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.<\/p>\n
However the defeat appears self-inflicted, as Dr Rowan Williams\u2019 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 \u201d\u201d- a process ACC secretary general Canon Kenneth Kearon said could take up to a year.<\/p>\n
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\u2019 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.<\/p>\n
\u201cAll of the Archbishop of Canterbury\u2019s contributions were positive\u201d\u009d 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 \u201csatanic\u201d\u009d 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.<\/p>\n
Dr Williams had been a \u201cvery weak leader,\u201d\u009d Bishop Nwosu observed. \u201cOf course we pray for him, but couldn\u2019t he be courageous for once?\u201d\u009d 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 \u201cis close to the point of breaking up,\u201d\u009d<\/p>\n
Archbishop Gomez said. After the discussion plenary, the delegates broke apart into \u201cdiscernment groups\u201d\u009d modelled upon the indaba process of \u201crespectful listening\u201d\u009d first employed at the 2008 Lambeth Conference.<\/p>\n
The decision plenary for the Covenant began midmorning on May 8. The chairman of the meeting\u2019s resolution committee, Dr Anthony Fitchett of New Zealand, told delegates there had been \u201cmixed views on section 4\u201d\u009d from the discernment groups, and the committee had decided to frame the debate on the Covenant around objections to its disciplinary provisions.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
The Rev Ian Douglas of the Episcopal Church said the Ridley draft was \u201cimmature\u201d\u009d and had \u201ctoo many ambiguities.\u201d\u009d 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\u2019s legislative process made it unlikely a final decision could be made in less than six years, this could lead to the \u201cquestion at ACC-15 about who is the Anglican body\u201d\u009d in America?<\/p>\n
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 \u201cCovenant was no covenant.\u201d\u009d The Ridley draft was the \u201cmost perfect Covenant we can get,\u201d\u009d he argued, while Southeast Asia delegate Stanley Isaacs said the vote on the Covenant was the \u201cdefining\u201d\u009d moment for the communion, and it would be \u201cdisastrous\u201d\u009d to remove section 4. Delegates from the Sudan, Tanzania, Iran, Peru, Australia Nigeria, and Central Africa endorsed the \u201cno\u201d\u009d vote on resolution A, as did the Archbishop of Canterbury.<\/p>\n
Dr Williams told the delegates that he did not see how adopting A \u201cgets us much further along.\u201d\u009d He also noted its language was ambiguous. \u201cWhat would be the remit for redrafting?\u201d\u009d 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\u2019s resolution C. The new amendment sought to add the language from the defeated resolution A that would send section 4 to committee for review.<\/p>\n
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 \u201cit 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.\u201d\u009d<\/p>\n
Bishop Paterson reversed himself and set the amendment before the meeting. Prompting Dr Anis to object saying \u201cWe have already voted against A, that is deciding to bring in A again, but in a different form.\u201d\u009d 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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Upon resumption of business at 5pm, Bishop Paterson announced there would be no further vote on the Covenant, as the \u201clegal advice\u201d\u009d he had been given stated the matter had been settled. Dr Anis rose to object, saying \u201cResolution A was defeated, then brought back as a resolution. It is illegal. How can we bring back a defeated clause?\u201d\u009d Bishop Paterson responded that the vote on A was \u201cin anticipation that other material will be taken\u201d\u009d into consideration, closing debate.<\/p>\n
Members of the Episcopal Church\u2019s delegation told the Episcopal News Service they were pleased by the outcome. \u201cWe came up with what was clearly a compromise,\u201d\u009d Josephine Hicks said. \u201cNot everyone is entirely happy with what we came up with, I feel certain, but that\u2019s what compromise is all about.\u201d\u009d<\/p>\n
Dr Anis told CEN he was \u201cvery disappointed\u201d\u009d by the \u201cmanipulation\u201d\u009d of the proceedings. \u201cIt was not right. It was absolutely wrong,\u201d\u009d he said. The registrar of the Church of Nigeria, Abraham Yisa, said he was amazed by the proceedings, which were \u201ccontrary to all known rules\u201d\u009d of parliamentary procedure.<\/p>\n
However, Bishop William Godfrey of Peru stated that while Friday\u2019s session had been \u201ca difficult time, a painful time,\u201d\u009d and it was sad that we \u201cwill have to wait longer\u201d\u009d for a covenant, it \u201ccould have been worse\u201d\u009d as section 4 could have been thrown out entirely rather than sent back for further review. \u201cEverything is in God\u2019s hand,\u201d\u009d Bishop Godfrey said \u201cHe is in control\u201d\u009d and we just have to be patient.<\/p>\n
–This article appears in the Church of England Newspaper, May 15, 2009, edition on page 1<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
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…<\/span><\/p>\n