primates could simply stand by the one as prepared. Good for +Mouneer and the others who went and fought.
Seitz-ACI,
So Resolution A is defeated by a huge margin, the ABC & ACO play games to undo the result, and it’s Orombi’s fault? Really?
Thank you Dr. Noll.
Anyone blaming ++Orombi is approaching this whole matter wrongly, and is looking at the wrong direction.
A one-vote majority was NOT what was needed to accept this Covenant Draft.
What was NEEDED was an honest Christian way of doing “business.” And, thanks to +++RW and Company, there was no honesty and no integrity in this whole process.
If the mind of Christ was present in the hearts of the ABC, KJS, et al there would have been nothing short of a 100% vote of acceptance of this Draft.
Please don’t blame ++Orombi. Blame the real culprits who starting working on thwarting this whole Covenant deal even as the Covenant was being cobbled.
As God works in mysterious ways, this defeat is a victory – in the long run.
Thank God for saving us from another further waiting and hoping for what must of already knew (or should have known) that wasn’t going to happen – TEc accepting her sinfulness and repenting.
TEc and the revisionists (everywhere) are not interested in listening to anyone (God included) disagreeing with their interpretation of what they want to accept as what God really says and means. The Listening Process is a sham, and they know it.
As I said two years ago, “with, or without the blessing of the +++ABC, there will be a faithful and orthodox Anglican Church that is not TEc in North America.â€
Now, it is obvious that the ABC and his cohorts are tearing the fabric of the Communion much deeper than even ECUSA did in 2003.
The die is cast.
Fr. Kingsley Jon-Ubabuco
Arlington, Texas
Nonsense. RDW was the one who pushed for A to be voted on. The live feed was clear. And no, it is not +Orombi’s ‘fault’ simplicter. Less clear is any understanding of the legality of the matter, and the role of the ABC is clearly under evaluation by people who are hardly ‘progressives’ like G Conger who was there. At issue is whether a small minority of people running things cannot successfully be defeated if all show up.
SE Asia and others probably ought to move to sign the Ridley Covenant anyway, citing the cloud that hangs over what happened. Has anyone read any account that clearly justifies the orderly and legal procedures? I have not.
I wonder if in fact this ‘event’ will prompt Provinces to move perhaps more quickly than they might have, even forming standing committees of their own, to sign onto the Covenant. Any chance this might occur?
I suppose it could be claimed that, given the cloud and confusion hanging over the ACC meeting, and lacking any clear account in defense of the voting procedures (and the very dubious resolutions committe work) that the burden is on those who have said a new Section IV is needed. For others, the vote of 47 to 17 is warrant for signing on to the Covenant in its entirety.
Very interesting.
ACI-Seitz
RE: “Why is it that zeal for showing up and fighting belongs to the ‘progressive’ side of this, and not others, like +Mouneer and the Nigerians and all those who delivered a 47 to 17 defeat. ”
Because as has been shown to be true yet again, these meetings are a charade. One can have “zeal,” “show up,” “deliver a 47 to 17 defeat,” and still lose.
The ABC & ACO got the outcome they wanted. You can protest all the legalities you want, but trust has been further eroded, and TEC won’t have to worry about the Covenant for a long time. TEC wins. The ABC wins. The ACO wins.
Exhibit 132, of the “Should Charlie Brown play football with Lucy” debate.
[blockquote]#12 For others, the vote of 47 to 17 is warrant for signing on to the Covenant in its entirety.[/blockquote]
Nonsense. Chris Sugden himself is recorded in the live-blog as recognizing that many would vote against A in the knowledge that C was forthcoming. A vote against A cannot be automatically taken as a rejection of it in its entirety.
Frankly, as for the ‘confusion’ – you shouldn’t be at the ACC if you can’t handle it. The Western ‘liberals’ are accused of colonialism and not taking the Global South seriously, and yet when the vote goes against the conservatives they play the ‘not their first language’ and ‘not used to Western debating’ cards, as if the poor GS members can’t stand up for themselves and are being walked over.
RE: “I wonder if in fact this ‘event’ will prompt Provinces to move perhaps more quickly than they might have, even forming standing committees of their own, to sign onto the Covenant.”
Dr. Seitz thinks maybe. I think the answer is: “of course, but then you’d be just like those GAFCONites….doing things, signing covenants, declarations, etc, outside of the timeline and official purview of the very important Instruments of Unity.”
There isn’t an official Anglican Covenant, that has been overturned, and by legalities could be recovered. There’s just a piece of paper, awaiting ammendment by Rowan’s latest small group, before it goes on to the JSC.
Optimus Prime, you seem to be suggesting that provinces short circuit this process; a proces put in place by two Instruments of Unity: the ACC & ABC. This seems an ironic suggestion coming from someone who has been so critical of GAFCON for their lack of ‘patience’ and working within the Instruments. No?
I will plead utter stupidity on my part, but I fail to see how anyone could think that the Kingston proceedings were anything other than a stern, straight, sucker shot by the revisionists to the solar plexus of the orthodox. No Christ-centered covenant has any chance EVER of passing the gauntlet of Western revisionist AC leadership. NEVER. THAT is why the covenant is dead – as a doornail. Did I make my point clearly?
Fr. Gross,
[blockquote]Optimus Prime, you seem to be suggesting that provinces short circuit this process; a proces put in place by two Instruments of Unity: the ACC & ABC. This seems an ironic suggestion coming from someone who has been so critical of GAFCON for their lack of ‘patience’ and working within the Instruments. No?[/blockquote]
I am not suggesting anything. That Provinces who are on the ACC schedule can sign onto the Covenant and that the Covenant becomes effective for ordering the life of those Provinces upon their signing is in the Covenant Agreement itself.
Further, I am not suggesting that we ‘go around’ the instruments. The ACC’s approval has never been required for adoption of the Provinces. That was made clear when the Covenant first came out.
C’mon, Chris Seitz, no more enabling. Let us not be excusing Rowan Williams anymore. The fix was up.
> Who put Ms Schori on the Joint Standing Committee?
> Who issued the early invitations?
> Who said the September deadline wasn’t a deadline?
> Who allowed the JSC report travesty to be the ruler by which to measure the Sept 07 HoB meeting?
> Who did the indaba-do?
> Who was singularly responsible for the passing of the B proposition to pass after it was already defeated in A?
Fool me 27 times, really shame on me.
If we are to reexamine the covenant, let us do away with the clearly faulty JSC centered Covenant. We have seen two things by the sham meeting: the JSC is a marionette of Ms Schori and the Ridley draft made a grave error in placing the JSC at the center. Thankfully, we were delivered from its passage. Call it a God thing and move on. In fact, let’s just call together the orthodox primates and do it right. Rowan’s [i]blatant duplicitous[/i] has clearly given the green light for such a move.
Athanasius Returns, Yes.
You make the point very clearly.
But even with the point very clearly and well made, yet “seeing they may not perceive; and hearing they may not hear, and not understanding……” Mark 4:12.
And Isaiah 6:9; Jeremiah 5:21; Ezekiel 12:2; John 12:20; and Romans 11:8.
Fr. Kingsley+
A possible addition to robroy’s list in #19: Who solicited and accepted the $1.5 million for the “listening” manipulation sessions? I really don’t know, but it seems unlikely that such a deal could have been cut without the ABC’s knowledge at the least.
Optimus Prime, I don’t think you understand my point. Which piece of paper are you talking about? The first draft? The draft that came out of the ACC? Or one of the revisions by the CDG in between? Which one do you sign on to? And if it’s the “latest,” that one has an asterisk that says it won’t be ready until (maybe) after the JSC meeting which meets sometime before the end of the year (maybe).
If provinces do as you suggest, and form committees to adopt the curren version, it might be made obsolete, irrelevant, and not truly “Anglican” when the ABC unveils his next version to the JSC.
Your suggestion that provinces sign on a version of the Covenant now (assuming a few could agree with verion to pick), would either make those provinces irrelevant once the ‘real’ covenant is unveiled, or it would make two of the Instruments irrelevant (the ABC and ACC).
I have an offer for Chris Seitz – granted, sort of mind-experiment, as neither of us has any direct political power in these matters.
Here’s the deal, Chris. I shall do what I can to encourage Abp. Orombi to attend the next JSC meeting and fight for the original form of the Covenant. Fair enough?
In return you and the ACI come behind efforts outside the official Instruments – e.g., a GAFCON-Global South alliance to put the Covenant before the Provinces of the Communion with or without Canterbury’s imprimatur.
Seems like win-win, or maybe a last ditch offer, because if neither of these avenues works, then we’re in for the days of the Judges.
Fr. Gross your, “real” (gutted) Covenant in the ABC’s hand will be like the Munich agreement in Chamberlain’s.
Dr. Noll,
I couldn’t agree more.
Your proposal is a good one. And, I could not agree more about the Judges analogy, except to say we are in the middle of that book already. As for the part about working outside of the Instruments: here is where we disagree. I am not persuaded in the least that the Covenant is dead, and I believe a cloud hangs over the ACC. That is where the pressure needs now to be put. Facts are not before us. A satisfactory justification has not been given. The event as a procedutal nightmare, played out for all to see. (I leave aside whether +Orombi might have been a crucial combatant alongside +Godfrey, the Nigerians, +Mouneer, Isaacs, et al). The Primates will not be able to meet in orderly fashion if this is not sorted out, and if that is so, it will not matter if you or I or anyone else gets behind Gafcon ideas. They will simply be facts on the ground, as they are already! There is a specific issue before us and it must be faced into. ACI will be writing up its own assessment soon.
As per Optimus Prime, it remains unclear to me whether so much damage has been done in Jamaica that the Ridley Draft will not end up being the only show in town anyway. The Nigerians were outstanding in coming behind this. SE Asia has said it is ready to move forward. Other provinces could move forward, including Uganda, Middle East etc. This is what happens when we watch the meltdown in order and procedure: it means the entire ‘decision-making’ force of the ACC is called into question. What non-churchman would watch the debacle on Anglican TV and not conclude that the thing was a dog’s breakfast of resolutions being thrown in without review, the chairman himself puzzled as to what was being voted on, disconnections between responses from the floor and actual substantive matters up for voting, and no one competent to run the meeting so that order could be maintained. Was a vote on the resolution even taken, and was it in order? We are reminded again and again that the ACC is intended as a legal decision making body, but who watched affairs yesterday and saw anything like proper procedure. It is one thing for Primates Meetings or Lambeth or go wonky, but the ACC holds itself to a different standard. The press conference was a study in flanneling, as the Brits say, and truculence and indirection. That means decisions that emerge from such a body are clouded now.
Since the question is begged in #25, I’ll ask directly. How in blue blazes does anyone with an orthodox theology pedigree bring pressure to bear on the ACC? Hasn’t ACI, itself, attempted this in several instances? For years, the ruling majority of ACC act per THEIR agenda, with teflon impunity, and AGAINST all notions of steadfast faithfulness to the faith once delivered. The revisionist leadership has 27 times (thank you, robroy) pulled the wool. We can bring pressure? In what way that involves the tattered and shattered covenant? Color me dumbfounded! For some reason, I keep envisioning Don Quixote here.
Looking forward with bated breath to a reply!
Noll: “Here’s the deal, Chris.”
Seitz-ACI: “Your proposal is a good one.”
This may be about the only promising development of the ACC debacle.
The subject of +Orombi and criticizing his has come up. I think that needs to be addressed head-on. Ugandans speak of ‘walking in the light.’ My colleague Turner was for a decade a missionary there, in difficult circumstances (Amin). Could it be that we have far more faith in +Orombi than many here do (thank goodness Steven Noll did not raise this issue)? I don’t view the 47 to 17 voting climate of the ACC as unfriendly territory. I actually believe +Orombi could have and would have made a difference. I have been in very ugly procedural battles, and had I been +Mouneer, I would have liked a second voice to say, No. We voted on that already. What did it sound like to hear that a moratorium on litigation was actually going to join all the other things going in favor of the covenant mindset, how did the PB and TEC delegation respond? In genuine anger and worry. That vote would have been assured with a Ugandan delegation. So all the rhetoric and posturing about my being critical of +Orombi has another side: I actually believe he is an asset and can join the others valiantly fighting such that different outcomes are obtained. I welcome Steven Noll’s statement that he is prepared to encourage him to attend the JSC meeting. If these are not meetings he wishes to attend, then can someone replace him so that at least the battle is joined? But let’s stop the posturing about who is a friend of +Orombi. I happen to believe in him as a leader.
Dr. Seitz, I can fully agree that we’re somewhere in the middle of Judges at this point.
What I don’t understand is how the Ridley Draft can drop the ‘Draft’ label without the ACC’s action. I thought you were closer to the mark in #2 when you said, “The problem with getting a result like this is that it is ruinous to the entire business.”
Let’s say that the ACI & GAFCON Primates work really hard to negate ACC-14. Doesn’t that still leaves us without any official All-Instrument-Approved Covenant to sign?
How does proving the illegality of ACC-14 create an approved Covenant?
1. The matter of improper procedure at ACC has to be addressed because it is a mess. Everyone sees it. It cannot be covered up by a few. An explanation is required. 2. I am not sure Gafcon primates want a covenant, nor why, if there is a melt-down, it serves any purpose for them. They already have a set of governing documents as I understand it. 3. as for ‘all instrument approved’ we don’t clearly have that at ACC-14; the matter is clouded so far as ACI is concerned, and I’m not sure how anyone could judge it otherwise; my sense of ‘liberal blogs’ is that they also are mystified and may sense a dodgy outcome (alongside, let it not be forgotten, their 95% disapproval of what has emerged). I can leave it to my colleagues at the CDG to let us know what role the ACC was to have vis-a-vis a covenant, but what I do know is that they badly botched the role they might have had. BTW, I was surprized to hear from Steven that we would be entering a period of Judges, as at times it sounds from proponents of Gafcon that it will be a Samson-free zone…but there we are.
[blockquote]#31 The matter of improper procedure at ACC has to be addressed[/blockquote]
The Guidlines for the conduct of ACC meetings can of course be found here, for those who wish to check for irregularities:
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/communion/acc/resources/docs/constitution.cfm
However, the pertinent passage is from the ACC Bylaws:
[blockquote]“Conduct of business at any meeting of the council shall be regulated by procedural rules adopted from time to time by the council, and insofar as any procedural matter shall arise that shall not be dealt with in the procedural rules currently in force, the chairman shall have power to determine such matter conclusively after such consultation as he shall think fit.”[/blockquote]
#31
1. The matter of improper procedure at ACC has to be addressed because it is a mess. Everyone sees it. It cannot be covered up by a few. An explanation is required.
Required by what? By the fact that the ACI wants one? Who ‘must’ respond? I suspect that the ABC is somewhere with Christopher Hitchens again talking about how he’s just trying to keep his head down.
2. I am not sure Gafcon primates want a covenant,
What a strange thing to say. The Gafcon primates have repeatedly and vocally called for a strong Covenant. They have protested the emaciated versions of ‘covenant’ running around in fancy clothes, but to say they don’t want a covenant at all isn’t true.
3. as for ‘all instrument approved’ we don’t clearly have that at ACC-14;
We clearly agree on this point. So how does the Ridley Draft lose the ‘draft’ designation? Do we need to yell “mulligan” and call a special new ACC meeting? I bet the ABC & ACO will say something along these lines:
“We apologize for muddling through, but it is after all very Anglican. We’re not going to hold a special ACC meeting…it’d be impractical, expensive, etc. However, we will bring up the covenant with the JSC sometime this year.”
“at times it sounds from proponents of Gafcon that it will be a Samson-free zone…â€.
Not sure where you got that idea. As a member of Gafcon, and having been at a number of Gafcon related events, I’d say the overall tone is more along the line of, “Our sins are ever before us, let us repent, and turn to the Lord.”
#33.
That is rather similar to the reasoning many in TEC have used to argue in justification of SSB; only at an ecclesial scale.
“This was worse than a second-form election for a frat president. Watching Kearon at the press conference was painful. The entire affair was risible. I can only guess what someone like Gregory Cameron thinks. Anyone watching saw a total charade of procedure”.
And with respect, Dr. Seitz, you’ve got to be kidding us if you think we’ll believe that ++RW could not possibly have brought any order to the proceedings as leader.
I guess it’s to all of our detriment that he’s too granola to have attended Sandhurst. All the flag officers I know could have easily got the train back on the track.
But, then again, the agenda card is also in the picture; and, frankly, I think it’s even more germane than ability.
Wendy, good comment. Not privy to what the Spirit may (or may not) have revealed to Archbishop Orombi, it is appropriate for us to weigh the relative political merits of his absence/presence, but clearly those calculations are neither here nor there if God was clearly leading him to attend the New Wineskins Conference.
Optimus Prime, I’m a little surprised by your response to Wendy. Is it not possible that Orombi’s absence was the fruit of prayer? I fail to see how TEC’s inability to properly discern the Spirit, is grounds for jettisoning the possibility of such discernment by others.
On a different note, you still haven’t answered my question from our previous conversation. I really am curious: Which draft of the Covenant do you think Provinces should sign, and by what criteria do you think that choice could be defended. Should say SE Asia appoint a committee tomorrow, and adopt one of the drafts, they will undoubtably meet objections from other provinces (namely TEC) that said draft isn’t official. How would you meet such criticism?
I ask because I wish there was a substantive Covenant to be signed, that had the approval of all the Instruments. However, since there isn’t such a document I just don’t see why Provinces would go to the effort of signing up to an unofficial draft that could be made obsolete by the ongoing work of the Instruments of Unity (the ABC & JSC).
#33, English Teacher,
Many, many, many of us are praying along the same lines. Thank you for sharing your observations.
Jersey Girl,
Your comment reminds me of the numerous “How many bishops does it take to screw in a lightbulb” jokes.
The Anglican Version:
How many orthodox Primates must be present to get RW to follow his job description?
and the Enabler/Misappropriated-Blame Corrolary:
If RW doesn’t do his job, how many people other than RW are to blame?
It appears that too much Indaba caused the ABC & ACO to pretend that they completely forgot Robert’s Rules of Order. Of all the money spent on these shindigs, is it not possible to hire an impartial (non-Anglican) parliamentarian for the occaision?
The answer, of course, is “that would be sensible, easy, inexpensive, and foster transparency and trust…but it would remove control out of the hands of the colonial handlers. Clearly an untenable solution ; )”
Have to say that when I read these words from Ian Douglas:
“that [the proposed delay and revision of Section 4] is the result of living in Christian community and waiting for each other”
I nearly heaved. Really. Like TEC waited for the rest of the Communion in 2003, and has been a model of restraint ever since.
Unadulterated duplicity, and spiritual blindness.
Fr. Darin Lovelace+
Durant, Iowa
Glad to be Church of Uganda
Whew. Stopped holding my breath for an answer to my #27.
The current leadership structures of the Western-lead AC are entrenched, deep in spiritual blindness. Darkness reigns.
Where’s the pressure? Who’s applying it?
This is self-deception of the most profound sort. Rowan stuffs his thumb in the eye for the umpteenth time and the ComCons again make excuses for the perfidy. I sit here watching a wife with two black eyes rationalizing: Well, maybe dinner was a little cold…
Get a clue, guys.
I agree with Seitz that Orombi should have been there, but doubt whether it would have averted the travesty that happened. Two primates are as easy to ignore as one. I hope that Rowan develops some leadership qualities mighty fast, so that he can make sure that this travesty is just a delay and not the evisceration of the Covenant. If Orombi and Mouneer show up to the JSC meeting and Williams actually starts to act like a leader committed to a realistic Covenant, then maybe all is not lost.
If Dr. Williams wanted to repair this procedural travesty at the ACC he could do it. He could cause the return of a plenary session and the proper procedures for considering and voting on properly introduced motions. He hasn’t done so. Actions and inaction speak louder than words.
Rowan Williams is NO friend of the orthodox!!!!!!!
Dr. Williams has shown himself a true colonialist and more concerned with mammon than Truth, Righteousness, Discipline, or even proper parliamentary Form. He joins the ranks of those despised even by Captain Hook. Now there’s legacy!
Correct it?! He engineered it and lives in fear that a real Covenant would exist. Perhaps this way he can keep his role as advisor to the PB of the ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC (on retainer for entry into the new communion of the global north) and his ABC pension. Rather undoes all that ‘spiritual’ stuff he writes about but loudly asserts the body’s grace in contradistinction to the Body’s Grace.
Where to go from here? The Communion Partners must be asking that question this weekend. Their plan to differentiate themselves has been scuttled. The TEClub has been give a green light to charge off the cliff at Gen Con. It is going to be ugly.
Campaign slogan: ANIS FOR AB OF C
“I hope that Rowan develops some leadership qualities mighty fast, so that he can make sure that this travesty is just a delay and not the evisceration of the Covenant”.
Oh, he has leadership qualities, he just uses bumbling as a means to an end and operates from a framework of “tactical confusion”.
Anyone who believes otherwise probably has their head where the sun don’t shine, or is a total cockeyed optimist waiting to be disappointed.
Dean Munday has a link at http://toalltheworld.blogspot.com/2009/05/perfidy.html that allows comments to go to Lambeth Palace. May I suggest we take reasoned, careful, thoughtful, well-stated, Matthew 5:43-45 advantage of the privilege?