After a break and amid much confusion, the Chairman then announced that the entire resolution had passed even though there is no evidence it had even been voted on, the previous votes having been to amend the resolution, not pass it. If the position is that the individual clauses were enacted separately, is there any evidence that this was understood by the members prior to the vote?
These events unfolded live on Anglican TV to people watching around the world. It is beyond question that these procedures were improper, confusing and manipulative. The credibility of the ACC, already questioned by the Communion’s own advisory groups, has suffered lasting damage.
Two actions are required as a matter of urgency:
1. This issue must be re-visited immediately by the ACC and voted upon in a lawful and proper manner during this meeting. The alternative is moving forward with lasting questions as to the legitimacy of the entire process. Is this in doubt?
2. An explanation must be offered by those in charge of these proceedings, including the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Chairman of the ACC, as to how such manifestly improper procedures were permitted to unfold from the outset of Friday’s session and, indeed, of ACC-14 itself. It appears to us that things descended into chaos and no one stopped and sought to bring things to order.
If lawful and proper action on the covenant is not forthcoming from this meeting of the Council, the only appropriate response is for the Churches of the Communion to begin themselves the process of adopting the Ridley Cambridge Text.
Good luck with that, guys. They’ve tossed Holy Scripture into the landfill, did you think Robert’s Rules would possibly survive? See, the “right” result was declared to be official, and that’s all the Left needs for a veneer of authenticity. “We won” isn’t just a gloat, it’s justification.
[blockquote] If lawful and proper action on the covenant is not forthcoming from this meeting of the Council, the only appropriate response is for the Churches of the Communion to begin themselves the process of adopting the Ridley Cambridge Text.[/blockquote]
Yuck. The JSC was clearly seen to be the puppet of Ms Jefferts Schori. We should look at this procedural travesty as a blessing. Otherwise, we would see the Covenant used against the orthodox. (Witness the JSC ruling against Phil Ashey+ but ignoring Roskum’s participations in VGR consecration.) If you ask provinces and other “churches” to sign on to the flawed Ridley draft, pandemonium will ensue.
Simply call together Nigeria, Tanzania, Southern Cone, Burundi, Uganda, Hong Kong, South India, Pakistan, etc., and do the Covenant right. One can easily hold a series of meetings via the internet for a cost of a few thousand dollars each. Craft a covenant and present it to the Communion. The instruments of unity (Ha!) have failed. It is insane to keep looking to them for order.
And please stop the enabling for Rowan Williams.
> 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 after it was already defeated in A?
Rowan Williams is a follower not a leader. If the orthodox do not move forward, Rowan will follow those that will and currently that is Ms Jefferts Schori and her followers.
2, I disagree. The ABC got the result he was after. This was by design and he pulled it off quite well.
Even were the ABC to call himself for such action, he no longer has any moral capital on which to expect its fulfilment. Rowan has flown his truest colors and served will the colonialist imperialist church of the global north, the ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC. He has made the history books where he can be placed along side Thomas a Becket as an opposing character study.
This issue must be re-visited immediately by the ACC and voted upon in a lawful and proper manner during this meeting. The alternative is moving forward with lasting questions as to the legitimacy of the entire process. Is this in doubt?
Once again, the reasserting crowd simply choose not to get it. In this case, as in almost every other, the organization applying the rules has already determined that it acted “in a lawful and proper manner.” For anyone not following along – that means they did act “in a lawful and proper manner.” It appears as though members of the ACC have voiced their concern and were voted down. They chose to argue this in the court of public opinion, which means exactly nothing. [L]asting questions as to the legitimacy of the entire process? Nope. There will be as many “lasting questions” aa there always are. The losing side crying foul, writing open letters and spending thousands of man hours trying to “prove” the unprovable. Ever since they tried getting involved in the property lawsuits, the ACI has lost its focus. Their “work” has become disappointing.
Those who wish to question the legality of the vote should examine the Bylaws and Guidelines for Meetings of the ACC. Nothing illegal was done. Motions may be presented in writing anytime up to the start of the session in which they are to be discussed, as may written amendments. There is nothing that says that one must finish discussing one motion before discussing another. There is nothing that says part of a previous motion may not be incorporated into another one as an amendment. The chair has the right to rule conclusively on procedural matters. A motion may be put to the Council for general assent in the manner the chair shall think fit. Etc. , etc.
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/communion/acc/resources/docs/constitution.cfm
It was all quite simple and straightforward. There were two resolutions up for vote. One was to send out the Ridley Cambidge Text minus the dreaded (to TEC) section four. The other was to send it out to the provinces for adoption exactly as is. The first motion lost by a very large margin. Realizing that the second resolution was going to pass, also by a large margin, those in control of the floor/chair/agenda refused to allow a straight up vote on the second resolution. Instead, by confusing and unethical parlimentary moves, accomplished partly by Rowan Williams overruling the chair, they succeeded in tricking the representatives into narrowly approving an amendment to the second resolution making it essentially identical to the first resolution they just overwhelmingly rejected. The confusion was accomplished by allowing debate on numerous improperly introduced amendments all at the same time (anyone watching could see that no one knew what was being debated or what was going on), and then by forcing a vote without allowing sufficient time for the representatives to understand what was being voted on, without a chance for adequate debate. And finally, after succeeding in getting this amendment attached to the second resolution, no actual vote was allowed on the resolution in its final form. It was simply announced that the vote to amend it was actually the vote on the resolution itself. ACI recognizes the outrageous misconduct involved. The majority of the representatives wanted to send the Ridley Cambridge Text out to the provinces as is, immediately, for their consideration. The minority who were in control of the meeting itself, used their positions to deny the will of the ACC.
ABC and ACC to ACI: Or what? What, exactly, are you going to do if we don’t do any of the things you request but instead proceed with our own plan and schedule? Write another report? Stamp your feet? +Cantaur and Kearon+ already know the answer to this question, which is precisely why they have acted as they did in Kingston. As long as the CPB/ACI strategy is pursued, the ABC, ACC and TEC know they have nothing to fear from that camp. The GAFCON crowd is another matter. Let’s see how they respond and whether they can convince the CPB/ACC folks that the only strategy the establishment understands is real hardball, the sort TEC plays.
Dr. Rob, #2, I always love your comments, also as a fellow health care professional.
I’d simply add–Who torpedoed the DeS Communique?
But now, they’ve got Fred Obfuscating Flintstone on videotape.
God bless,
JG
PS–Every last traditional in this Anglican joint, including the GAFCON primates, who lead the VAST majority of the world’s Anglicans, need to publicly call for a vote of no confidence in this biased piece-of-work.
I hope the elves give me credit for reigning in the blue words that I really wanted to say…
I can speak as one who was in New Westminster when all of this started (when Rt. Rev. Michael Ingham gave consent to same-sex blessings), and I can say now as a priest, that nothing has changed. In eight years we have simply gone round and round, first about blessings, then about + Gene Robinson, and from where I am sitting, orthodoxy and discipline are losing big time, and those who have caused all of this are growing stronger. Lambeth was a farce. ACC – farce. ABC – ditto. Primates…well, we’ll see. Can anyone say GAFCON?
Brian (#5), George Conger asserts (and he was there) that the amendment to change B into the failed A passed by Rowan’s intervention, BUT resolution B was not voted on. The meeting simply adjourned.
This is not “sour grapes” at a lost vote but reprehensible manipulation. I quote Pageantmaster from another [url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/22506/#362459 ]thread[/url] regarding Rowan Williams’ machinations:
[blockquote] 1. His decision to send this to ACC;
2. His chairing of JSC before the meeting;
3. His rearrangement of ACC procedures into Indabas with the committee of Indaba Facilitators being the Resolutions Committee of liberals: US, Scotland and New Zealand;
4. His press spokesman of choice Aspinall bouncing Resolution C on the conference, a resolution which was pre-printed and handed out by conference officials;
5. His intervention in favour of the incorporation of the Resolution A bits previously voted down into Resolution B;
6. His excuse for doing so, that people will have voted against Resolution A would have done so KNOWING that they would have the chance to consider similar resolutions coming up which [he knew would be coming up] and wanted them to be able to consider them;
7. His and the chair’s failure to correct the absense of vote on the later resolution, a vote only having been taken to amend the resolution to be voted on.
8. His plan conveniently in place which Kearon announced for him to take Section 4 out [on the basis of a non-vote] have it reconsidered by a committee he would dream up taking it out of the hands of the Covenant Design Group properly charged with drafting it and then have that approved by the largely liberal white rump JSC.
9. His involvement and that of the JSC in unseating the alternate for Uganda.
10. The rearguard action taken up by his apologists to blame +Orombi for his shennanigans. [/blockquote]
What I find striking (and disappointing, though hardly shocking) about the ACI statement is its muted tone. Given that the noble but naive leaders of the ACI/CP plan have pinned all their hopes on the Covenant, only to see those hopes dashed in Jamaica, a much more vehement repsonse was appropirate and called for. Something like the outrage that robroy and others express above.
Was the debacle on Friday just an “embarrassment??” Boy, is that an English style understatement. It was a major scandal and an intolerable abuse. ++Mouneer Anis was right. All that desperate parliamentary skullduggery carried out to block a clear vote on Resolution B was “illegal.” It was the ecclesiastical equivalent of a war crime. It was a faithless betrayal of the positions of trust they occupied. And yet the ACI would leave those same leaders in power to continue to do more of the same?
To me, the killer is that last line, the feeble response that the ACI proposes. Is “the ONLY” appropriate response to the deceiful manipulation practiced by western leaders in key positions merely for Churches to…sign up to the Ridley Draft of the Covenant?? What, when the actual enforcement of that Covenant’s relatively weak disciplinary measures still depnds on those same discredited, untrustworthy western leaders??
Methinks it shows a tremendous lack of imagination to say that “the only appropriate response” to the nefarious scuttling of the Covenant by untrustworthy western leaders is to try, try again, and hope they do better next time. Hmmm, that reminds me of the AA definition of insanity: trying the same thing over and over again, yet somehow expecting a different result. That’s madness.
I hope that there’s a furious backlash in the Global South against those global north leaders who carried out or allowed this kind of inexcusable colonial-style manipulation. Sometimes rage is good. It can motivate people to take drastic actions. That is how revolutions (and Reformations) are born.
And what is needed in Anglicanism is not merely gradual, incremental, evolutionary change. It’s time for drastic, sweeping, revolutionary change. It’s time for new institutional wineskins.
The blockage of the Covenant by scheming, underhanded persons like ++Aspinall or Kearon+ is merely the latest sign that the current powers that be in the AC should be treated as the scum they are. It’s time to throw the bums out, and create new Instruments, new structures for the New Anglicanism of the Third Millenium.
Now that’s the kind of response to the scandal of Friday’s events in Kingston that I could get excited about.
David Handy+
Let goods and kindred go.
Of course, I agree with David+. There is a time for proper British decorum, and there is a time for, “And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.”
The call to sign on to the Ridley Draft is wrong. The response to this call will be divided and ineffective. Who would sign on but a handful of provinces? Some would not because they would want to wait for the “real Covenant.” Some wouldn’t because they have clearly seen the perfidy of the JSC and don’t want to play into the JSC’s hand. And then you have the anti-Covenant crowd. So you get 5 or 10 provinces (maybe!) who would sign onto the Ridley draft.
This ACI request is fissiparous with respect to the orthodox in AC.
robroy
I don’t question whether it was “reprehensible manipulation.” The points made in this article are:
1. This issue must be re-visited immediately by the ACC and voted upon in a lawful and proper manner during this meeting. The alternative is moving forward with lasting questions as to the legitimacy of the entire process. Is this in doubt?
2. An explanation must be offered by those in charge of these proceedings, including the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Chairman of the ACC, as to how such manifestly improper procedures were permitted to unfold from the outset of Friday’s session and, indeed, of ACC-14 itself. It appears to us that things descended into chaos and no one stopped and sought to bring things to order.
I assert that the issue does not need to be revisited simply because those in power choose not to revisit it and that no explanation must be offered.
The fact is that they did what they did. Objections were raised in the appropriate forum. Objections were raised in the forum of public opinion. These objections have failed to make any change in the actions.
Of course, “the issue does not [i]need[/i] to be revisited.” The Covenant did not [i]need[/i] to be brought to the ACC, at all.
Indeed, Rev. Dr. Noll [url=http://www… ]lists the following possible actions[/url] of Rowan:
[blockquote] 1. He can publicly state his error and apologize for the ensuing mess.
2. He can fire Canon Kearon and anyone else responsible for enabling this new crisis.
3. He could convene a special meeting of the JSC immediately and have it declare that the will of the majority of the Communion is to move forward with adoption?
4. He could declare unilaterally that the vote in Jamaica was invalid and that he is sending out the Ridley Cambridge Draft to the Provinces for adoption. There was no constitutional necessity for the ACC to approve the Draft, and in any case the Resolution passed violated the earlier protocol which stated that the Draft would be either voted up or voted down or returned to the Drafting Group.[/blockquote]
The overwhelming defeat of the resolution A certainly argues for the demanding of item #4.
Wow. So the ACC meeting turned into an even greater disaster than could have been imagined. One can argue over the parliamentary procedure, but the larger implication seems unavoidable. The Anglican communion is finished.
No, not because there was a formal declaration. And I’m sure there are those who will argue that the covenant is still alive, if barely, and so the communion lingers.
But it can’t be so when, as accomplished here, the last of the four “instruments of communion” which make up the Anglican communion has been destroyed. Let’s review the recent past:
1. The Primates meeting – nonfunctioning after Dar es Salaam by the Archbishop peremptorily refusing to implement its decisions. They meet, but only because they know nothing will go on – the primates involved take little notice of each other, and openly reflect on there being two churches.
2. Lambeth – the bishops of about half the communion stayed away.
3. The ACC – where there is no rule but what TEC wants, outright deception prevails, and Africans have second class status. I can’t imagine there will be many attending the next one.
4. The Archbishop of Canterbury –
What comes to mind from the ACC is two players sitting in a chess club with an audience, among them the financial backer of one of the players. That one player is starting to lose the match, in front of his sponsor. The game is getting out of his control. The backer is getting visibly upset. So the player upsets the chessboard, ending the match in front of all. He could see no other way out.
What is the product of that? First, everyone now knows the man is a cheat. Second, no one will play him any more.
And that is where we are now. The Archbishop upset the chessboard. The ACC is now non-functioning. His backer, TEC, may have avoided defeat, but it has not achieved victory either. And he has squandered his reputation. The very last group that may have wanted to trust in him can do so no more. Even TEC can see his character.
As an aside, I do not believe this is all about property, as some think. But I would point out that the Archbishop’s maneuver to drop the moratorium on litigation in the US against the orthodox is proof of what everyone in TEC seems to believe – that Williams has told TEC officials he supports their litigation strategy. That he will not publicly says so, but will privately protect it. If true, this is another great blunder on his part. I would observe that money is only money. A reputation for honesty and integrity is worth much more. To have lost it is a very sad thing for an Archbishop.
I am not a psychoanalyst – I do not know why he has destroyed his office. I just think it is apparent that he has.
So what next? Again, if TEC’s goal is to stop the covenant, we will not see any such thing coming out of William’s office. If there is anything we have learnt from this debacle, it is that.
It also seems to me that GAFCON is the only part of the communion left that acts like it is a communion of churches. I expect it to step up and fill the void. I don’t expect them to slow down, nor do I expect them to declare a new communion. I think they will just go their own way, participate in their own structures, and not participate in those that are not functioning.
The biggest error the orthodox can make in this struggle is to assume that Rowan, Kate, Kenneth and their ilk will act with Christian forebearance and generosity. They will not. Schori is pulling the wires here, and she most certainly knows her Machiavelli better then her Matthew. Learn to play the hardball that BfT19 alludes to or quit the field.
pendennis88 (#16),
I think you’re basically right. All four of the Instruments of Unity have now been either thoroughly discredited or proven to be completely ineffective in dealing with this crisis. The old wineskins have utterly failed. They WILL be replaced, inevitably and rightly. And the natural fury and wrath aimed at those liberals who perpetrated the scandalous abuse of power in Jamaica will speed up the process. The tear in the fabric of the AC just got wider and deeper with a loud RRRIIPPP. The polarization continues unabated, and indeed significantly intensified.
And that is exactly what needs to happen. “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” In some ways, I think the tragic outcome in Kingston is a blessing in disguise, for it will accelerate the necessary upcoming ecclesiastical divorce.
Remember what George Conger observed about the glaring absence of any secular press coverage of the ACC meeting in Jamaica? The breakup of the AC is no longer considered newsworthy; it’s taken for granted as a foregone conclusion. And I think that the total absence of any reporters from the secular media world is particularly significant given the attraction to reporters of spending time down in the sunny Caribbean. Who wouldn’t want to try to talk their editor into sending them to Jamaica for a week on special assignment? Yet not a single non-ecclesiastical reporter was there to report on the big debate and vote on Friday. Not one.
The only people who don’t seem to get it are the ones heavily invested in keeping up appearances and trying to preserve the Ac’s current international structures intact at all costs. But I expect some defections from that crowd in the days to come, as the hopelessness of relying on the fatally flawed Covenant process and the completely dysfunctional current Instruments sinks in and registers. I fully expect some brave and noble but disillusioned “moderate” primates and other Anglican leaders to throw in their lot now with the FCA movement. I know they all won’t, but some almost certainly will.
The ACI gang writes above that failure to approve the Covenant before the end of the ACC meeting in Jamaica means, “moving forward with LASTING QUESTIONS as to the legitimacy of the entire (Covenant/Windsor) process.”
Huh? “Lasting questions?” I think those questions have, alas, been already answered. And in the negative. So let us grieve the loss. And move on to rebuild a New and Better Anglicanism on more solid foundations.
And Brian from T19. Gloating isn’t nice. It only breeds repugnance.
David Handy+