A member of the drafting committee sat in each small group session and was tasked with reporting the sessions view’s to the committee. Dr. [Mouneer] Anis stated that all but one of the small groups “were supportive” of the Covenant, but the drafting committee imposed its contrary interpretation upon the meeting.
The slick parliamentary tricks used by opponents of the Covenant discouraged many delegates from the developing world, he said. Reintroducing a motion that had sought to delay the Covenant, after it had been defeated by a vote was a “shock.” “Many of our African and Asian brothers and sisters were confused by this especially after they rejoiced when resolution A was rejected. Then I objected and requested a legal advice in this matter but the chairman decided not to deal with my request.”
In the midst of this “defeat”, Dr. Anis said there remained “a great opportunity to turn around the whole situation. We can do this if we, as dioceses and Provinces, started to discuss, make comments and adopt the Covenant without any further delay.”
The Primate of Uganda, Archbishop Henry Orombi””a member of the Primates Standing Committee, but absent from the meeting””concurred.
Astonishing. Aspinall was the one who, in concert with the chair, made a major move to confuse the meeting and succeeded in delaying the Covenant. A “happy, healing time” indeed.
Perspective is everything…. It is a “happy, healing time” with “honesty, opennes and vulnerability” when one gets one’s desired outcome. A statement like that, though, presupposes near-total unanimity about that analysis and +Anis’ statement clearly indicates no such unanimity about healing, honesty, openness, etc. was achieved..
There is a cancer in the body and it requires a major dose of chemo’. Without the chemo’, the body will no longer be viable. It is just a matter of time.
Did anyone actually think that summit was a success? The varying reports I read ranged from “complete waste of time” to “chaotic pandemonium.”
The slick parliamentary tricks used by opponents of the Covenant discouraged many delegates from the developing world, he said. Reintroducing a motion that had sought to delay the Covenant, after it had been defeated by a vote was a “shock.†“Many of our African and Asian brothers and sisters were confused by this especially after they rejoiced when resolution A was rejected. Then I objected and requested a legal advice in this matter but the chairman decided not to deal with my request.â€
This excuse is getting old. If this is a continuing problem, then why not educate the African and Asian brothers on how things work. They managed to push Lambeth 1.10 through without a problem. Has something changed since then?
[blockquote] We can do this if we, as dioceses and Provinces, started to discuss, make comments and adopt the Covenant without any further delay.
[/blockquote]
OK, Charlie Brown, this time I really won’t pull the ball away.
[blockquote] This excuse is getting old. If this is a continuing problem, then why not educate the African and Asian brothers on how things work. They managed to push Lambeth 1.10 through without a problem. Has something changed since then? [/blockquote]
Yes, something has changed. With Lambeth 1.10, the powers that be realized that if you have open and fair proceedings the conservatives will win the day. So the liberals resort to manipulations and deception. No more traditional parliamentary styled meetings, just indaba and intrigue.
Brian at T19 you forget that a majority of the Episcopal Bishops at Lambeth 1998 voted in favor of resolution 1.10—-it was not pushed through by the Global South but was the overwhelming mind of the conference.
and BrianT19…..pls note that even without most of the GS at Lambeth 2008, Lambeth 1.10 has not been overturned…..could that be because only a small minority in the AC thinks it is wrong in saying certain things are incompatible with scripture?