THE ANGLICAN Consultative Council (ACC) will not endorse the Anglican Covenant and has voted to send it back to committee for further review. The vote comes as a major defeat for the Archbishop of Canterbury who had championed the Covenant as the one way to keep the Anglican Communion from splitting.
However the defeat appears self-inflicted, as Dr Rowan Williams’ ambiguous intervention in the closing moments of the Covenant debate confused some delegates, and resulted in the adoption of a compromise resolution that holds off acceptance of the Covenant until a new committee reviews and revises the disciplinary provisions in section 4 of the agreement ””- a process ACC secretary general Canon Kenneth Kearon said could take up to a year.
Questions of perfidy and incompetence were lodged against Dr Williams by conservative members of the ACC in inter views with The Church of England Newspaper immediately following the vote. But the anger with Dr Williams’ performance softened to exasperation by the following day for some conservative delegates to the May 2-12 meeting.
Delegates from the Church of Nigeria stated they were perplexed by Dr Williams having endorsed the Covenant at the start of the debate, and then apparently reversing himself and backing the call for delay by the end of the session.
“All of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s contributions were positive” up until the last moment of the meeting Bishop Ikechi Nwosu of the Diocese of Umuahia, Nigeria, said. Nigerian delegate Archdeacon Abraham Okorie said there was a “satanic” spirit of confusion in the air. He noted it was hypocritical of the ACC to make a great noise of using African ways of decision-making in addressing the Covenant, but then resorting to slippery parliamentary tricks to thwart the will of the meeting.
Dr Williams had been a “very weak leader,” Bishop Nwosu observed. “Of course we pray for him, but couldn’t he be courageous for once?” Over three years in the making, the work of the Anglican Covenant Design Group (CDG) was presented by its chairman Archbishop Drexel Gomez of the West Indies on May 4 to the representatives of the 38 provinces of the Communion gathered at the Pegasus Hotel in Kingston, Jamaica for the 14th triennial meeting of the ACC. It was imperative the delegates endorse the Covenant as the Anglican Communion “is close to the point of breaking up,”
Archbishop Gomez said. After the discussion plenary, the delegates broke apart into “discernment groups” modelled upon the indaba process of “respectful listening” first employed at the 2008 Lambeth Conference.
The decision plenary for the Covenant began midmorning on May 8. The chairman of the meeting’s resolution committee, Dr Anthony Fitchett of New Zealand, told delegates there had been “mixed views on section 4” from the discernment groups, and the committee had decided to frame the debate on the Covenant around objections to its disciplinary provisions.
Two resolutions, A and B, were offered to the delegates. A called for section 4 to be detached from the covenant and sent to a committee for further study and revision, while B adopted the Ridley draft as presented by the CDG. Debate began with supporters of resolution A asking for further time to study section 4.
The Rev Ian Douglas of the Episcopal Church said the Ridley draft was “immature” and had “too many ambiguities.” He added that it opened the door to churches not part of the ACC to endorse the document. He speculated that if the breakaway Anglican churches in North America signed the Covenant, while the Episcopal Church’s legislative process made it unlikely a final decision could be made in less than six years, this could lead to the “question at ACC-15 about who is the Anglican body” in America?
Delegates from Brazil, Ireland, South Africa and Scotland urged adoption of resolution A, but other delegates were not persuaded by the call for delay. The President Bishop of Jerusalem and the Middle East, Bishop Mouneer Anis stated that without section 4 the “Covenant was no covenant.” The Ridley draft was the “most perfect Covenant we can get,” he argued, while Southeast Asia delegate Stanley Isaacs said the vote on the Covenant was the “defining” moment for the communion, and it would be “disastrous” to remove section 4. Delegates from the Sudan, Tanzania, Iran, Peru, Australia Nigeria, and Central Africa endorsed the “no” vote on resolution A, as did the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Dr Williams told the delegates that he did not see how adopting A “gets us much further along.” He also noted its language was ambiguous. “What would be the remit for redrafting?” he asked, urging the defeat of the resolution. After a break in the proceedings for lunch, the Primate of Australia offered a new resolution, named C, to the meeting that sought to combine portions of A and B. Objections to C were raised, and it was set to one side. Following further debate on A, Dr Williams spoke against A, and a vote was taken by secret ballot which defeated the resolution 17- 47, with one abstention. Debate followed on B, with the chairman of the meeting, Bishop John Paterson of New Zealand stating each clause of the resolution would be put to the vote. After the first two clauses of B passed by near unanimous margins, South African delegate Janet Trisk offered an amendment that sought to incorporate portions of Archbishop Aspinall’s resolution C. The new amendment sought to add the language from the defeated resolution A that would send section 4 to committee for review.
Bishop Paterson stated he would not accept the amendment as its substance had already been rejected by the meeting. Dr Williams then rose on a point of order stating “it did seem to me that the voting on A may very well have been properly influenced by the fact that an alternative form of A is known to be about to be tabled. That I suggested the material of C should be moved as par t B, I suspect that people may have voted with that in view.”
Bishop Paterson reversed himself and set the amendment before the meeting. Prompting Dr Anis to object saying “We have already voted against A, that is deciding to bring in A again, but in a different form.” After one delegate spoke in support of the amendment, it was put to the test and was accepted 34 to 31. Two more votes were held on the remaining clauses of B, but no vote was taken on the amended additions to the resolution.
A tea break was called, but as the delegates streamed out of the room, Bishop Paterson said there was some confusion as to the outcome and proceedings and the subject would be revisited at the 5pm session.
While the delegates gathered in the tea room, a visibly angry Dr Williams met with his advisers for over a half hour on the floor of the deserted conference room. Dr Anis subsequently approached Dr Williams stating his objections to the breach of parliamentary procedure of resubmitting a defeated resolution for consideration. Dr Anis declined to comment on the substance of his conversation with Dr Williams, but confirmed Dr Williams was not pleased with the outcome.
Delegates questioned by the CEN appeared confused by the proceedings. One francophone delegate stated he had voted against A, but as Dr Williams had commended the Trisk amendment, he had switched his vote. A second delegate from Africa told CEN he had understood Dr Williams as not having commended the Trisk amendment but was offering housekeeping advice to the meeting to straighten out a confused situation, while a third delegate whose native tongue is English said he understood the Archbishop to have switched horses, and was now calling for section 4 to be stripped out of the Covenant.
Upon resumption of business at 5pm, Bishop Paterson announced there would be no further vote on the Covenant, as the “legal advice” he had been given stated the matter had been settled. Dr Anis rose to object, saying “Resolution A was defeated, then brought back as a resolution. It is illegal. How can we bring back a defeated clause?” Bishop Paterson responded that the vote on A was “in anticipation that other material will be taken” into consideration, closing debate.
Members of the Episcopal Church’s delegation told the Episcopal News Service they were pleased by the outcome. “We came up with what was clearly a compromise,” Josephine Hicks said. “Not everyone is entirely happy with what we came up with, I feel certain, but that’s what compromise is all about.”
Dr Anis told CEN he was “very disappointed” by the “manipulation” of the proceedings. “It was not right. It was absolutely wrong,” he said. The registrar of the Church of Nigeria, Abraham Yisa, said he was amazed by the proceedings, which were “contrary to all known rules” of parliamentary procedure.
However, Bishop William Godfrey of Peru stated that while Friday’s session had been “a difficult time, a painful time,” and it was sad that we “will have to wait longer” for a covenant, it “could have been worse” as section 4 could have been thrown out entirely rather than sent back for further review. “Everything is in God’s hand,” Bishop Godfrey said “He is in control” and we just have to be patient.
–This article appears in the Church of England Newspaper, May 15, 2009, edition on page 1
[blockquote]The Rev Ian Douglas of the Episcopal Church said the Ridley draft was “immature†and had “too many ambiguities.†He added that it opened the door to churches not part of the ACC to endorse the document. He speculated that if the breakaway Anglican churches in North America signed the Covenant, while the Episcopal Church’s legislative process made it unlikely a final decision could be made in less than six years, this could lead to the “question at ACC-15 about who is the Anglican body†in America?[/blockquote]
He says that like it’s a bad thing. But would he have preferred a hard deadline to clear up those ambiguities, a date by which TEC would either sign on or be jettisoned from the Communion?
There already is a covenant that is both Biblically faithful and Anglican. It is the Lausanne Covenant. The Rev. Dr. John Stott was the chair of the drafting committee although he is not the author of the covenant. He did issue a fine, if lengthy, commentary unpacking of the tightly written covenant. Check them both out at:
Covenant: [url=http://www.lausanne.org/covenant]
Commentary: [url=http://www.lausanne.org/lausanne-1974/lausanne-occasional-paper-3.html]
It doesn’t get any more faithful or Anglican than this!
While you are at it check out the excellent article by Dr. Stott on the Biblical Basis of Evangelism. “‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'” Sound familiar? Dr. Stott discusses “listening” and “respecting” but in their proper context of determining the best way to bring the seeker to Christ, not to be diverted by the prospective convert to some other faith.
[url=http://www.lausanne.org/documents/lau1docs/0065.pdf]
All these articles are 35 years old! Yet, they sound as if they were written during the current crisis. Enjoy!
In the Faith,
Northwest Bob
It is worth reading Pat Ashworth’s [url=http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=75123]Church Times report[/url] to elucidate George Conger’s [url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/22618]CEN report.[/url]
In the CEN report, Ian Douglas is quoted as saying:
[blockquote]the Ridley draft was “immatureâ€[/blockquote]
In the Church Times report, Bishop Gregory Cameron is quoted as saying:
[blockquote]I myself believe that the Ridley Covenant Draft is mature.[/blockquote]
This seems to me to be a deliberate refutation of Ian Douglas’s words.
Commending the Ridley Draft of the Covenant would have allowed the constituents in the Communion of equals, The Primates and their advisors and people, to discern and determine if the draft is mature, immature, is in conformity to the Will and Word of God and could be a vehicle for unity and trust that has been destroyed by TEC and other western provinces and five+ years of manipulation and deception by the ABC.
It is not the rightful place of the ACC (a group of appointees by the ABC biased and contaminated by the presence of those Western Provinces who have offended against Scriptural Traditional Christianity) to make that determination.
With evidence of prior actions, I have found no reason to trust the so-called ‘Instruments of Unity’ or the motives, actions and words of Rowan Williams/Shori who controll these ‘instruments’.
#3 – And where have we heard the name Ian Douglas before? Oh, yes, he is one of the principal “expert witnesses” for TEC in its scortched-earth litigation strategy against the orthodox in the US.
From a 2007 newspaper article:
[blockquote] Ian Douglas, a professor at the Episcopal Divinity School, a seminary in Cambridge, Mass., repeatedly testified that the Anglican Communion is a “family of churches,” and therefore, not divisible into factions. “We”re not a global church,” he said. “It”d be hard to create a division because it presupposes an intact whole.”[/blockquote]
Well, so one of TEC’s delegates at the ACC is not only a driving force in its scorched-earth litigation strategy, but also had a very serious interest in defeating any covenant that would undercut his claim that the communion is not an intact whole.
Well, with TEC representatives like Douglas driving the meeting, is it any wonder the covenant – not to mention the litigation moratorium and Uganda’s participation in the meeting – had to be stopped even at the cost of blowing up the communion?
Graham, do you mean that Bishop Gregory Cameron is really in favour of the Covenant – and so thinks it is a mistake that it was not agreed as it was?…..
George Conger again repeats the claim that it was “only” misfeasance not malfeasance that led Rowan Wiliams to be central in the castrating this last instrument of “unity”. Certainly the intentionality of the early invitations and the indabafication argue that malfeasance accurately describes Rowan’s undermining the Primates’ meeting and Lambeth Council.
This hinges on the observation was “angry” after the vote that Rowan himself was responsible for (if Rowan hadn’t spoken out, there wouldn’t have been a vote on resolution B). But there wasn’t a hint of this “anger” at the press conference – rather we have all is well and in order.
And wasn’t the Covenant Rowan’s baby? Avoiding consequences for the TEClub and kicking the can down the road were more his babies.
Christopher Johnson (www.themcj.com) thinks this is more about preventing ACNA from gaining legitimacy (interfering with lawsuits) and other orthodox dioceses and parishes from signing the Covenant than it is about discipline.
Meanwhile, BabyBlue is reporting a few more lawsuits have been filed.
Why would we have any reason to assume that the Archbishop was angry at the covenant not being passed? I just thought he was probably angry that the secretive efforts to disadvantage the orthodox, take 4 out of the covenant and remove the moratorium on litigation were forced so visibly out into the open. The revelation of such dishonesty and manipulation must be very embarrasing to him.
The real power in the Anglican Communion so-called, the remnant of the group of churches of British colonization and imperialism, is in the hands of the successor of the Brit Empire, the USA & Canada as is clearly evidenced by the power play that out-witted the ABC and all the delegates. Their heirs and assigns controlled the meeting – utilizing the Inadaba cover and then stampeding the resolutions and the Chair’s biased consideration of the state of the voting.
Any one foolish enough to not see the forest is looking neither for trees nor leaves. The ABC was merely “p”owned and “p”layed and can only thank himself if it was not his intention to cripple the Covenant. However, I think it was coming to close to the corridors of power moving away to their proper place in the Global South that allowed him to sacrifice his baby in his crib. He is exposed for the adherent to the ECUSA/tEC/GCC/EO-PAC and the Church of the New Thang Gozpell (c) sycophant that he is. He has ever worked by inaction to so do and when forced to action shew his hand. Crocodile tears are merely to distract the unwary into the jaws of the beast.
And they called his name Ruin Williams.
The covenant is dead, the AC is moribund and not expected to live, and we’re wasting our time. It’s time to move on without TEC.