Channel: Episcopal News Service  Author: Mary Frances Schjonberg

[Episcopal News Service—Kingston, Jamaica] The representatives of the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) decided on May 8 that the Ridley Cambridge Draft of an Anglican covenant needs more work before it can be presented to the communion provinces for adoption.

The resolution says

The ACC:
(a) thanks the Covenant Design Group for their faithfulness and responsiveness in producing the drafts for an Anglican Communion Covenant and, in particular, for the Ridley Cambridge Draft submitted to this meeting;
(b) recognizes that an Anglican Communion Covenant may provide an effective means to strengthen and promote our common life as a communion;
(c) asks the Archbishop of Canterbury, in consultation with the Secretary General, to appoint a small working group to consider and consult with the provinces on Section 4 and its possible revision, and to report to the next meeting of the Joint Standing Committee [about six months from now];
(d) asks the JSC, at that meeting, to approve a final form of Section 4;
(e) asks the Secretary General to send the revised Ridley Cambridge text, at that time, only to the member churches of the Anglican Consultative Council for consideration and decision on acceptance or adoption by them as the Anglican Communion Covenant;
(f) asks those member churches to report to ACC-15 [anticipated in 2012] on the progress made in the processes of response to, and acceptance or adoption of, the Covenant.

The council had originally been asked to send the entire text to the provinces. However, some members were concerned about the practicalities of the processes outlined in Section 4 of the covenant, “Our Covenanted Life Together,” which attempts to provide a method for resolving disputes in the communion. Much of the concern centered on the provision in paragraph 4.1.5 that “it shall be open to other Churches to adopt the Covenant” because it lacks a definition for “other churches.”

The members agreed 33-30 (with two abstentions) to ask for more work on Section 4.
View the original post

Craig:  There seems to be a great deal of confusion about this, with accusations of some dirty dealing by the Western liberals with the cooperation of Rowan Williams.  Mouneer Anis has suggested that there were illegalities going on.  This is very troubling, especially when considered together with the JSC’s earlier overreaching vis a vis the Ugandan delegate.

The end result seems to be that the critical part of the Covenant has been stripped away from the control of the ACC and handed over to the JSC, which no longer has any credibility with the majority of the Anglican Communion, and which is presently dominated by Western liberals.  This is a disaster of the utmost proportions for a united Anglican Communion.

Where was Rowan Williams in the midst of this?  How has he exercised good leadership in all of this?  How is it that at this critical point in the life of the Communion, that one of the most critical decisions made is done so under the cloud of Western liberal trickery and manipulation?  I would have to re-ask my question - is Rowan Williams simply just an ineffectual leader or is he in league with those who are trying to scuttle the Covenant?

aw bollucks!

James,

How is ++Williams supposed to push things through?  He doesn’t have the kind of “power” that people keep wanting him to have.  I guess if you could show where he was derelict of his abilities I’d join in a critique, but I haven’t seen it.

Rowan is definitely not trying to scuttle the Covenant.  It’s his baby.  I am aware of the shenanigans and deeply disappointed with what I saw.  But I think it too soon to determine what the effect of this will be.  I certainly see your points.  But there is a possibility that the timing will work to our favor. I can’t wait to see the dust settle so we can figure out what actually happened and also see how Anis reacts.  If he and Abp Chew lose faith, I think this may be a monumental blunder.  But if they hold, then it can work the other way, giving us time to get more people on board.

I agree with you, Tony.

Tony,

I guess if you could show where he was derelict of his abilities I’d join in a critique, but I haven’t seen it.

I would begin with the lack of an impassioned plea to have the Covenant go forward from the ABC. Drexel Gomez seemed to understand the gravity of the situation quite well when he pleaded for it to be passed on.

I have to watch the game films before I can tell how well or poorly my quarterback did.  I did see him give an impassioned plea earlier in the day.  And we don’t know what happened when he spoke to the lawyers about the parliamentary ploy that Abp Aspinall seemed to pull off.

Tony:  Leadership is not always the exercise of raw power and force.  Sometimes leadership is standing up and saying “This isn’t right.  We, as a Communion, are at a precipice and it is not right that one of the most critical decisions we are about to make be done amidst a cloud of confusion.”  But Rowan said nothing of the sort.  Then afterwards, when it became apparent that procedure had not properly been followed, Rowan could again have spoken up and used his moral authority to insist that the Council be called into to session again, and re-vote on any disputed measures.  But he didn’t.

What we have seen today, is raw, naked, brute force political maneuvering on the part of Western liberals, and Rowan Williams essentially stayed quiet and uttered not a word in protest.  Obviously Rowan Williams is not an all powerful figure - but he does have one important tool at his disposal - his moral authority.  And today was the day when he needed to stand up and use it, and he didn’t do it.

[Craig - I am, of course, open to evidence that Rowan Williams tried to sway the outcome to a different result, but all the evidence I have read so far suggests he was complicit.]

James,

I will concede that my team lost in the last few seconds of the game, and also that I have lots of questions about my QB that I will take with me when I review the game film.  This was not his shining hour.

Craig - and if *you* (perhaps one of his biggest boosters) have questions about Rowan Williams behavior today, then just think how completely his credibility is shot with the rest of the Communion! 

Seems more like Lucy and Charlie brown with the football than a proper game. 

Well, now we get to see what the JCS will do with it.

I know James.  I have made that same comment to some of the other Covenant authors. That’s why I am a bit worried, especially about John Chew, Mouneer Anis, and others like them.  But like I said, we aren’t really sure what actually happened, so it is too soon to surrender.

I think that Aspinall and TEC 815 have a legitimate concern.  The problem with section four is the possibility that ACNA gets in the door, thus complicating all sorts of struggles for them.  We can understand why they might be passionate about closing that loophole.  And perhaps also preventing CP bishops from having room to run.

I didn’t think it was possible for me to become *more* cynical about the JSC, but there you have it. They have maneuvered to completely gut the convenant in nine months, after the covenant committee took years and several drafts to write it.

The liberals may think they have dodged a bullet (more like staged a coup) but if Anis, Chew etc feel that they’ve been had, this result will make the Communion situation much, much worse. Things may blow up if ABC does not do *something* to fix this - whatever he can do. (He should take a cue from KJS and the JSC and just do something whether he’s authorized to or not).

This is disappointing but not surprising.  David Virtue has been reporting on the pecusa lobbying.