I would go further than saying “procedural confusion.” It is, as reports from Professor Stephen Noll and others are calling it: PERFIDY. It is a betrayal of every Anglican who has looked to the Covenant process to bring desperately needed order to our life as a Communion. …
It is painfully obvious to observers in many quarters that the continuation of the Communion depends on your actions in this matter.
Could someone lay out in a little detail what the procedural injustice was? I know there was confusion, and it was unseemly, but how should Bp Aspinall’s resolution (which passed, in effect) have been handled?
Dr. Harmon, you and Dr. Noll and many others are 100% correct, it (ACC-14 and particularly Abp. Williams’ machinations) is PERFIDY.
The orthodox were BETRAYED in Kingston.
———-
[i][Just for clarification, the word “perfidy” is Dean Munday’s word, not Kendall’s – the elves][/i]
MarkP (#1), may I commend http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2009/05/shine-perishing-communion.html to you? Should answer your question quite well indeed.
NRA and others have been generous to a fault in lending credence to the idea that Rowan’s actions were the resut of incompetence rather than betrayal, but one cannot argue that they were inconsistent with his previous goaltending for TEC and ACoC. They are of a piece.
Amen!
MarkP #1 It is very doubtful that an actual vote to refer section 4 out for further study was ever even taken in procedural terms, or at least that the Council members were entirely aware of what they were voting on. And this was after the same resolution had just been defeated in a slightly different form.
I must sadly admit that I am unable to believe that any of the voices speaking out on this will be heard at all. The official version”[i]Pravda[/i]” version of this has been published. All protests will be allowed to fall totally unnoticed into the infinite abyss of silence.
It is a done deal. The Covenant has not been allowed to save the Communion. Williams has proven over and over again that he will ensure that the liberals win their way. I have no passion left for this whole process. The removal of any hope at all of reaching a bottom line means that the bottom line has now been reached for those honest enough to admit it.
Poem by Langston Hughes says it all
What happens to a dream deferred?
Does it dry up
like a raisin in the sun?
Or fester like a sore–
And then run?
Does it stink like rotten meat?
Or crust and sugar over–
like a syrupy sweet?
Maybe it just sags
like a heavy load.
Or does it explode?
There’s a new sheriff in town. It’s called the Internet. Live blogging, Anglican TV. These old-fashioned tactics no longer work.
That being said, I don’t think for a moment that the Covenant will (or would have), in and of itself, save the Anglican Communion. TEC is very good at ignoring direction given from within, not to mention from other provinces.
I also don’t hold high hopes that RW will apologize and do the right thing, which is either to man up and become a true leader, or resign.
So, I don’t think we are seeing the end of the Anglican Communion. It looks more like we are seeing the beginning of two or more Anglican Communions.
# Also laid out rather succinctly here:
http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/?p=415
Thanks for your answers. Can I ask for one more clarification that may push this a little off topic? From a strict Robert’s Rules of Order perspective, what should have happened in this case? A and B are on the table, you’re in the middle of debating A (which is obviously going down), and somebody wants to propose a new resolution C that is in essence a combination of A and B. Should they have finished with A (as they did) then entertained amendments to B? What about Mouneer Anis’ objection that the amendments introduced to B were straight out of A, which had just been voted down?
The most damning (if true) indictment I’ve seen so far is that they voted on amending one of the clauses and accepted that as a vote on the clause itself, which would be very serious. But that’s from someone working from the online transcript, which was not always clear.
There was no mistake and no error. Everything went according to a very carefully laid out plan. A plan created by someone who is absolutely brilliant at politics and in the game for the long run. It is truly an amazing accomplishment. Breathtaking.
MarkP There were apparently multiple motions on the table at this point. It must be clearly articulated which motion is being voted on before the vote. The last motion made is voted on first and then you work your way back up the list to the original motion. It looks like whatever vote was taken was on the latest procedural motion was then declared to be a vote on section 4 itself. At the very least there was too much confusion to declare a definitive vote in any way. Also, if one motion has just been defeated, it is out of order to reintroduce it in a similar form. Mouneer Anis pointed this out and was ignored which is a direct violation of the rules of order. You can’t vote against removing section 4 for study and then immediately vote for removing section 4 for study. in another motion.
I have seen this kind of tactic used on many occasions at our GenCon and other similar locations — and always at the last minute on Friday so that it can’t be cleared up or revisited.
Anyone who thinks this was a well-intentioned accident is sadly naive.
Shouldn’t this letter have been written,
“Dear Sans Testeklees…”?
Great thoughts, but obviously wasted since the ABC is brillant in his vacillations.
This situation sort of reminds me of the the procedural errors/omissions/questions that quite clearly cloud the ‘legitimacy’ or ‘validity’ of the Denis Canon but which are conveniently ignored by the revisionists.
Issues as important to the Anglican Communion as “order” and “discipline’ should be unambiguously resolved at a high level gathering such as this so that the manner of their resolution will be clearly obvious to all concerned.
This was not achieved. Instead, the ‘seeds of discord’ have been scattered and +Williams permitted this to happen.
If the archbishop’s goal is unity within the Anglican Communion, he sure has severely, if not fatally, damaged the chances of achieving that unity.
If he leaves this situation unresolved for very long, it may become a rallying point for schism, much as the shots fired at Fort Sumter served to initiate the serious hostilities the the American Civil War or the murder of Archduke Ferdinand initiated World War I.
I agree with Ralph.
Sarah Hey has three great suggestions about how to move from here. In particular, she [url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/22526/]suggests[/url]
[blockquote] . . . Is take the Ridley draft of the Covenant, modify it appropriately [deleting the JSC as an arbiter, for starters, and adding in real consequences, such that the Ridley draft isn’t a fraud], and affirm it as a unified group.[/blockquote]
We have been thankfully delivered from the very weak Ridley draft. Let us move on to a real Covenant and create a real Communion.
I have to agree with Ralph (#8), sorry LumenChristie (#6), I don’t think there was EVER really a possibility that the Covenant would have “been allowed to save the Communion.” To believe that was EVER a real possibility is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the conflict for the faith in which we are engaged. ++Mouneer said it in New Orleans in September 2007, and the Global South Primates said it again in Alexandria this past February: there are indeed TWO different faiths contending for the control of the Anglican Communion (as well as other denominations!) and one of them ISN’T Christianity! ACI and many supporters of the Covenant are, from my perspective, unwilling to confront the true nature of the problem, which is why their strategy is not working. If the problem is cancer and you are only willing to use aspirin, you’re chances of successfully treating the ailment are limited – at best.
Within the Christian tradition there are indeed competing models for how to deal with the crisis we currently face within Anglicanism. There is the noble path of faithful yet passive and sacrificial witness in the face of tremendous odds against the truth. But there is another equally valid Christian path as well — it involves more active struggle in contending for the faith. This path starts with Jesus in the temple overturning the tables of the money changers and runs through Athanasius, Luther and Bonhoeffer. For every season under heaven there is a time, the only question now is what does this time call for? ACI has one answer, GAFCON has another. I think GAFCON is more right than ACI is, and I’m even more sure of that after what happened on Friday in Jamaica!
Don’t miss the great letter to ++Rowan written by Joe Roberts (Cotton Country Anglican).
http://cottoncountryanglican.blogspot.com/2009/05/acc-14-call-to-action-from-guy-in-pew.html
You know, I really do understand how people of good will and probity are anguished and looking for an honest brokering of a Covenant to hold the AC accountable.
But, honestly, so long as the purse strings of TEC are what fund all the AC’s conferences and meetings, they (i.e. DBB and KJS) will determine what is and isn’t in the outputs…the reports and documentation. Can anyone seriously believe that TEC or Canadian Church will ever be required to be accountable for their actions so long as they are the ones paying for the paper and ink which make up the documents of the AC?
While I agree that outrage is appropriate, I think the wiser course is to simply give up on these international deliberative bodies, and let the ACNA and Gafcon process bring to life a new, non-British Anglican Communion.
Thanks, Karen B. I encourage all T19 readers to fire off a comment or two over to Lambeth Palace.
Frankly, with respect to Dean Munday and ACI, I’d submit “tactical confusion” as opposed to “procedural confusion”. Don’t even suggest that a man with an intellect like this has no idea what he’s doing. The “bumbling idiot” facade now has a term that is expired.
Were I to write the man a letter it would start with, “you’ve got to be kidding me”…
And, one can dress it up in any pretty clothes he/she wants to, but the fact of the matter here is that traditional Anglicanism has been sold down the river for the alleged “blessedness” of gay sex.
The Scriptures beg to differ…
I followed Dean Munday’s link and sent Archbishop Williams a polite note asking him to correct the situation before the end of this current ACC meeting.
The most ironic thing about this mess is that, until Dr. Noll’s careful reading and judicious advice, many conservatives were dubious about this Covenant because it doesn’t provide strong discipline. Kearon, Shori, Aspinall, Williams, et al., were willing to expose their real intentions and severely damage, if not destroy, the Communion because of this same weak discipline section. They could have signed on and then just ignored it; they’ve done that before. Instead, the Global South’s agreement to the draft was enough to frighten them into this very foolish action.
Hidden in all the confusion over the scurrilous political machinations aimed to prevent the moratoria on litigation and to delay Covenant from reaching the Primates before TEC’s General Convention – is the Continuing Indaba Project in which the AC accepts money from a sexual agenda group to be used promote homosexuality and abortion throughout the whole Anglican Communion.
This action of the ACC/JSC meeting should also be clearly and finally renounced.
I love Dean Munday, but he is wrong in this letter.
[i]Rowan Williams has managed to castrate the three other “instruments of unity” (Ha!)[/i]. What an amazing accomplishment. [i]Rowan Williams has managed to castrate the three other “instruments of unity.”[/i] Incredible. One has to tip the tam-o-shanter to him.
Could we please start listening to Sarah Hey? (That is going to go to her head!) Playing Rowan’s games, on his court, with his rules is killing the orthodox. Please, please, please, just stop making requests to him, holding out hope for him, excusing his “shortcomings”. Archbishop Orombi was absolutely correct. ++Mouneer was great, but we can use this opportunity for a great coming together. Begging Rowan Williams to do this or that will only squander the opportunity.
[i]Rowan Williams has managed to castrate the three other “instruments of unity.”[/i]
The fact that Orombi and Mouneer ARE already closer together, despite their different strategies, than their counterparts in North America should give pause. There is a tendency here to produce enphatic differentiations and denouncements across the insider/outsider divide… not so in the global South. Now that, in the wake of ACC-14, outsiders are talking more like insiders…. and insiders more like outsiders we might finally get around to recognizing what the global South primates have seen for some time.
Chris Taylor # 16:
I don’t believe that the Covenant was ever really going to save the Communion, but the effort to find a way to bind us back together was worth doing.
For a very long time now I have been wondering what it would take for the ACI people to wake up and genuinely understand who and what they are dealing with. I was once accused of “making Chris Seitz cry” because I was trying to tell him the truth. The truth would make most of us cry — one thing we need to do is to stop blaming the messengers for the message. TEC and those supporting it are willing to use the tactics of lies and duplicity, or any means whatever to get what they want. I do not wish this to be true, and I do not rejoice in the cold reality that is now hitting some in the face, but we have got to start dealing with the reality of the situation on its own terms.
For the revisionists, getting what they want means nothing less than forcing everyone to agree with their heresies, apostasies and abandonment of Holy Scripture. If you don’t give in to them, then you are the schismatic and you deserve only outer darkness with nothing but the shirt on your back going with you. He who keeps the real estate wins.
I wish I had Sarah Hey’s talent for bringing people along because I have been trying to tell people for 6 years that this is indeed where the whole plan was taking us from the beginning, only to be vilified or ignored for being negative.
The game they have insisted on playing– oh, please finally hear this and understand it — is over. It has been exposed for what it is with no more opportunity to pretend otherwise. There never was a real chance of the orthodox keeping the Communion from going over this cliff in the first place. I’m glad everybody tried anyway, but if people can’t bring themselves to face reality now, then they will be compromising the Gospel by going along with the power brokers who control the direction of the Communion.
I grieve for this. But facing reality may finally allow us to get on with being genuine Christians in the new venue God gives us. We can only trust Him and get ready to leave Egypt behind. (without the gold and silver)
At the moment, one might mystically discern three Anglican Communions:
Anglican Communion #1. A group of moderates, with the Archbishop of Canterbury remaining as first among equal bishops. (I cannot call him its leader.)
Anglican Communion #2. A small group of radical progressives, led by the US Presiding Bishop as Pope (or Popess). Then, a top-down hierarchy with 5 orders of ministry: the laity, bishop, deacon, priest, and litigator.
Anglican Communion #3. A larger group of conservatives, led by a GAFCON bishop, with authority and power somewhere between #1 and #2. Probably closer to #2, since it will take strong, authoritative leadership to get this group to coalesce and hold together.
All 3 would be Anglican, each following a via media, but a via media on three different roads. One road, perhaps two, leading away from heaven.
If the current Abp of C doesn’t man up and take charge quickly, he will go down in history as having presided over the Anglican schism of 2009.
It is my belief that the differences between the Anglican orthodox can be overcome – the relatively slight ones between the CP and CCP as well as the greater ones between them and the Continuing Anglican groups.
In fact, my greatest desire and prayer for the Church has been and will continue to be for the reconciliation between Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and Protestant Christianity and all their various splinters.
Isaiah 62:1; Isaiah 62:6-7; Psalm 122:6-7
This is, I believe the prayer of the Lord of the Church. In John 17, John 17:11; John 17:21-23 and John 17:26
The Church was given the ministry of reconciliation…I pray it will begin now…as the world darkens with the spirit of the anti-christ…we will need each another.
God’s grace, love and truth are more than sufficient for the task of reuniting His Church.
It is only the stubbornness and smallness of human minds and hearts, the extraneous walls that we build, that stands in the way of Christian unity. [I am talking about those operating in Gospel Faith, Scriptural truth and Biblical morality…not heresy, apostasy, pluralism and syncretism…trying to fashion their own church, gods, worship and morality.]
Those who can truly and whole-heartedly pray the prayer of Jesus, known as the Lord’s Prayer or the Our Father, can be one as The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are One.
[i] Comment deleted by elf. [/i]
BTW, I believe Kevin Kallsen will be livestreaming ++Rowan’s Presidential Address tonight – 6 p.m. central or so is what Kevin thinks.
This situation sort of reminds me of the the procedural errors/omissions/questions that quite clearly cloud the ‘legitimacy’ or ‘validity’ of the Denis Canon but which are conveniently ignored by the revisionists.
Don’t forget the courts of the United States as part of this vast left-wing conspiracy! One little stone bridge at a time.
This situation sort of reminds me of the the procedural errors/omissions/questions that quite clearly cloud the ‘legitimacy’ or ‘validity’ of the Denis Canon but which are conveniently ignored by the revisionists.
Issues as important to the Anglican Communion as “order†and “discipline’ should be unambiguously resolved at a high level gathering such as this so that the manner of their resolution will be clearly obvious to all concerned.
This was not achieved. Instead, the ‘seeds of discord’ have been scattered and +Williams permitted this to happen.
The United States courts seem to have allowed the Dennis Canon. In addition, no objection was made to the Dennis Canon at the time that succeeded. Only when people wanted their property did they try to challenge a 25 year old canon.
Dear Elfs
I respectfully submit that you delete comment 11 as it violates Harmon+’s rule that we not impute motives to people.
All 3 would be Anglican, each following a via media, but a via media on three different roads. One road, perhaps two, leading away from heaven.
The second and third “Anglican Communions” can not, by definition, be Anglican Communions. They indeed may hold to a specifically Anglican style of worship and indeed a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, however, without the ABC, they are not the Anglican Communion.
For once I agree with Brian from T19! [url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/22471/#362076]Saves me having to repeat what I’ve said elsewhere[/url]. I wonder then if he’s happy with this[blockquote]Anglican Communion #2. A small group of radical progressives, led by the US Presiding Bishop as Pope (or Popess). Then, a top-down hierarchy with 5 orders of ministry: the laity, bishop, deacon, priest, and litigator.[/blockquote]
Actions speak louder than words. Perhaps the Abp of C will man up, and save the day. One might pray that God will give him a spiritual testosterone shot, so that RW will have the courage to let God act through him. We shall see.
As for the Three Anglican Communions, we’ll see about that as well. Indeed, I pray that I have falsely discerned.
Latimer said to Ridley, “Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man; we shall this day light such a candle by God’s grace in England, as I trust shall never be put out.”
Words that should be kept at RW’s bedside.
Jeffersonian (#4) invoked my screenname and noted that I’ve been “generous to a fault” in granting the possibility that the disastrous effects of ++Rowan Williams’ intervention in the debate on Friday may have been as much unintentional as intentional. Perhaps so. Maybe I was too generous. But I still am inclined to grant him the benefit of the doubt.
After all, I don’t know the man personally. But an astute and by no means naive orthodox journalist like George Conger who has monitored the ABoC’s public ministry for years (watched his body language, heard his tone of voice etc.) finds it unlikely that ++RW is as devious and cynically Machiavellian as some are taking him to be. More importantly, I don’t think noble men of integrity like ++Akinola, ++Orombi, and ++Naimbi etc., would respect and trust the man to the degree they plainly do if they perceived him to be so wicked and corrupt (witness the praise for his mediating role at the Alexandria primates’ meeting).
So I don’t think the charge of perfidy really rings true, at least not in the same way that it clearly does apply in the case of self-deceived, the-ends-justify-the-means liberals like ++Philip Aspinall or Canon Kearon+.
Now is the American PB devious and Machiavellian? Oh, absolutely. Is she guilty of perfidy and open prevarication of the most blatant sort? Beyond a resonable doubt, yes. Like her predecessor, Frank Griswold, she has no qualms about signing an international agreement among the primates and then blithely breaking it almost as soon as she gets home.
But is ++Williams treacherous and unscrupulous in that kind of way? Personally, I still find that very hard toi believe.
But in the end, that’s not what matters.
We can speculate endlessly about ++RW’s motivations and goals, about which he keeps very tight-lipped, but what counts is the practical outcome of his actions (and inactions, for his sins of omission probably exceed his sins of commission). And there can be no reasonable doubt that on that score his tenure of the highest office in Anglicanism has been simply catastrophic.
But I don’t think ++RW should be made the scapegoat or designated symptom bearer for the whole sick, severely dysfunctional Anglican system. But the buck does stop with him, and if he can’t do what Dr. Noll has urged him to do to make amends for his grievous errors, then he indeed ought to resign.
But what’s wrong with the AC goes far beyond the personal foibles of any one man. We’re dealing with a systemic problem of major proportions. And so the increasingly obvious signs of the breakdown of that failing system may actually be a blessing in disguise. It should hasten the day when a new Anglican system can take its place, one that’s truly global and post-colonial, and no longer western-dominated.
I actually feel sorry for the courageous ACI leaders, and the CP bishops, for +Drexel Gomez and ++John Chew, and the whole Covenant Design Group. They worked hard and faithfully and gave it their best shot. And now their hopes have been cruelly dashed. Their placed all their eggs in the Covenant basket, and now those eggs (always fragile) have been stomped on and smashed.
There is certainly perfidy and treachery at work here, all right, but I really don’t think Cantaur is the primary culprit. He’s an accomplice, to be sure, but he’s not the mastermind and moving force. In fact, no human being is.
I don’t mean to get super-spiritual or preachy here, but we need to keep reminding ourselves that “we wrestle not against flesh and blood…” The real enemy, the real liar who’s guilty of perfidy, deceit, villany, and treachery, the real one who is destroying the Church of God is none other than the Father of Lies himself. And even our worst enemies in this church civil war (like the PB) are really POWs in the battle for the souls of all humanity, spiritually blind prisoners of the one who has deceived them into thinking that they are fighting for social justice and advancing the kingdom of God.
So putting speculation and finger-pointing aside, what now is to be done? Well, I think the need of the hour is to foster better relations and more cooperation between the FCA/ACNA movement and the ACI/CP movement. Now that the whole Windsor/Covenant process has been rendered null and void and shown to be hopeless and futile, the whole ball game has changed. It’s time to work together as much as we can to rebuild worldwide Anglicanism on more solid foundations.
Bottom line: The old Anglican wineskins have failed. The Instruments have let us down, which is hardly surprising, since they were never designed for resolving such a severe crisis, which couldn’t have been foreseen even two decades ago, much less a century ago. So new wineskins will have to be created to take their place.
Some may be dishearatened and dismayed by that fearful and daunting prospect. But I find it incredibly exciting. What a thrilling adventure this New Reformation will be!
David Handy+
Crypto Papist
I don’t put any leader above anyone else. So a situation like #2 is unacceptable. My comment was only that you can’t be a part of the Anglican Communion unless you are in communion with the See of Canterbury.
Can someone explain to me why so many bother so much about what is unlikely to change? The AofC, TEC, and all of the far left continue to do what they started to do. The orthodox have altered nothing, and yet fortunes have been spent in the process – are being spent, I should say. We have GAFCON and ACNA. Why not simply bolster ACNA with our cumulative presence and let the others go to hell – which may well be a literal declaration. Why are we bothering? What is it we are trying to gain? Look at the above. Much is well said, but to what end? It is all talk. Larry
The ABC man up? That would be sexist! Not to mention actually forthrightly taking the stand in favor of the ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC which he has unilaterally supported by the one action he did take (speaking in Jamaica to confuse the issue) and ALL the inactions he has performed on behalf of the New Thang Gozpell (c) all of the body’s grace. Won’t happen since it would involve further blowing his undercover status for the gaygenda. That and he has no moral capital left on which to draw after his debacle in Jamaica.
36. Brian from T19[blockquote]a situation like #2 is unacceptable[/blockquote]Great! We agree again. So [url=http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/?p=391]this[/url] is the way forward, is it not?
On the contrary, #36, folks can claim whatever they wish. If the ABp of Canterbury wanted to take another “Anglican Communion” to court, that would be a lengthy, expensive process. If a court with jurisdiction could be found.
In the Roman Catholic Church, a major dispute resulted in there
being three simultaneous “Popes” from 1378-1417.
I think a situation like #2 is just what some of the more radical progressives, and some of the conservatives would like to happen.