Stand Firm

Hi all.
The meeting should be starting in about 5-10 min.
I hope this is helpful.
****
9:47 (Jamaica is one hour behind the East Coast)- The delegates are gathering in the room. Canon Kearon and Bishop Patterson of New Zealand is on the podium and making general announcements. Microphones have been put around the room for the delegates to come and speak at if they want to.

This session will go to about 10:30 then there will be a break and then will be the second session.
Patterson: John Reese, legal advisor is addressing the delegates.
John Reese:“You’ve all seen the pink forms that describe the delegates that are up for election. Pink voting forms will be now distributed to all of the delegates. The voters are all the members of the ACC but the observers will not be able to vote…what you’re being asked to do is rank the delegates in the order that you would like them to be appointed. You put the number 1 next to the person you would most like to see apointed, the number two by the person you would like next to be appointed and so on. I want yo uto think hard about how your going to vote, who youre going to vote fore and how you will rank them. And I’d like you to pray for how your going to rank them. Once you’ve thought and prayed, we’ll take the ballots up and feed them into the computer.
***

Ian Douglas of TEC: Do you need you need to rank all of the delegates or can yo ujust vote for one candadate?

Reese: Yes you can do that. Just make sure you put a number 1 by that delegate and just leave the rest of them blank.
***

John Reese, legal advisor, is now praying for the delegates. Please pray for the delegates and the decisions they will be making.

***
FYI: the voting that is taking place now is for who will be the next chair of ACC, vice chair, and who will represent the ACC on the JSC.

Canon Sugden has this comment to add to the live blog, he is sitting right next to me: The question whether people need to complete all the four is designed to disadvantage people, so that if a candidate is knocked out, there are no votes from them to help anyone else. It is those transferred votes that are important for the process - which is called the single transferrable vote.
***

The media that is here is David Virtue, George Conger, Schonenberg and Davies of ENS, Colin Coward, and an Anglican Journal Rep.
John Patterson, ACC Chair: “We’re now going to address more important matters. Know that the press is here and that this is an open meeting. we will first vote on the WCG report…it is possible that many will want to speak on these mattters but contraty to many cultures, we will have to putr a time limit of 3 minutes on all speakers. a yellow card will be raised when you have 1 minute. then you will be “red carded” when you have no more time…the last thing to say is that there is a voice and vote for all members of the acc including the members of the primates standing committee”

***
Chair of Resolutions committee, tony pritcher from New Zealand: “I’d liek to say something about the process for the reslutions. We met last night and considered the draft resolutions that were in front of you, plus the written discussion of the discernment groups…

RESOLUTION A: STATUS OF SECTIONS 4 of the RCD: resolves that Section 4 of the Ridley Cambridge Draft be detached from the Ridley Covenant Draft for further consideration and work…asks the ABC, in consultation with the Secretary General, to appoint a small working group to consider and consult with Provinces on Section 4 and its possible revision and to report to the next meeting of the JSC…c) resolves that the reconsidered Section 4 may at the request of the JSC be offered for adoption as an addendum to the Covenant text
***
Sorry folks - more on that in a sec…their going to deal with the wcg report resolution first…here is the wording of that resolution. ... Sugden is typeing that for us now.

***
Here is the wording of the WCG Resolution:
a) thanks the ABC for his report on the work and recommendations of the WCG
b) notes the recommendations of the WCG
c) affirms the request of the WR (2004) adopted at the Primates’ Meetings (2005, 2007, 2009) and supported at the Lambeth Conferenc (2008) for the implementation of the agred moratoria on the Consecration of Bishops living in a same gender union, authorisation of public Rites of Blessing for Same Sex Unions and continued interventions in other Province
d) acknowledges the efforts that have been made to hold to the moratoria, gives thanks for the gracious restraint that has been observed in these areas and recognises the deep cost of such restraint
e) asks that urgent conversations are facilitated with those Provinces where the application of the moratoria gives rise for concern
f) encourages the ABC to worth with the JSC and the SG to carry forward the implementation of the WCG report recommendations as appropriate
g) asks the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order to unertake a study of the role and responsibilities in the Communion of the ABCm, the Lambeth Conference, the ACC and the Primates’ Meeting; the ecclesiological rationale of each, and the relationshps between them, in line with the WCG report, and to report back to ACC-15
h) calls the Communion to pray for repentance, conversion and renewal; leading to deeper communion

***
Bishop Godfrey of southern cone: “given the important nature of these resoultions and the formate in whcih we are re eiving them, i would be grateful for a little time…i ask that we begin that would so we could have more time. “
Bishop Hill of England: “When will the work start on section g? the content of that work will have been changed once it comes back from the Provinces…
Kearon: “that committeed hasn’t met yet and will come back to us in december.
Patterson: “I hope there is not much time needed to consider clause A.” there going to vote on just clause a first….There is a question about should the delegates put a number or a letter as to whether or not they approve the first clause. Camergon steps us to tell them that delegates must put a number next to the clause.“at the end of clause b…there may be an amendment to clase be..in that case the vote would be about the amendment and not the original clause…that is why we want you to number each caluse..” there seems to be confusion in the room about this process already.
***

Ok, despite the confusion, people are staring to vote and the votes are being taken up. Its 10:18 here. Thye are just voteing on clasu a of tghe wcg resolution that i’ve posted above. ...
they are now voteing on clause “B”..
***
here is the wording on the the covenant resolution:

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) recognises that an Anglican Communion Covenant may provide an effective means to strengthen and promote our common life as a Communion
c) asks the Secretary General to send the Ridley Cambridge Draft, at this time, only to member Churches of the ACC for consideration and decision on acceptance or adoption by them
d) asks those member Churches to report to the ACC-15 on the progress made in the processes of response to, and acceptance or adoption of, the Covenant

NOTE THE ADDITIONAL RESOLUTION TO CONCERNING SECTION 4 POSTED ABOVE.
***
Back to the game. Josephine Hicks of tec has gotten up to support the original language of the WCG resolution as given to the acc. There has been and amendment proposed to sectoiin b
of the wcg ressolution. If passed it would change the woding to say b: AFFIRMS the recommendations of the wcg. (Hicks didnt want it to say that. they are voteing on this amendment now)
***
10:24 They are still voting on the amendment to section b that would add the word AFFIRMS.
Patterson, the chair, just told us that section A of the wcg report passed overwhelmingly.
Patterson is now asking if there are any speakers to section c of the wcg.
Hicks comes back up and ++Mouneer Anis comes up to another.
Hicks: “I oppose seciong c of this resolution. I understand that the stated reason for cross bounday incursions that we have SUFFERED in our province was thte consecretion of vgr. the fact is, incursions began atleast as early as 2000, three years berfore that consecration. incurstion have continuted unabated ever since, even though the EPISCOAPL CHURCAH has complied with all the moratoria…so these last 9 hyears have persuated me that those who engatgegd in cross border activitiey regardless of waht the church does, what the primates say, what lambeth says, and regarless of what the acc does. its time to move on..its time to move beyond the moratoria and to allwo tec, the us. acofc and other to be true to thmeselves…to be ture to theri members…and to allow everyone in therei churches to participate fully in the life of their church…i urege youto reject c.

Mouneer: In paragraph c…b/c its mentioned the primteats meeting in 07-09 and 04..i thin kit would be appropriate to add the moratoria of stopping litigation b/c its meeting as three moratoria in the wcg reccommendations but they do not mention t he fourth moratoria…this is an addition..
Patterson: are there 10 people supporting such and amendment.
YES there is .
***
Tony Pritcher: I don’t think that’s in there b/c all the bodies didnt vote on the 4 moratoria.
Bishop Godfrey gets up: ” i share the concern about the cross border interventions. but when good and goldy men decide to settle on that, we must ask why they do that. I believe if we ignore the question of litigation and the moratoria on litigation, then we’re simply postponing one of the ills in the ac. We must address this..the matter of litiagation should be icluded in the moratoria…when bruno in the dio of la took part in the marriage of two priest in his dio…the moratoria are NOT BEING KEPT. the ac and acc must look at this and ask how best it can be dealt with…not just ignore…we must face the real issues that are endagering our communion and find ways of addressingn them and dealing with them. I support the proposed amendment of mouner…

JEFFERTS SCHORI: “thank you I would urge you to vote against this amendment. the reality is that those tha tremove protperty from tec have doen so without dialogue…the archibhosp of sudan, hararere, and brazil have had to go to court in order to get their property abck…the current bishop of jeruslaem has had to go to court to defend his property…when ...are unwilling to discuss those matters…church leaders have a morale and fidicuariy responsibility to protect those assest..

Ina douglas: “i want to speak more to the process rather than the specific…we as a communion have been working with the three omratoria sine the windsor report came out…my worry is about moratoria kreep..is it possible that at any time that one of the instruments of unity…feel the need to add a moratoria…feels that suddently another moratoria must be added to the list…if so…we could add another moratoria at our next moria…im concerned that adding another moratoria at the process in this stae will increase the chaos in the communion…

Bary MOrgan of Wales…supports kjs….i vote against this amendments (didnt get all that)

Stanley Issacs: We as a church should not be afraid of mratoria…moroatia talk of restraint…any restrait that advances the unity of the church to the use of the gospel shouls not bd hard to accept..the restraining is to the good of the church..on the point of order…the resolution committed chari talked about the difficulty of bringing this 4 moratoria in, i say this is a plenary session and we are entitled to speak about anything…we are competant to change this in any way that we think best…thank yo uvery much.

Susan Lawson, Canada: i’m a little worried about congregationlism creep, we must look at the biggest area possible…i urge you to voted against this amend..
Marshall of Middle east: I want to clarify that the property dispute in jerusalem was not realated to this but it was of a personal nature.
Sudan: the archibhsop of sudan did not go to claim the cathedral…it was a house…ssecondly…im supprotin the amendment..
Maurice Elliot, Ireland: I support the amendment b/c its a balanced amendment. In that contex…i think the 4 moratorium is makeing space for more listening.
Patterson: I’m getting ready to ask us to vote on the amendment.
OK THEIR VOTEING ON THE AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY MOUNEER…THE ONE TO ADD THE FOURTH MORATORIA.
***

10:41 here is the wording of the proposed amendment made by mouneer: And the request for a fourth moratorium added by the Primates in 2007, asking for the cessation of litigation
***
The delegates are casting their votes…
Patterson: Resulsts on question 2..the word affirm has been added to section 2..
vote was 36-29 with one abstention.
This vote is a major victory for the conservatives and will show the way further votes will go…hopefully
***
Patterson, the chair,: are there any speakers to clause C?
....nobody stood up so we are just waiting on the vote on the 4 moratoria amendment.
***
Ok ITS HALF TIME HERE…THE DELEGATES ARE GOING ON A COFFEE BREAK. (++Gomez just came up and told us he’s happy with this so far)
Here is the first half highlights.

Really its just the moves on the moratorium. ++Anis got up to add the 4th moratorium in to the wcg recommendations.
Douglas, Schori, and Morgan opposed and Schori had some “facts” that she brought to the table. At least two speakers rose to confute the account of the Presiding Bishop about the alienation of property. In Jerusalem it was an entirely personal matter according to Bishop Azad Marshall, and in Sudan it was a case that a deposed bishop had sold his house.
We are awaiting the results of that vote.

Also, the word AFFIRM, has been added to section b (see above) of the wcg report (its officially known as the Windsor Continuation Decision Process) . That hurts tec as hicks stood up against it. It basically, at first glance, just puts some more teeth in this thing. I like teeth.
***
11:10 - Still half-time…
***

“Couple pieceso f information. we’re moving slower than I imagined…if we haven’t completed this business by lunch time…I will make a reccomendation as to that..its been brought to our attention that we need to do our business properly. Only put a tick in the box FOR or AGAINST. don’t put anything else in the box…for those who are speaking at the microphone, please speak clearly as english isnt the first languatge of many of the delegates:
Patterson: “first question three, wheich was the amendment was to insert the fourth moratoria….32 for - 33 against…MOUNEER’S AMENDMENT LOST

Patterson: “lets now go on to clause c…are there any further speakers to clause c…if not then we shall put it to a vote.”
Patterson: here is the wording” ACC affirms request of Windsor Reoport…for the implementation of the agreeed moratoria….(just three now mind you)...that’s question 5 on amendment c…for or against.”

Editors note: Christopher Sugden: “The ACC is split down the middle on the matter of the fourth moratorium.”
***

they are now voteing on Clause C as it. That means the wording above is what they are voteing to approve. The amendment on the fourth moratoria failed by 1.
Patterson: Now moving on to clause D…are there any speakers to clause D? If not, then we shall move to vote.

11:21: they are collecting the votes on clause D. The one that talks about gracious restraint being observed.
Patterson: Move now to consideration of clause E…clause E asks that urgent conversations are facilitated with those provinces where the application of the moratoria gives rise for concern.
Godfrey of S. Cone: Mr. Chairman…I return to the question of getting to the roots of what’s troubling the omcmunion. To my knowledge…many of the cross provincial interventions are to do with thte perceived treatment of the individuals in Nl America…until they feel that justice has been done…those interventions won’t stop…the presiding bishop of TEC has assured me that she will support a listening process in which we will hear the voices of those that feel this way…we have to listen to these people and they have to feel that justice has been done…so with the support of kjs….i propose that there be a listening process for those in N. America…

Frichert of New Zealand: Point of order, i do not believe this clause refers to litigation b/c vote 5 did not insert litigation into the moratoriaum…this clause has to do with the three moratoria…but not litigation…

Godfrey: I’m not asking for a ban on litigation, i’m asking for us to hear the reasons for those that are intervening. We can throw it out on a point of order but this is still hurting our church…we have to address that…we can’t get rid of it…i read the english here..it says that urgent conversations are facilitated…

ABC STANDS UP: thank you chair..simply to say that we have now affirmed the reccomendations of the report…included in those is how we engatge in those conversations…the pastoral visitors and pastoral is support that so i dont support this amendment.

Roskam: im always for conversation but theres a conversation that hasnt take place…those from the reconstituted dioceses in tec…their voices need to take place.
Chair: Bishop Godfrey has just withdrawn his amendment. ..if there are no further speakers…can i ask if you are willing to take this vote on a show of hands?
***

Patterson, chair: “Let us now turn to question seven, letter f of the wcg resolution.”
Results of question 5: Clause c 52 in favour 12 against - passes.
Clause d 60 against 4 against 2 abstentions - passes

***
For those keeping score at home, don’t forget that the real discussion on the covenant is coming in.

Clause f. Maurice Elliott to speak. Clarification about the clause: notes the close amendment on issue of litigation. Not everyone has English as first language. Was litigation a problematical word. Somewhere in the totality of what ABC given assurance would that include involvement of those suffering from lawsuits.

They are now voting on clause F…the one that says abc should actually do what the wcg says.
***

11:35 (remember i’m one hour behind east coast…)
Chair: We now move to clause G…
Frichert: Resolution Committee - the word “the” should be entered after “asks”...(it was just a typo)

Note from Christopher Sugden: Clause g- Further study of the bureaucracy. There is a very good report on this by Colin Podmore on the Church of England website that was produced as the result of a General Synod vote.

Chair: We now move to clause H…are there any speakers on clause H? ...then we move to vote on clause H as it stands…

***
11:39: Thus far the discussion has been on the one side a plea for listening to and understanding hurting people and on the other pleading the ownership of property by dioceses ( Jefferts-Shori and Morgan) and point of order niceties (by Fritchett). So far no African delegate has spoken in the debate apart from the Bishop of Khartoum to correct a claim by Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori.

Announcement of new Chair by John Rees is coming.
Bishop Tengatenga is chair.
Runner up was Elizabeth Paver.
***

Delegates are taking a 2 minute break. People are going up to tengatenga and giving congrats.
***

11:46: Chair: In relation to question nine, clause g - 65 for - 1 against..its been suggested to me that once we have the vote of clause H, we should put on the screen the whole thing so we can see it.
Clause H…65 for-One against…

Josephine Hicks: point of order…why should we vote on the whole thing since we just voted on all of the parts?
Chair: It seems like there is some dissent so maybe wwe should just move on. (I DON’T KNOW WHY HE JUST DID THAT…just cause some people didnt want to vote again doesnt mean you shouldn’t)
****

Rules man, Fritchert: We think the section about dropping part four should be decided first…then we should vote on the whole text..whatever it may be…
OK WE’RE MOVING ON TO THE COVENANT VOTE AND DISCUSSION ...Start praying harder…
***
Frichert: When the commitee comsidered the feedback on the coveannt motion there was signfiicant differences within and between some discernment groups. What we propose is that the question part 4 should be included in the text to go to the provinces should be decided first, and then the rest of the motion can be decided in the knowledge that the text is the whole text or is 1, 2 and 3. Attempt to separate out a key decision - resolution a is a mechanism for making that decision. The resolution is that section 4 be detached for separate feedback and work. Some wanted it discarded. Clear decision needs to be made. ( But this is not a clear decision - it is for further debate and delay)

Chair: I think we should spend a few minutes considering it before we begin…“Because of the newness of the material we spend time considering it. You may wish to discuss it quietly at your tables”
***
most of the delegates are being quiet..
***
In fact, there is actually little discussion…just a low mur-mur..ABC hasn’t said a word at his group…I wonder what’s going through his mind..

No one seems to be talking. Chair has not allowed such a break prior to this. There has been pressure of time with possible extension of time for the debate so why the length of silence now? ABC is not talking, AB Mouneer is not talking.
***

NOON: (high noon if you’d like)
Chair: We will consider part A as a whole…are there any speakers? (oh yeah…lots of em)
here we go….

Makoba: I send to you support of clause A as it stands b/c of the principal of consultation..i feel that sections 123 ...that the process was not a top down process..i feel that section 4 needs to be sent back to our provinces..we can make input..and incoporate that later…i know we need to move on…but it would be a great pity to leave in section four…(South Africa supports clause a because of the principle of consultation. 1-3 have been adequately dealt with. People thought all of us werfe consulted. Section 4 needs to be sent back so we can look at it and make some input and incorporate it later)

Ian Douglas: I appreciate the faithfulness of the cdg…the way they have listened and incoporated and lived in to the comments is nothing but exemplary…i want to begin by afirming the work of the cdg…i’m not in principal against section 4 at this time…i’m concerned that it hasn’t gone through the full process of consideration…i don’t think section four is even in adoleecents yet..the problem for me..is that currently there are to o mway ambiguities…what is the nature of “church”...without a fuller process defining chuch…this leads me to worry…that there are extra ecclesial entities that claim to be anglican that will purport to adopt that covenant…i suspect that it might be a question to acc 15 as to who is the real anglican entitty in the US>...if we want to avoid such chaos..i ask you consider this so section 4 can be fully mature so we know who is the real anglican church in the us.

Kondo, sudan: I want to add my voice and thank the cdg…it seems to me section 4 is the most important…to accept this resolution is to mean we will debate this issue again and again…

Anis: without section 4..we can not call the covenant a covenant..it is section 4 that makes the whole covenant a covenant…the crisis we are going through now is because of the absolute autonomy that this covenant with 123 and 4 affirms the interdependence…we are a communion with autonomy…i would appeal that you would vote against this b/c 1. if we accept this we will lose a great chance to be united…i assure you that there are churches that affirm the whole covenant…and the communion will be divided…if we don’t approve 1234 together…if we wait 10 years we will never get a perfect covenant…the cdg has worked for 3 years very hard..they have broght us a good covenant…we can not undermine the work of the cdg…section 4 is from lambeth and the responses of the diocese/provinces…all that has been done is the commentary has been brought in..its not truet that it hasn’t received any study…it is the outcome of a lot of study…

SE Asia, Stanley Isaac. I want to say that this resolution a should be rejected because it would be disastrous to send to the provinces the text of the covenant without 4 because it would mean nothing for all the rest of us who have been waiting for this document to find a ray of hope for a problem that has divided the communion and embarrassed the churches. This is a defining moment for the communion, We grab it or we dont. It would be a way of united the communion once again in the bond of Christ and truly regard ourselves as one body. That will be a unity only in the past if we do not pass section 4…We have not been taken by surpruse by section 4. I want to express the appreciation of my province we feel disappointed that the concerns to tighten up the appendix, was watered down. We think it is a weak provision of measure for achieving a soluton to the problem. Allow this full text to go forward..

Mwita from Tanzania. Anglicans like endless talking. We had a draft resolution from the JSC for the discernment groups, If you compare this with ACC 13, we have seen the tension among ouselfes reduced. We now have resolutions that has not come through the process…english is not my first language…when i read this..im hear to oppose resolution a..it says “detached” and “possible revision”..ahh..I think at the end of the day if we include this then we won’t have ...say to the provinces…you have a choice..sign up or don’t sign up..Tanzania has not been participating in this current mess.No one is forced to sign up. Tanzania has not been activly participating in this current mess. Those in the forefront of this war and those preventing the instruments doing their work

Mwaluda. Oppose this section. When I look at 1-3 it is declaring what we have been all along. Section 4 brings in a sense of accountability and commitment. I participated in the other conferences we have held. It is not a rope to hang people. There is interdependence and accountability. Section 4 is the one which makes the covenant. The whole covenant helps us step forward. Accept the whole lot so we can take a step forward. Please oppose the section given to us

ABC: I’m not persuaded that I can support this resolution as it stands..I’m not sure that remitting this will get us forward..i apprecite the points that have been made so far and that provinces may not feel able to sign up if section 4 is in there…I’m not persuaded to agree to this resolution..

Azad: This is the only section that brings accountability…our churches in the Middle east..are partners who are watching…please reject this resolution…thank you…

Daniel, Central Africa: I think those who have drafted…the issue here in my view is that there ..we are now moving towards directly or indirectly adopting this..I’ve come here with the clear mandate..Mr. Chairman and acc, this is a opportunity to be loking at the unity and working together that we have come from..at acc 13, there was a resolution that was taken which I would refer to..concerning what we just asked…there is a contradiction ...where it says that (hard to hear)....it moves on to say…Mr. Chairman…I think my province would have the WHOLE document be sent to the province…then we can come back to acc 15 if you like.

12:22: Ireland. Regrettable we cannot debate 1-3. Regrettable section 4 be detached. My understanding is that coveannt is about hearing each other before we act. Process been good so far. We are not now following the process due to the timing of this meeting. We should have a further consideration of 4 before voting on the whole (IN FAVOR OF RESOLUTION A TO DROP SECTION 4)

West Indies: begin by apreciating cdg’s work..I believe when we look at the into to the cdg’s paper, paragraph 4 is treated in a way that suggests to us that much thought and effort were taken into account by the cdg and section 4 is the result..as we see..the covenant is a covenant as a whole..Resolution A should really be about the covenant…I think that Section 4 remains…i therefore do not support the resolution..there are a number of provinces that would consider the covenant a very useful and sincere effort at helping us appreciate our independance..those provincese ought not be denied the opportunity to consider the covenant as a whole..i suggest that in seeking to emphasize autonomy…we don’t form more division…then we would deny provinces that want section 4 from seeing it..if the covenant is sent to the provinces as is, then they all get a chance to see it.

Hicks USA heard during the discernment groups clearly that for many provinces there needs to be a section 4. This resolution strikes the appropriate compromise. Section 4 contains a number of serious ambiguities that need careful reflection,: This resolution strikes the balance. We should not fear and think we have to take decision today. We are all here. Every province is here. We have worshiipped together and study scripture together every morniong. We get energised by misison of the networks and the ecumenical dialogues. We can stay toegether and move forward as section 4 has the consideration and input from all the provinces.

Frichert (not acting as rules man): I would like to deleted entire sections of section four..in the 1980’s there was a debate on women’s ordanation but provinces waited and defered to the Instruments of Unity…since then the AC has said it was up to each province…since then we have had states of broken communion with my province and others because we have a woman bishop…b/c of this i felt that some parts of the appendix and section four should be left out..the important part is seciton three..which sets out how we make decisions and how we talk to each other..I think we should stick with the committment. But, acknowledge that there is a wide variety of view, sending this back is the responsible..I am in favor of resolution A.

Godfrey: Godfrey, In favour of a covenant in the communion. Important we agree together. A way we can be accountable. I support verty sgtrongly the concept of a covenant. AC cannot go on resolving its differences in the way it has. Look for a way in the future is going to serve us…I believe the covenant provides us a way forward…section 4 is not a first draft..it is the reaction and response from throughout the communion..among them the lambeth conf. primates and so on…sec 4 is the best attempt we have at this date…the question before us is whether we should go along with resolution a or resolution b..we can still send this to the provinces to accept or reject and yet still pass sec. 4..I believe the right way to go is through resolution b and not A.

Bishop Nwoso, Nigeria: I believe having heard form various peop that we have the desire to continue in the ac. The covenant before us is a very fair and honest attempt to help us pull ourselves together despite our various differences…the resolutoin A , i appreciate those that want to keep this…but I think wee need to listen to the spirit..what we are afraid of in section A is covered in res. b section C…I think we should have made up our minds on how to continue. I am pleading with this house…please lets forge ahead…strike res. a.

Brazil. I come from a province found it difficult to consider the need for the covenant. I agree with those who think that 1-3 are not enough to form a full version of a covenant. I appreciate those saying do not wait much longer. Express the need for section 4 to follow the same procedures as 1-3…

Fordham, australia: I’m not convinced of the desirability of removing section 4..we are not in an academic exercise..we are in a time of turmoil…if we detach sec 4 and it is not returned and there is not committment for its return..we dont have a covenant…the reality is that we need the processes set out in section four…I have some sympathy that those who have stated is that the amount of process is not the same as it in sec 3..but that not in front of us..The process of 6 months to put it in is not what is in front of us. JSC has to decide whether it would incorporate it or not. I think a resolution could be added to make section four available for review for six months but is tha twhat were seeking?

Ireland: I want to support res A but have a small amendment to it…I was at ACC 13 and want to thank the organizers fo rthe chance to speak about these things. Its clear that provinces are reacting in different ways to the covenant..speakers have talked about us being in a moment in time that we need to sieze…i want to ensure that when the covenant goes out, it has the best chance to be adopted..i want to allow further consultation on section 4…I also feel that we need the guarntee of dispute resolution…i suggest that in paragraph c…that now is open ended…i would like to strengthen that by deleting the word “may” so that the JSC, after the provinces send their take on sec 4, will send it on no matter what…

**
Ireland wants an amendment…ABC supported it..it just had enough to become an amendment (10)
Chair: Are there any speakers to the amendment…?

Aspinal: The key issue is whether we want more work on section 4…the problem with A is that it is destined to cause a huge mess…some will and some won’t adopt section 4…then, if an adendum goes out…some may or may not sign it..then will have two forms of the covenant…I thin kthat’s a disaster…(Aspinall puts forward another amendment…What is happening is that there is a realisation that a might be lost. So there is a scrabbling for amendments that incorporate some aspects in to b)

Stanley Isaccs: Wants to stop with the resolutions amendments and just go ahead and vote on A.

New Zealeand: We don’t oppose section 4 but we wan’t a chance to debate it and discuss it…Our province needs to have some sort of opportunity to feed back on sec. four so I support the amendment (thats the amendment to A - it looks like TEC knows they will lose on Res A so this is their back-up plan…de-claw section 4…Sugden says: So if A is lost, there will probably be an amendment to B. Lunchtime is coming. I suspect they will vote down A before lunch and then come with Amendment to B in the next session)

Mouneer: I think we need to realize that our name is the Anglican Consultative Council…we are not a synod…everything that was requested was to be sent as a whole to the provinces to say…

Lawson, Canada: I think we should referr this to the resolution committee
Chair: we are dealing with the amendment…

Ireland: Clarifies the amendment and they are getting in to the details of removing the word “may”. People are confused…

Chair: I think we should vote on it.
Ian Douglas: point of order..did we talk about strikeing “at the request of the standing committee”...suddenly we have another set of clauses struck…
Ireland: I was not suggesting the deletion go fthe words “at the request of the standing committee”

More questions from the delegates about confusion on the amendment…Kondo and Nwosu (sudan, nigeria)
Fordham: some people think if A passes then b doesn come before us.
Chair: B will certrainly come for detailed consideration no matter what the outcome. (more confusion)
West Indies: Asks another question
Chair, Patterson: explains..sort of..(its 1:00 we’ve been in here for an hour) Effect of current amendment would require that reconsidered 4 be part of the covenant text. And clause a of A asks that 4 be detached to enable this reconsideration be possible.

They are voteing for or against the amendment but I’m not sure everyone knows what they are voting on.

Sugden and I think that there will be some “ice-cream socials” over lunch..TEC knows they are gonna lose on A so they are moving to plan B…

OK…AS WE SUSPECTED…ITS LUNCH TIME…KEARON SAYS WE’RE GONNA COME BACK AT 2:30 (3:30 east coast) Please Pray…ILL BE BACK AT 3:30 EAST COAST…
LORD HAVE MERCY…

Welcome back folks. For those of you who are just joining us, let me see if I can re-cap what’s transpired.
The ACC delegates first voted in Tengatenga from C. Africa as the new ACC chair to replace Bishop Patterson from New Zealand.
Then, the matter of the Windsor Continuation Report was taken up. It passed, for the most part as it. The term “affirm” was added to it in section b (i think) and the hope of that was to make it a bit stronger. this did not make the North Americans happy. ++Mouneer Anis of Jerusalem and the Middle East proposed that the “fourth moratorium”, the one on litigation that was called for at Dar es Salamm and the same one that Bishop Gregory Cameron admitted that he didn’t know why it wasnt in the WCG’s recommendations, be added to the resolution. This amendment narrowly failed - by one vote- one can help but wonder if the two delegates from S. India that had gone home due to a family emergency would have changed the vote. Also, a delegate from Ireland, Maurice Elliot, expressed concern that many didnt understand the amendment b/c english is not their first language. Despite that, the amendment on the 4th moratorium failed.

We are now on to the Covenant. Several supports of section 4 rose to speak to it from the Global South - as well as the ABC. those that wan’t section 4 removed also spoke. An amendment to keep resolution A - which strikes section 4 - but says that section 4 WILL come up to the provinces at a later time, was voted on before the delegates broke for lunch. As we come back to the play-by-play, we await the results of that vote.

There has been much confusion and discussion over process and procedure at this event. Kevin Kallsen just walked in so maybe I won’t have to type anymore.
We’ll be back in a bit..
***
2:33 Kearon says the nominations for Vice Chair will be closed at 4:30.
Result of amendment to resolution A clause c. 65 voted. 34 for 28 against 3 abstentions.

Yisa, Nigeria: I want to appeal to members to reject res. A. I have taken a look at it and I know membership of ACC is by provinces. This body comes from our provinces. Look at section four. The JSC looked at this…they represent our provinces and us…so lets save time and send it to the provinces. This has been looked at. If we want to propose an amendment, we can do it as provinces. ..lets move this church forward…this church is in a crisis…can we waste resourses on this? ...as members of acc14 we should ae able to go back and say what we’ve done for the unity of the AC.

Aspinal, Australia: he is having a new resolution passed out to everyone - (why does he get to do that? )“Without taking a view one way or the other…i think we should just debate resolution c, rather than debate the others b/c i think this will help us move faster. Here is what Aspinal’s amendment to Resolution C is:

Resolution C. Now a new resolution c
Part a and b are as they are in old resolution B.
Resolution e and f are as in Resolution a.
New c) asks the ABC 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 JSC
New d) asks the JSC at that meeting to approve a final form of Section4.

(somthing sneaky is going on. Aspinal had this ready, had the support ready, and had the paper printed out…)

Someone else from Australia got up and spoke AGAINST Aspinal.
Issacs just got up: “this is not helpful at all….I dont see…we are going in circles…let us not play around..Aspinall, I thank you for your attempt…but I would now say, that we should respect the CDG’s forumlation of that text..and that text that they gave in section four was worked on people who have looked at all the responses. they have done the work..to appoint another committee to review their work is an act of disrespect…I would like to propose that resolution A be put NOW to a vote. if that is carried then we would have to look at this next resolution.

Chair: Patterson says this amendment has to be debated now beacause its and amendment..(.but its not an amendment to A its an amendement to C….)

In full:a. Thanks the CDG 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. recognises that an Anglican Communion Covenant may provide an effective means to strengthen and promote our common life as a Communion
c) asks the ABC 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 JSC
New d) asks the JSC at that meeting to approve a final form of Section4
e. asks the Secretary General to send the revised Ridley Cambridge Draft, at that time, only to the member Churches of the ACC for consideration and decision on acceptance or adoption by them
f. asks those member Churches to report to ACC 15 on the progress made in the processes of response to, and acceptance or adoption of the Covenant

Australian stands up to make a point of order about how we can’t address C when we haven’t addressed A…Patterson says no deal….
Mouneer says this is confusing…
South African Woman: Says she is confused but then goes on to explain to everyone…“this takes the debate about section 4 and the issues raised and puts them in C in a logical way

Janet Trisk. It is trying to amend A and B and incorporate them in a new C. I support this amendment.

CS comments: It is clear that TEC do not have the numbers to get resolution A through. So we have a series of moves to prevent any vote on A that would be lost

Co-opted member, youth stands up: This is gonna last for a long time….so whatever we decided is gonna be around for a long time (she’s forgetting that it can be amended) let’s take the time just to consult a bit more…to make it that much better…otherwise I’m gonna be sorting out this mess…if we’re fed up now..how do you think we’re gonna fell in a few years town.

Jolly, Uganda: Section b, we spent a whole day in the JSC on. We are discussing a and b…now we’re going to address it in section c? do we have a spirit of discernment among us tha twe can take a different direction? did we pray to ask god’s guidance about this? i don’t know if this is the devil’s plan…i just believe that we should go back to section A..and please can we pray for the spirit of discernment over this…praise God…

Bishop Nuwosu, Nigeria: in the way the debate is going…I am of the opinion that this house agrees to return the covenant back to the provinces…so that they can come up with the idea on how this can go…Church of Nigeria is pretty clear about our own position..we are simply here to see how this church can work together…(he wants this to go to the provinces.)

Makoba, South Africa: supports Aspinal’s thing (they can’t explain what they are trying to do…)What this resolution does is addressing what we are raising - the new resolution C. The old A is covered by e and f. The old B is covered by a and b. There is nothing new in this. What is does it helps us in terms of process.

Wales Delegate: “I think we should vote on A and vote it down. I get the feeling that everybody here wants the continuation of the communion.” he then quotes some author. “I propose that we turn down resolution a and move on to resolution b.

Tanzania,Bishop: Brings up the problem with the process on this..says its confusing.

Kate, church of Ireland: I speak in favor of resolution C. it gives us the time to properly address section 4.
(They are trying to fudge this out)

Fritchert, in his capacity as rules man: “this is complicated because we’re part way through discussing A…I’m interested in seeing the wording of the amendment we’re discussing (he is confused about being confused)
Patterson: the purpose of C is to keep before us all of the original..the question before us is whether we wish to proceed…
ABC: the simple way of dealing with this is having seen c…I think we should vote on A and then move to c…

Sugden: Resume discussion on A. Are you for or against resolution A. It has not been explained that this has been amended. The chairman is now confusing himself.

THEY JUST VOTED ON WHETHER OR NOT TO APPROVE RES A..
Ian Douglas left the room ...so did others…
THEY’RE NOW MOVING ON TO RES. B.

Sorry about that - here is what b really says I ACCIDENTALLY PUT PART OF ASPINALL’S AMEND.
: In B covenant only to be sent to members of ACC. Other churches may wish to subscribe - but at this time it is suggested that this document should go only to those churches listed in the schedule to the constitution.also..The report back is now to ACC 15 in 2012.

RESOLUTION A FAILED FAILED FAILED Result on vote on A. For 17 Against 47 One abstention. Resolution A is dead.
CS comments that putting resolution C may have been the death knell of resolution A. Because it suggested an alternative. But that alternative may not come up.

(here is the wording of clause A of Resolution B. : thanks the cdg for their faithfulness…in producing the drafts for an anglican communion covenant and, in particular, for the RCD submitted to this meeting.)

Another note from Sugden: Vote for small clause a of Resolution B to stand. They are taking B clause by clause. They took A as a whole (in U.S. speak- they voted on Resolution A as a whole but they are taking Resolution B clause by clause)

They are Voting now on b: Recognises that an A Communion Covenant may provide an effective means to strengthen and promote our common life as a Communion.

Sugden note: The effect of this vote is to put in place the first two clauses of the Resolution C. So what they are doing is working on Resolution B but not as a whole ( as they did Res A) but clause by clause. This may be to try and turn it into resolution C.The resolution is now to send the draft to the provinces. Intervention by the chair of the Res Committee to insert an amendement from Aspinall

Prof Koshy suggests insert Ridley Cambridge Draft ” as the text of an Anglican Covenant” But chair alters draft to text and not include of an Anglican Covenant

Mpango, Tanzania: help me…can you accept something without adopting it? can you help me understand?

Trisk: following amendment - present small clause c) be renumbered e and d renumbered f) and inserts the c and d from Resolution C. In other words they are trying to amend Resolution B into C.

ABC - Voting on A may very well have been influenced that an alternative form of A was about to be tabled.
(they are still trying to turn B in to C)

Mouneer..I see this as bringing A back in again…it bringing A back but in a different Form. (much murmmering in the room)

Sarah Macneill Aus. Resolution C c and d, their provinces have not had suffiicent time to consider these things. We need to allow time

(much confusion)
Now voting on amendment to bring in the two clauses that formed the bulk of C: Christopher Sugden: In other words they are voting to have a small group revise section 4 and approve a revised version. As Mouneer says this is A again in that it detaches 4. SNEAKY This is bringing A back in another form. A had a working group to consult on Section 4 and report to the JSC

***
3:42
Chair: Lets now consider clause C…even though we don’t know the outcome of the last vote.
Frichert, Rules Man/Res Committee: amendment added…didnt’ catch it…sorry folks…we’ve got power issues…

Mpango: can you accept somthing without adopting it? if that’s true…then we should strike that out… (??)

Chair: are we ready to vote on Fricher’ts amendment..(i think this will call it THE anglican communion covenant instead of AN anglican ...)

RESULTS 33 FOR 30 AGAINST…2 ABSTAIN
IT IS NOW “as the Anglican Communion Covenant”

So section 4 is not yet in the draft. They have now got the problem - what do they send out - do they send out 1-3 and wait for a new 4, or do they wait till the next JSC to send out the whole thing with a
It means that they have got in effect Resolution C which delays the sending out of section 4 till further work has been done. Mouneer was right. Compare the wording of Resolution A with the two clauses just voted up. Not much difference…

Its over folks…
AAC and Mainstream will post some stuff tonight with commentary..

WAIT…IT AINT OVER IT AINT OVER…THERE IS LOTS OF CONFUSION RIGHT NOW…I WILL BE BACK ASAP..AS SOON AS I CAN FIGURE OUT WHAT IS GOING ON…EVERYONE HAS LEFT THE ROOM BUT THE PRESS CONF. IS POSTPONED B/C OF THE CONFUSION.

As I understand it. There has been a major procedural mistake. The ACO press guy says Kearon will come in..give a statement that clarifies the confusion and then we will know what happened.

Chair: “members of the ACC..the end of the last plenary session…I’ve had a discussion with our legal advisor…I feel that each section of the covenant was dealt with and we now have a decision on the covenant.We now ask those named to implement the work that needs to be done.”

Kearon: Statement from the Secretary General. The resolution that has jsut passed asks ABC and Sec Gen to consult with provinces. We intend to appoint a small working group to consult with the provinces. That report will come back to JSC which will meet before the end of the year

Mouneer Anis: Point of order…resolution A was defeated..including the two clauses…I think that is ilegal to bring back two amendments…bringing back resolutions that were defeated is not right…its not right..we need legal advice on this very point…how can we bring defeated clauses in to a new resolution…

Chair: As chair…I took it strongly that votes were taken in anticipation that other material would be admitted…

OK FOLKS…SORRY FOR THE LONG DELAY..ITS 7:30 HERE. THE AAC WILL POST A REPORT IN A FEW HOURS…I WISH I COULD TELL YOU MORE NOW…GOD BLESS

©2009 Stand Firm, LLC. All rights reserved. Permission to copy and distribute free of charge is granted, provided this notice, the logo, and the web site address are visible on all copies. For permission for use in for-profit publications, please email contact@standfirminfaith.com.