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

JEFFERTS SCHORI: “without dialogue.” What in blazes does this woman think we’ve been trying to do since she took office? “Dialogue” means “stalling for time,” as far as she’s concerned! “Talk ‘em to death, too!”

KJS said that those who have sought to “remove property” in TEC have done so “without dialogue”?

I hate to bandy about the word “liar,” and I know this is not a verbatim transcript. But still. That is a total lie.

<blockquote>Schori: I would urge you to vote against this amendment. the reality is that those tha tremove protperty from tec have doen so without dialogue ...</blockquote)

The refusal to “dialogue” was all on the part of the new sheriff. One simply has to look at the track record with the AC much less the more-than-adequately documented failure to “dialogue” on the part of the HOB, GCC, and Executive Council. To distort the truth is to lie. It’s a fact. Sort of a Caiaphas moment, metaphorically and historically. Lie.

The PB must know that all over the Communion we have been watching each stage of her program of litigation - and yet to come out with such a bare-faced lie - from a Communion bishop and leader of TEC. What a disgrace - shame on you Mrs. Schori.

I could dig out the links to the testimony she gave in the Virginia litigation and what she told the press corps…but I really can’t be bothered.

The Presiding Bishop’s unguarded utterance is going to cause her a fair amount of difficulty in a lot of places.

To tag on to her, er… prevarication; AND to go down a logical consequence path:

If
1 - the reality is that those tha tremove protperty from tec have doen so without dialogue ...

then, it is therefore true that
2 - The Dennis Canon was “done [so] without dialogue…”

It came down to one vote, and this was AFTER, they refused to seat that delegate. Pure evil.

Yes - in many cases the illegal action of the JSC would not have any effect - but we can see it having a real effect. I hope there is a real rumpus about this one.

Maybe they do, Bishop Schori, but if so, the only assets which you personally have a duty to “protect” are those of the Convocation of Anglican Churches in Europe. Any fiduciary responsibility is entirely at the diocesan level. The Constitution and canons of ECUSA impose no such duty on the person who leads its House of Bishops, nor do they grant any such power or authority to that person to bring a lawsuit on behalf of all 106 dioceses in the name of “ECUSA” as well. You are misrepresenting to those at ACC not only the picture of what is on the ground, but also the truth about your own limited powers and responsibilities. You are pretending to be a metropolitan primate among other metropolitan primates, when you are only a primate—-and barely one, at that.

No - the North American conservatives who have left are not to be listened to according to this arrogant manipulative ABC. The ABC is of course the reason why people are arguing for a non-Canterbury centered Communion. What a prat.

I would be very interested to see an exact quote from Schori on the supposed removing of property “without dialogue.” Seeing that she personally broke up the settlement talks in Virginia, that is a flat out Big Lie if she said it.

Continual dialogue is futile and a complete waste of time and money.

Engaging in dialogue with people who operate in an alternate reality will not ever be productive, and could be harmful. Or worse, deadly, because these people’s goals are anti-Christian and evil.
God holds us accountable to listen to Him, heed Him, give Him our attention and believe His Word.
This is a matter of I John 4:5-6

One would assume that the fine folks assembled in Jamaica have Internet access and cell phones, and can do their very own reality check on the PB’s false statement about dialogue by simply contacting the parties involved.

Perhaps they will even challenge her with the facts. Lying is quite different from putting a spin on something, and if the above transcript is accurate, one cannot honestly say that this is anything but a lie.

There was a time when a statement like that would have been accepted as true because a primate wouldn’t lie.

Dont forget that the Anis Amendment should have been passed. The ‘irregular’ delegate was absent as well as the bishop delegate - Orombi. Probably nothing he could do to get there, but those of us that have sought protection overseas hoped we would be heard in the instruments by our provincial delegates. ALL of them.

I am acquainted with some people from Malawi. Solid Christians. Is the election of Tengatenga good?

The Collect
ALMIGHTY God, who showest to them that are in error the light of thy truth, to the intent that they may return into the way of righteousness; Grant unto all those who are admitted into the fellowship of Christ’s Religion, that they may avoid those things that are contrary to their profession, and follow all such things as are agreeable to the same; through our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.
“The Third Sunday after Easter,” The Book of Common Prayer (USA, 1928)

To clarify the vote would have been 34-33 with a full delegation from Uganda.
I wonder about the other GAFCON provinces, were they able to bring their full delegations?

#20
I wouldn’t say that, but certainly they refused Ashey expecting votes like the Anis Amendment. But if Orombi was there as the bishop delegate it would have been a draw. And if Orombi was their with a ‘regular’ Ugandan clergy delegate the vote would have carried. That matters not now. I am just raising the issue of the orthodox that have been compelled to leave not being represented by the provinces we joined because we wanted to be heard by the Communion.

Tengatenga is the new president. Another blogger said that he was Ms Schori’s choice because he is seen as “pliable.”

Despite some great efforts in the Elizabethan Settlement, the DNA of Anglicanism was in the ecclesisastical manipulations to legitimate a secular ruler and his sex life. Sorry, but following these ACC events proves out the stereotype - which I used to think superficial - that “Henry VIII created his own church.” You’re seeing it live blogged right now.

#21 - you are confused. It’s not about your voice being listened too, it’s about their voice being listened too (and shoved down your orthodox core of belief).

Gee, the ABC has put his foot down. He’s certainly made things clear in the last couple of days. Would that he had been candid and honest much sooner.

#21
++ Orombi is my archbishop and I think his absence is shocking. Whatever schedule conflict he has, this crucial meeting in the life of the communion should not have been missed. His chosing not to attend gives the impression that he has given up on the Anglican Communion and frankly doesn’t see the point of attending. I don’t thank that’s a position many of those who left TEC for Uganda would support.

Evan - thanks for your post #27. I agree with you completely. I have a very strong admiration for Abp. Orombi, but I think that he has made a couple of serious blunders vis a vis this ACC meeting, for which there has been a very real cost.

I wonder if these voices are as passionate as their words sound. Lord have mercy.

Thank you #27 and #28. My point exactly. Occasions like this, missing important meeting (Lambeth, Joint Standing Committee, now ACC, have been a discouragement for me since I have joined an overseas affilliation.

I suppose the interesting question is: why is the ABC supporting the Irish amendment?

subscribe…no words yet too much to take in and all I can do is shake my head and pray! I expected nothing less than lies from KJS…...She is not working for the Lord…...

It is my opinion that it was a strategic plan to have Ian Douglas start off the debate by taking the dramatic (and un-Anglican) move to striking the entire 4th Section (section d).

So now the Global South line up in support of Section IV and they do a masterful job.

But it was never expected that Section IV would be stricken. The votes aren’t there. We saw what the real votes are when the modification of “affirmed” was made on Sectionb of the Windsor Continuation Group Resolution - TEC opposed that, but now the WCG Report has been affirmed. The original word was “notes” - now it is “affirmed.”

So TEC & Allies know that they can’t get Section IV removed, so they move to strike it with the plan to amend it into oblivion. Obviously, Rowan Williams made it clear as well that he did not support removing Section IV.

This is where their parliamentary powers come into play. Instead of just voting, which would mean Section IV would remain and thus attempts to then amend it would be resisted, no matter what the amendments since they gain momentum having beaten back the attempt to strike Section IV - they then go to amend Ian Douglas’ Resolution A to actually rewrite Section IV from the floor.

This brings confusion. It is the Anglican way to find a middle way, not to take one stand over the other. That’s the polity at this level. So now the Global South becomes the dogmatic ones for sticking with an unmodified Section IV.

What I would do is have all the Global South delegates respond with lots of different amendments to the amendments until there is so much confusion that they have to go back to Section IV and either keep it or remove it. But I would just keep amending and amending and not allow the chair to close the debate.

My guess is that TEC will want to drag the Joint Standing Committee into this somehow. They will want to delete the “and/or section” which means there actually has to be a decision.

If that decision is modified, the words “acceptance or adoption of” the Anglican Communion is finished.

Watch Rowan carefully. If he allows that wording to be gutted than he’s not the man I think he is. In his heart, he sees the Communion as the Church, as the Anglo-Orthodox Catholic that he is. If there is no decision about whether churches will decided “acceptance or adoption” than the Communion falls apart and that will be on his watch. The Episcopal Church will never make that decision on its own, never, never, never, never, never. It will have to be requested. And in order to comply, TEC will have to assent that there is an authority other than itself that it must conform. And it can’t do that - and that is why we’re in crisis. There is no accountability.

So watch that language: “response to, and acceptance or adoption of” and that the response is to the AAC which means there is three years, which means that TEC there is only one General Convention between now and then - the one this summer, the one that Rowan Williams is attending.

TEC will throw everything it has to stop that. Watch those five words “and acceptance or adoption of” and pray.

#35 - because ” I want to ensure that when the covenant goes out, it has the best chance to be adopted.” You do that by gutting anything that requires a decision.

If TEC doesn’t accept this, I suspect that they’ll go their own way, and if they do, it will be because this is their “Plan B, or C, etc,” since their “Plan A” obviously presupposes the JSC going along with their desires. I hope and pray that Rowan Cantuar stands up and tells them “NO!”, we will not go along with you.

“I suppose the interesting question is: why is the ABC supporting the Irish amendment?”

Seven years ago it would have been interesting, surprising. Now it is, sadly, no surprise. He played his hand long ago.

What possible difference will it make if #4 passes or fails? Baby-Blue had it right “there is no authority!” I understand some of the “fudging” going on, but WHAT DIFFERENCE WILL IT MAKE? You all have been tearing out your hair for 6 years and nothing has changed.

Really. They’re not the only ones confused. Was that black magic there at the end?

Lots of jiggery-pokery from the rump liberal old white commonwealth it looks like who sit on the JSC and chair the meeting and who have been playing merry hell with this set of votes. We will have to see if they have even managed to knot themselves up. Thanks NZ, Oz etc.

Yes, Pageantmaster. We have a less polite way of putting it - dazzle them with ... something. It sounds like things got super dazzling at the end of this and I am afraid that when Robert Lundy returns he will have nothing good to report. My thanks to him for his effort to keep us informed, though.

I’m very confused. Did the whole of section 4 of the covenant get referred to a committee until the next ACC meeting?

I’d suggest any Orthodox there have a press conference and officially declare the obvious: The Anglican Communion is over as an “O"rthodox entity.

Cheer up GladILeft - that is of course ridiculous. The Orthodox are the majority of the 55-78million members of the Communion. What we are seeing is the last gasps of the rump tail of what we used to call the White Dominions trying to wag the dog.

According to the Changing Attitude website, the following is the final Resolution passed on the Covenant:

I have bolded the important resolutions. This was clearly a stealth attempt by the liberals to give the JSC (and guess who is in firm control of that group?) the ultimate power in determining the the actual final language of the critical part of the Covenant. I will make the guess that the liberals have just now killed any viable Covenant, at least for the short term. As I have said many times over, TEC will NEVER submit to ANYTHING which purports to limit their autonomy - not even if they think they can subsequently ignore it.

If there is fault it looks like the Chairman who allowed Aspinall to mount his coup and in his haste lost control. They have had 13 days to listen to each other and deliberate properly and yet the JSC and Rowan have manipulated this into a crammed couple of hours as usual. Quite clearly half the delegates have lost track of what is going on, particularly those whose first language is not English. So much for Rowan and his much vaunted Indaba-Delphi technique being to the advantage of those people.

#49 - really? #50 understands it well. The leadership isn’t. So you’ll need to go along and get along for all it’s inclusive splendor is you want to stay in the Communion. The whole thing is really, really pathetic.

Pathetic indeed! The AC is ruined…..I cannot go along to get along when my arm is twisted behind my back and my shoes have been tossed into the ocean! Give me APCK! My only hope of being a truly Traditional Orthodox Anglican!
This whole big tent is nothing but a bunch of Bozo’S!

James (#50) and Pageantmaster (#52),
I believe you are jumping the gun. The language James provides is, I believe, a revision to Resolution B that they did right before they adjourned. But I think they still have to come back and go line by line thru the resolution. In other words, is it not the case that they approved an amendment to Resolution B but did not yet approve Resolution B? So that our mourning is not yet warranted. If you step back and look at the voting power on Resolution A, it seems we have the votes to defeat this castration of the Covenant. Or I am misinformed?

NEWS FLASH: There was an amendment to the amendment that amended the amendment that amended the original amendment of amendment A which became amendment C before it was consolidated but after the amendment to separate the combined amendment of the previous amendment.

George Conger: “I wonder how the Archbishop of Canterbury was able to read the mind of the members and overturn a resolution”

#58 - I thought I saw him holding a Seer Stone over the amendment to the amendment that amended the amendment that amended the original amendment of amendment A which became amendment C before it was consolidated but after the amendment to separate the combined amendment of the previous amendment.

I am listening to the press conference and the questions of George Conger. Kearon and Williams have been up to something very stinky. Williams and he are saying that the JSC is going to rewrite with a group of Rowan’s appointees the work of the Covenant Design Group on Section 4 of the Covenant.

I’ve been trying to follow this all afternoon…very confusing…this comment at the end only makes it more so…

Is the Chair admitting that this was a fixed outcome or that he had knowledge of what was to come after lunch?

I hope that Kevin rebroadcasts all of this in a loop. It is as Conger said what some people are calling legerdemain.

If I were the CDG would be hopping mad to see the nobbled St Asaph section 4 of the St Asaph draft being nobbled by the Archbishop and Kearon.

#62—I think the point is that when they decided to vote on resolution “a” the Archbishop of Canterbury had said that the result of that would be a consideration of resolution “c” (which he recognized as a variant of “b”). I have no idea whether the parliamentary stuff was correct, but clearly it would be unfair not to consider “c” based on Mouneer Anis’ objection—the vote for “a” was only taken after the ABC promised consideration of “c”.

Shameful was the word that came to my mind, Pageantmaster. I have been trying to hold onto some respect for the ABC. It’s shattered now.

what a mess. simply astonishing. spirit of confusion, yes. black magic, quite probably. deceit and manipulation, most definitely. Jesus, please be sovereign over this meeting, over your church, and our lives.

Conger raised the point that there is a strong feeling outside the press conference that the resolutions were dealt with by sleight of hand. We will have to listen to it all again later to really get to the bottom of what looks like a fix.

Ooh - Kearon has just said that Aspinall proposed that the points of Resolution A [which had been voted down] be put into B to produce C. Helpful, I think he called it - notwithstanding that Aspinall bounced it onto the meeting without telling the Chairman and without it being preapproved to go to the meeting.

The Anglican Communion of RW is dead.
Thanks to his less than honest handling of this crisis. Thanks to the fraudulent men and women running TEc and the ACofC.
Thanks to non-Christians in high places in the Anglican Communion.
Thanks to the spineless Christians in all the provinces and churches in the Anglican Communion.
Thanks to the men and women without core Christian coviction and courage to stand for the truth.
Thannks to those who would rather “fight” fellow faithful orthodox Anglicans than CLEARLY and FEARLESSLY attack the non-Christian lay and clergy, respectively in the pews and the chancels of the Anglican churches the world over.
Thanks to the agenda-driven political hacks parading as leaders of TEc, the ACofC, and the CofE.
Thanks to those who continually insult the intellect and common sense of their fellow adults in the Anglican Communion.
Need I go on?

The Anglican Communion of RW is dead.
Long live The Anglican Communion that is of Christ.
Thanks be to God!

This was the usual underhanded dealing revisionsists specialize in then. Manipulate the system. Take advantage of language difficulties, the pressure of last-minute rush, etc.

My prayers are with the honorable people who have endured this charade, for those whose hearts were in the words we have read today and who have found themselves of no matter at all to the Great White Way.

If I were Archbishop Abas and Archbishop Chew I would think given what has gone on today that I had been had by the ABC.

We are now in the position that the least trustworthy part of the Communion, not even an instrument, is in control of the text of the Covenant which will go to provinces for approval - and Kearon admitted that he and Williams will be getting together to fix this.

I am afraid I am coming to the conclusion that the ABC is completely untrustworthy and his communion functions should be taken over by a committee of the Primates. Time after time he scuppers his own work and that of others. He is his own worst enemy.

I’ve long held that Williams has been intending to give TEC their way, and do believe this was planned all along. There is no choice but for there to be a vote of no confidence in Williams and oversight being transferred to a committee of the Primates, as Pageantmaster has suggested. There can be no trust in Williams any longer. He knows that this entire business was deceptive and deliberate, and a true leader would stop this now, because it was a fraud. He won’t, because he was part of this. I’ll wager that he and Jefferts-Schori arranged this immediately after Lambeth.

This was sad and shameful. It was also on tape. There has to be something that can be done about this.

My hope is that the various “moderate” provinces will see the charade of all of this more clearly.

The only hope I have is that the conservative provinces get together and produce a vote of no confidence, and then move on with other matters outside of the Communion instruments which are a complete fraud and sham now.

Let Canada, Brazil, New Zealand, Ireland, TECusa, et al “sign on to the Covenant.” And enjoy their “Anglican Communion” too.

Although it is ugly to view such shameful things, I pause and reflect that those who are unfaithful in large things will find it easy to be unfaithful in small things.

I found the live blog almost impossible to understand and look forward to analysis by Greg, +Matt, Sarah, and others in the days to come.
I’m not sure I understand the significance, if any, of what happened today.

cityonahill: What happened was that through a process of smoke, mirrors, deception and trickery, the Western liberals have taken the critical part of the Covenant draft, and turned it over to a small hand-picked committee of Rowan Williams to re-write, then over to the liberal dominated JSC to make the final decision, and then insert it back into the Covenant to send to the Provinces. In other words, through a process of deceipt, trickery and manipulation, the Western liberals have just killed any viable Covenant in the Anglican Communion.

There have been thirteen days to have a careful considered examination of all this. Instead we have been treated to indaba and manipulation: the JSC taking authority it does not have to exclude the Ugandan representative, something which directly impacted on the 4th Moratorium vote today; Votes crammed into an afternoon with the chairman allowing a rogue resolution by the ABC’s usual press man Aspinall to go forward and to permit the sections of Resolution A which had been firmly voted down to take effect. It does look as if there was a stitch up organised over the break earlier and Kearon, Rowan and the Kiwi chairman were right at the centre of it.

But, WHY can’t the Primates simply ignore these adolescent shenanigans and revise the Covenant themselves, even get together as a pro-tem group without bothering with RW and KJS and forge their own amendments and send it back to the Covenant Draft Committee or to the Primates as a whole???
The GAFCON Primates already have a draft Covenant, don’t they?
People like these should be ignored. Their indaba games ignored as well.
Excommunicate them from the Church proper until they repent.

I haven’t the time to read this entire post or all the responses, but I must admit being blown away that this came from Sarah of all people.

RE: ” . . . with the chairman allowing a rogue resolution by the ABC’s usual press man Aspinall to go forward and to permit the sections of Resolution A which had been firmly voted down to take effect. It does look as if there was a stitch up organised over the break earlier and Kearon, Rowan and the Kiwi chairman were right at the centre of it.”

What fantastic clarity, though, for Global South Primates to observe, both moderate and members of Gafcon, to observe.

I hope delegates get together, oust the chairman and revisit this matter with a vote of no confidence.

There is no way the orthodox Primates need to be bothered with this so-called collusion. Instruments of unity - bah.

[bizarre off-topic comment about provincial incursions deleted—please respond to the post at hand which is about the last meeting of the ACC]

#86 Sarah
Yes - the GS have allowed themselves to be divided by Rowan’s manipulation.

Could someone wright up the cliff notes version for those of us that have’t been playing along at home? I’d really appreciate it. Thanks.

AndrewA—I’m not sure I understand your comments. There are at least five threads over on T19 from the past month where I have clearly stated the same thing. The Covenant is truly a now-ridiculous document, and needs to be ignored by all the conservative to moderate Primates. That would then force further clarity-of-division which—as I’ve been consistently clear about for three years—is a Really Good Thing.

Keep in mind that I also supported conservative Primates not attending the most recent Primates Meeting, since appearance merely reaffirms Rowan Williams’s “strategy” of saying that the Communion is undivided as long as “everybody shows up and keeps on dialoguing.” That’s his vision of “success” remember.

I think he will bring a different take on issues here in Wales, his evangelical background and broad experience of Church life will add much to the bench.

At a personal level we disagree about many things, but I know him to be a man of deep faith and profound faithfulness - God and His Church are blessed by his service.

Sarah Hey, I don’t read 99% of the the threads at T19, so you must excuse me for not being familiar with the enitre corpus of your blog comments. I guess I was suprised that it sounded like you were indicating that you thought the desirable result was for conservative Anglican provinces to walk out on the ABC and the Anglican Communion. I had you pegged as a ComCon that though TEC unsalvagable but the Anglican Communion still worth staying in and fighting for. Clearly I have misunderstood some things, either in my reading of your recent comment or my reading of your past stances.

thought the post quoting the vews of the former Deputy General Secretary of the AC and Secretary to the Covenant Design Group would be of great interest to this forum, and particularly to Pageantmaster.

It was about ecclesiology, and the Covenant is all about that ........He has also been very much at the centre of the issues for the last seven years and somewhat influential .....

So the covenant draft is delayed six months. What does this mean? originally the provinces were supposed to report back by ACC 15 which is three years from now. Which meant that TEC would have had to deal with the covenant at this summer’s convention. Now they can come to ACC 15 and say sorry our general convention meets next month and we will take about it then. Get back to you at ACC 16. That is assuming it will even matter then.

Would someone please give Rowan some tissues. The residue of his sycophantish fawning behavior is rather disgusting on his nose. He ought to wipe it off. Though the behavior is recorded for posterity, is it not? That and his words. I am reminded of his sitting in Synod holding his head in his hands because of his lack of influence, but this is the opposite because he cannot hide from his contribution to colonialistic imperialism. So much for all the spiritual qualities, eh?

I think that, deep down or otherwise, Rowan Williams has always believed that sodomy or any other gay sex can be of God.

ACI and co., much as I respect them and find their work worthwhile and challenging, just got their butts kicked and their backs stabbed by their fellow academic.

Many can try to work to a different outcome but I believe that any traditional Anglican will eventually have to either leave the denomination or align with GAFCON and construct another see.

People believe him hasty and ecclesiogically-challenged but +Bob Duncan saw this writing on the wall.

Time now to see a prompt, organized, succinct statement of a vote of no confidence in this whole sham of a proceeding.

Abp. Williams, NO (not even a single, solitary) self-respecting orthodox Anglican wants any part of your “nuanced” shenanigans that have brought ruin to the AC. Keep your history, your Hegelian theology, your disingenuous chicanery, your polity, your (undeserved) Lambeth throne, your salary, your almighty intellect, your abject lack of leadership ability, your idiotic babbling process, your selling the AC’s priceless inheritance for a mess of genuflections to popular culture, your full-on embrace of the Zeitgeist, and other pertinent ridiculousness you have perpetrated as the ersatz leader of the AC. Keep it all, every last bit. Give me the 2 Great Commands and the entire canon of Scripture, the creeds, Hooker’s, Jewel’s, Laud’s, Andrewes’, and Cranmer’s theology, the 1662 Prayer Book, real evangelism, the Creeds, the Eucharist - all of Anglicanism’s best, but even more, give me the timeless faith that has Jesus Christ at the absolute center and bedrock foundation. Sir, what you are purveying is NOT this.

Abp. Williams, consider repentance, and then, kindly step down. Unless and until you do so, the AC is in grave peril.

OK, I was in clinic all day and I logged on and had a hard time understanding what happened. If you are like me, head over to Baby Blue’s (http://tinyurl.com/p2wgky ):

So a final form of the Covenant won’t be sent out to the provinces till after GenCon Gayfest. And the fourth section will be vetted by the JSC (and detoothed of the feeble carious teeth that it has). All by the hand of Rowan Williams. Nice.

I hate to say this ladies and gents but…..there won’t be any vote of no confidence. The Global South/GAFCON will go their merry way and the WWAC will be ripped! Not torn but ripped! Wish all you want to but in my gut I just have a very strong sense that there will not be a vote of no confidence and the WWAc as we have known it will be no more!

And that will be a good thing, as far as I’m concerned! The Second Anglican Reformation is underway.

Maybe I’m wrong, but if past behavoir is a reliable predictor of future performance, I still think Annis, Chew and Gomez are going to take this sitting quietly, with perhaps only the politest of objections expressed in silence. I don’t see them leading their provinces to the FCA crowd anytime soon.

Besides, other than the West Indies, Sudan, parts of the Middle East (except Jerusalem, which is tied to TEC’s purse strings) and Southeast Asia, are the actually any conservative provinces LEFT in the Anglican Communion that haven’t already gone the FCA route? This is a serious question and I’d be very intrested in an answer.

I suspect RW realized he couldn’t send the Covenant to TEC in its current form because TEC would have rejected it. And that would have been a decision; a decision impossible to reverse. It would also have given the whip into the hands of TECs opponents. So he had to help torpedo his own plan. On the other hand, it leaves him with no viable way forward. The Communion will now drift - like a ship that has had all its sails cut down and thrown into the ocean. What will he do come the morrow?

This isn’t a bad outcome, really. The Covenant was a Judas Goat for the orthodox. If TEC had been wise they would have accepted it, and realized that its provisions would never be enforced. But the ideologues are running the show in TEC, and RW is losing his flexibility to respond as a consequence. The Covenant could have been the Windsor Process permanently instantiated - a road to nowhere that never ends. But TEC didn’t have the foresight to seize the moment.

RE: “I guess I was suprised that it sounded like you were indicating that you thought the desirable result was for conservative Anglican provinces to walk out on the ABC and the Anglican Communion.”

I do not think that is what they should do. I think—as I have continually said for years—that they should cease playing Rowan Williams’s game.

RE: “I had you pegged as a ComCon that though TEC unsalvagable but the Anglican Communion still worth staying in and fighting for.”

105, I agree, it is highly unlikely that anything like a vote of no-confidence will occur. The ACC structure is rotten, as is the Canterbury bureaucracy, and the Standing Committee is dominated by the wrong side.

There is no reasonable expectation of reform under these existing structures, and process of participation itself has proven to be debilitating to orthodox Anglicans, including those “inside” and “outside” TEC.

As an “outsider”, I expect to be in communion/relationship with only a handful of current Anglican Provinces. The primary impediment is not the liberals, like Schori, or even the ABC. It’s the conservative leaders who have decided, many in good conscience, to remain supportive of the existing structures, even if it mean’s playing the role of the Washington Nationals, with the ACC, ABC and TEC being the Harlem Globetrotters. Perhaps some, like Gomez, will have a change of heart now, but I really don’t expect it. Some just believe that it is God’s calling to remain in these structures, TEC or Communion, regardless of the outcome or practical consequences.

At times, this can appear overwhelming, and I wonder if my family should have simply joined one of the few remaining faithful Protestant denominations (PCA?) or a non-congregational church. Perhaps even Rome. The ACNA must create an identity and grow without reference to Canterbury and the English Anglican Brand. It must transcend the WO issue. It needs to attract some young, dynamic, church building clergy, clergy cross-trained in conservative divinity schools that are not be solely Anglican. It must build and build, like some of our Baptist and non-denominational friends. This is happening at a few churches, but only God knows if it will gain critical mass. If not, some of the larger ACNA churches may eventually become non-denominational. So be it. In the end, I am reassured by the fact that I am no longer supporting TEC and what it stands for, and are joined together with a group of believers in a noble cause.

I read Sarah’s essay again (a good one). The primates’ meeting - a big yawn without consequences. I wonder whether this most recent non-meeting won’t have consequences. We saw quite clearly how the Joint Standing Committee was a TEClub pawn. The Covenant will now be rewritten by the JSC. There were many “centrist” provinces (should I say Communion Partner type provinces) that were pinning their hopes on the covenant - West Indies, Tanzania, Burundi, Middle East,Sudan (to some degree), etc. Rowan has taken the Covenant away from them. What will they do now?

RobRoy, although this may be solely my hope speaking, I just can’t imagine that this travesty—such transparent and brutal, callow bullying and manipulation—won’t have appropriate consequences.

I don’t wish to bring up a painful subject but . . . the Primates who don’t want to do FCA/Gafcon/ACNA need an option for being able to work with the other Primates without being forced to support what they do not wish to support.

I pray that the moderate conservatives and the conservatives would be able to form some sort of working alliance that will allow them to repudiate Rowan Williams’s actions and leadership, cease playing his game, and come up with a viable strategy for the Anglican Communion.

AndrewA…..I think that you maybe right about Annis, Chew and Gomez, but then this what has happened today is very serious and takes the AC as a whole in a different direction so things have changed and maybe their feelings have too….we will just have to see. It has become a free for all in the WWAC. As Abc. Gomez has said:

Schori can aid and abet this sort of stuff but it won’t change the fact that many people are voting with their feet when it comes to TEC “churches”.

Dallas Transplant,
Not only do they vote with their feet they take their check books with them! TEc and the WWAC will one day b e less and less and something else will be bigger and bigger.

The people leaving are those that Schori wants gone any way, and her lawyers seem to be doing a pretty good job at making sure they don’t walk off with any valuable real estate in California, Colorado or New York.

I got up this morning hoping to read that Section Four had been retained and the Covenant draft sent to the Provinces, because they had the votes. Instead, I see this travesty of justice. I am so distressed for +Mouneer Anis. He was the only conservative on the JSC, and got rolled there, and now he and all the conservatives and moderates at the ACC have been treated with disrespect by this transparent (and on video!) manipulation. This is not how Christians treat one another. The charge of colonialism is shown to be exactly true, and it’s the liberals who have done it.

But folks, let’s temper the anger and disappointment. Suppose Ashey+ was seated. Suppose the “4th moratorium” passed. Suppose section 4 made it through without any monkey business. Would any of that have bound TEC or required it to change its behavior? Clearly not. What, precisely, of consequence has been lost?

It seems to me that the forces of progressivism may have won a skirmish and lost a war. What has been lost, in open session, is trust. Moderates have been going along with the system putting their trust in the Covenant and patiently working their way towards this goal. The liberals just blew it out of the water in a deceitful and disrespectful display of arrogance. Would you buy a used car from these people?

AndrewA,
You are wrong! We have lost nothing to Schori and her henchmen here in California. We in San Joaquin are awaiting a ruling from the judge on a local level then it goes to appellate court then the Supreme Court. The church in Newport Beach is getting ready for Supreme Court. No one has been given the green light yet by any means. So please think before you type things like that. Schori has won nothing except the WWAC….the building here in the US are still up for decision!

I am hopeful that Sarah is right on this. Even Craig Uffman (one of Rowan Williams’ biggest boosters amongst the Comm-Cons) can’t explain Williams’ behavior. I think that what needs to happen is that the conservative primates - GAFCON and non-GAFCON alike need to come up with a Covenant quickly - largely based on the RC Draft but with a tougher Part 4 - and sign it and then pass it around to all the other Provinces and bring it up at the next Primates’ meeting. Ignore the Williams/Schori/JSC farce and work towards an organic, from-the-ground-up Anglican Covenant.

I was reading somewhere that adoption of the Covenant was going to sideline GAFCON and make the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans redundant. That was a week or ten days ago (I wish I remember who said it)—but it’s not looking that way now, huh?

C’mon, +Mouneer, Rowan Williams just took the Covenant and put it in the hands of Ms Schori…er…the JSC…well, that is the same thing. I wonder what he meant by the second paragraph.

Perhaps a little ire should be directed at ++Orombi. Thanks to him Uganda had only 1 vote instead of four. As a JSC member he skipped ACC in favor of New Wine, failed to appoint an alternative Ugandan episcopal ACC rep. and tried playing politics with the clerical ACC rep. Those three extra votes would have ensured the addition of the fourth ‘moratoria’ and may have made a difference in the Covenant debate. He messed up. Big time.

I agree that the game of the ACNA delegate was cute and lost a Ugandan vote in an utterly predictable outcome there.

But I support and laud Orombi staying away—as I did earlier in the week—and think that more Primates should do so. The ludicrous spectacle of today’s events, in fact, provide a further fantastic demonstration of why Orombi has moved on from the games of the ABC.

Sarah is right. Game(s) over. It is clear that the battle won’t be won with talk, talk, talk. It will be won with evangelism. I am personally glad the Covenant is dead. I am in agreement with others that have stated the TEClub should have embraced it and then defied it. The Ridley draft had the JSC as the ultimate arbiters of Anglican-ness and we see that the JSC is controlled by Ms Schori.

And they’re just saying what many are now, I’m sure, thinking. But, of course, that’s unpalatable. So much so, in fact, that T19 removed the same post of mine.

How about a poll-based thread on SF with the question, “Now that the WWAC has collapsed and disintegrated, what is the next step for Anglican orthodoxy?”

After following this latest ACC/JSC/Lambeth sock puppet/815 charade, I am expectant of incisive and decisive action from orthodox leadership.

Dr. Noll’s “Initial Reflections” are straight on target! The Kingston meeting has shown that amongst revisionist leftists and orthodox believers exists no catholicity. Not even the slightest shred. Not even possible. Instead we see western imperial AC machinery arrayed against the faith once delivered and a vacuum of trust in place of koinonia.

Thank you, Dr. Noll for your insightful and helpful reflections! If it ever comes to it, I nominate you as Canon Theologian for the Orthodox Anglican Communion.

Bishop Mouneer AND Bishop Orombi should together call for a Primates meeting. They should set the time and place (soon). They should invite all who will come including TEC and the ABC. No one would be excluded except by their own choice. There will be talking and listening but it would be their meeting. In light of what has happened many will come. It will demonstrate a new leadership in the Anglican Communion.

Ya’know…...Maybe there was a reason and purpose for Orombi and other orthodox to be in the UK and US whilst the ABC and KJS were displaying their behinds, er, tactics in Jamaica.

While the cat’s away the mice are able to gather, pray, worship, organize, plan.

There’s an FCA conference coming up in the UK. I expect it will be even better attended after this farce of a meeting.

The CP Bishops and Rectors in the US are gathering strength and cohesion and purpose as are the CCP/ACNA etc.

We must keep our focus…pray even harder, worship and keep our focus on the Lord, and encourage one another.

The Lord and His Amazing Grace are sufficient for us.
When we are weak, He is strong.
II Corinthians 12:9

Politics and votes and meetings cannot do the work of the Church or unite the Church or empower the Church or give life to the Church.

We can only be united in Jesus Christ, by the love and truth created in us by the Holy Spirit. We can only do anything if Christ enables us. Apart from Him we can do nothing. John 15:5

As we praise, worship, thank Him, conform our hearts and minds to His Word in prayer, He will impart Himself to us and work through us.

Actually, you, Laud, as a progressive activist, wouldn’t know what traditionalists are thinking. But I can help you with that, take heart.

What we’re thinking is “wowzer, what a truly ghastly meeting and how corrupt too—as we all knew, but now have full confirmation of.”

“Orombi’s being there wouldn’t have fixed how truly ludicrous the spectacle was yesterday. How wonderful that he has integrity. Hopefully he, along with Mouneer, and Chew and Gomez and so many others can come up with a plan to deal with the new reality of the shattered Anglican Communion and the faux “instruments” now that this is all on stark display.”

There, Laud—that’s what we’re thinking. And yeh . . . it’s unpalatable for you that the antics of earlier in the week have receded into the rearview mirror and have become, in my mind, an insignificant distraction to the cacocophany of yesterday. And that’s why you brought them up again. ; > )

But . . . how interesting that you desire that. And be assured I was the most vocal and loudest in my insistence that the ACNA gambit was ridiculous.

I still think so. But isn’t it wonderful that the ACNA gambit wasn’t even needed? As I suspected, the ACC would dissolve into the farce that it did anyway, and it needed no help from outside influences.

And that, Laud, is what you don’t like knowing that we all know. No, let me assure you, there is complete unity from orthodox on the display of yesterday. And from the revisionists, I don’t care what they think.

I’m afraid you flatter yourself. They just have far stricter rules over there than we do. And they probably thought you were a troll.

As a newcomer to Stand Firm I have to admit I am just totally confused. There is clearly something BIG going on but I don’t know what - which is scary! Any chance of an easy-reader summary of what is happening, how scared I need to be and what, if anything, I can do?

Naw, Laud—just reasserting facts in case you’re confused about that as you are other things.

What happened yesterday was an earthly acting out of what is happening in the spiritual reality.

A summary of the situation in TEC and the Anglican Communion can be found in II Peter 2

The ripping sound yesterday, was another massive tear in the fabric of the Anglican Communion.

The groans yesterday may well have been labor pains. It’s quite possible that we are living witnesses to the birth of a new creation of God.

Don’t pay attention to what RW says. Watch what he does. Review what he has done. At every critical juncture since October 2004, he has acted to protect the interests of TEC. He has run every path proceeding from Windsor into a blind alley, and deliberately so. Jamaica is simply a repeat performance of what he has done several times before. Now he will talk a good game to try and repair the damage that he has wrought in his effort to save TEC from itself. But his resulting actions will never correspond to the words. This was so predictable, and it illustrates once again that the problem in the Anglican Communion is not found in New York. The problem is found in England. Until there is a willingness to shake off the dust of the feet against Canterbury, this will happen again, and again, and again.

Ralph’s statement is worth repeating:
“The groans yesterday may well have been labor pains. It’s quite possible that we are living witnesses to the birth of a new creation of God.”

Because of this, ‘the devils know and tremble…’ (old unnamed hymn) for “At the Name of Jesus, every knee shall bow, every tongue confess Him, King of Glory…” (p.435, 1982 Episcopal Hymnal)

True Anglicanism is tattered and torn, but she has something beautiful and vital to offer to the Orthodox and Catholic Churches…something built into her by her Lord, at the cost of the blood of martyrs over the centuries…the sweetest most beautiful hymns, collects and prayers and liturgy in the English language ever seen upon the earth - that have brought countless souls to the Lord Jesus Christ - that have expressed the evangelical, catholic and charismatic characteristics of the Holy Spirit.
Anglican Christianity, despite the political power-mongering, ambition and pride of her bishops, has been one of the vehicles/tools used by the Lord of the Church to spread His Gospel over the earth.

That is why the enemy of God is trying so hard to silence, humiliate, defile, divide and destroy her. And that is why the Lord Jesus is pouring out His grace and power to her in her time of weakness and oppression. II Corinthians 12:9

Laud, you are so wrong and Dr. Noll is so right. We have more overreaching by the liberals. Thank goodness for the consecration of Gene Robinson! Thank goodness for the ACC meeting! An insipid and impotent document is killed. Hooray! Who would have thunk that it would be brought about, in part, by ABp Orombi dedicating himself to evangelism rather than processing?

I found the on-site blogging of yesterdays discussion very confusing. I read it quite carefully and saw what appears to be a massive engagement of cross-currents of statements that thoroughly mixed up the individual points.

I agree with Sarah that the orthodox stood firmly together and that was great and will be seen more clearly in the coming days.

I think that the success of the progressives was that they were able to twist and turn the issues that they became almost impossible to follow.

I think that the obfuscation and misdirection by them will clearer in the days to come.

I think that what will stand out alone will be the open lies and machinations of Schori which the Gafcon primates and bishops have always clearly and which I hope will stand out to the moderate primates.

Pageantmaster: I thought that indaba and the Delphi technique were precisely processes to filter information and manipulate outcomes and here, always to the advantage of the progressives.

Reading the transcript, I can’t really tell what happened in the final votes. So, here’s my question to people who believe something underhanded and evil happened here: do you believe that the delegates assembled would not have approved Aspinall’s resolution “c” (which is I gather pretty much what passed) if they’d had the chance? That is, whatever the procedural mess, did the outcome mirror the mind of the delegates assembled? Or do you believe this was a mess because the mind of the delegates assembled was wrong?

Quite right BillC! That is exactly what satan and his agents do! They twist and distort things! He began that false works in the Garden with Eve and has continued over the centuries doing it again and again…...what a display he made yesterday! For those who have eyes to see it and ears to hear it do! I pray mightily for those who do not!

Putting a fine point on what happened is an illustration of the law of unintended consequences. Under the guise of procedural attentiveness ACC/JSC/Lambeth sock puppet/815 sectarians, a.k.a. the Hegelian theology juggernaut (HTJ) currently running the West dominated AC, pretended to be serious in producing another AC “instrument of unity”. By determinedly and effectively gutting and shelving the covenant, this faction has jettisoned any pretense of unity, and, in effect, is pronouncing to the orthodox that the AC has NO place for them in the HTJ economy.

These sectarians refuse to be faithful to the basic tenets of Christianity, tore the fabric of the Communion at its deepest level in 2003, over the last six years demonstrate they are determined to continue their pell mell rush toward nearly every heresy the Church militant has decisively dealt with over the last 2000 years, and now with the Kingston [K]atastrophe have thrown the gem of Anglicanism into a trash heap.

It looks as if the any other result was unlikely. As we say the deck of cards was stacked from the start meaning that the playing cards had been tampered with to make some results more likely than others. Resolutions to the ACC Meeting were organised by the Resolutions Committee who collected views from the Indaba discussion groups. That group consisted of 4 people: 3 were from small liberal provinces including the United States [the subject of the problems which have made the Covenant necessary], New Zealand [liberal and also providing the chair of the ACC meeting] and Scotland [liberal and with under 50,000 members making it smaller than an English diocese].

The problem I am afraid I have concluded is the stranglehold that small white liberal provinces have over the Communion processes and this is deliberately organised by the Archbishop of Canterbury. There will be no progress while he is allowed to manipulate and control all this.

The only way that balance will be restored is for his power to control to be removed and for the churches of the Communion to take control over the bodies supposed to represent them. This will only happen if AB John Chew, AB Mounir Anis and the Global South Primates and churches come together to organise a Primates meeting and establish a committee of the Primates to take over Dr Williams’ functions of calling, organising and setting the agenda of meetings, calling and organising the Lambeth Conference and organising a secretariat for the Communion which is not controlled and funded by the US and other liberal provinces.

The key comes with the Global South coming together and not allowing Dr Williams and the ACO to split them any more.

The only amusing fact coming from Jamaica is that liberals and conservatives think they lost. The fact is both may be correct. Briefly, thus.

Section 4 of the covenant document would have created an uber-church that would have had machinery to expel members. That the liberals clearly did not want and the meeting somehow sent section 4 off to yet another working group. So the conservatives lost.

But Section 3 slipped into a potential signature process. It contains references to a set of “agreed to moritoria” which simply do not exist. There is no agreement. But the same people who brought you yet another working group also act and speak as though the moritoria were agreed and that is a major loss for the left. So the liberals lost.

I dunno if the ABC thinks that one washes the other or what he thought he was doing. There were plenty of losses in Jamaica and few wins. There is ever less sense of an on going commitment to the communion. What a mess.

Oh, now, jimB, let’s not forget that the ABC has lost all respect he might have had and can be classed with Peter Pan, “Bad form,” Rowan. What a legacy! Perhaps though he has retained rights to some sort of reward in the global north province under the dominatrix. There’s a body’s grace in the thought, isn’t there?

dwstroudmd, you miss or simply ignore my point. Do not think for a moment that the left is happy about the outcome. The ‘agreed to moritoria’ language that passed in section 3 is every bit as onerous to the left as the sliding of section 4 into apparent limbo is to the right.

I doubt very much that anyone in TEC leadership is happy with the ACC or Dr. Williams of a morning.

jimB, let’s say I missed your point. I understand that your impression is that the conservatives lost and the liberals lost and that everyone in the AC lost yet more of the sense of the nature of what used to be the AC.

“I dunno if the ABC thinks that one washes the other or what he thought he was doing.” See above #151. The silver lining for the ABC -who cannot be accused of stupidity according to all reports- is that the quashing of the covenant may bring rewards from the Global North Dominatrix (primus) et alia inter pares. It could be perhaps increased if he would manifest more brazenly than he did at Jamaica his support of the body’s grace. But the expectation that anyone will fall for the line that our poor, academic giant got confused and spoke against his pet project in other than a deliberate and intentional matter is overwrought. Poor little Rowan is a very slow learner indeed if it be the case that he was upstaged by his own staff and the ACC under the monetary governance of the Dominatrix (primus.

No, Rowan’s sleight of hand is exposed for the mere delaying tactic it has always been. The colonial and imperialistic domination of the former AC is revelaed in all its glory. The only detriment is that the See of Canterbury obviously answers to the See of 815. I don’t see how he can get out that.

The big loser:Jesus.
That no one can claim total victory, big deal. The Communion is dead. Any trust that there might be some Body Grace to enable redemption is obliterated. The ABC lost control of his Synod in regard to female bishops and covering for traditionalists (if that wasn’t another play-acting on his part) and he manifiestly opposed his own covenant when push came to shove.

“Bad form” says Captain Hook. The only question is whether is was culpably intentional or culpably outmaneuvered or culpably stupid on Rowan’s part. But it is clearly culpable on his part. I’d suggest a hair shirt and walk in the snow and three days fasting before the City of Rome or Patriarch of his choice as a preliminary penance in a primus inter penitentia sort of way. It is the one mode in which he can be a leader, having failed all others.

#100 Carl, Yep, you nailed it with Gledhill’s comments. Ole Rowan “Chaos and Division” Williams is finally kow-towing and step-and-fetching the Americans in public. I mean, really public.

The ACI Statement begins:
“Friday’s session of the Anglican Consultative Council is an embarrassment to Anglicans everywhere, and a sad display of procedural confusion.”
They go on:
“The credibility of the ACC, already questioned by the Communion’s own advisory groups, has suffered lasting damage.

This issue must be re-visited immediately by the ACC and voted upon in a lawful and proper manner during this meeting. The alternative is moving forward with lasting questions as to the legitimacy of the entire process. Is this in doubt?
An explanation must be offered by those in charge of these proceedings, including the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Chairman of the ACC, as to how such manifestly improper procedures were permitted to unfold from the outset of Friday’s session and, indeed, of ACC-14 itself. It appears to us that things descended into chaos and no one stopped and sought to bring things to order.
If lawful and proper action on the covenant is not forthcoming from this meeting of the Council, the only appropriate response is for the Churches of the Communion to begin themselves the process of adopting the Ridley Cambridge Text.

Christopher Seitz
Philip Turner
Ephraim Radner
Mark McCall
Rt. Revd. John Howe
May 10 2009 12:02 pm”

dwstroudmd, I frankly have no idea what he thought he was doing. If TEC were calling the tune, I do not think it was, neither section 3 or 4 would be in play.

The ABC is the object of unmitigated verbal spleen over a procedural problem foreseen by no other than the eminence grise/common denominator of the worldwide reasserting movement, Canon Christopher Sugden:
From Stand Firm Live Blog 8 May 2009
‘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.’
[CS is Canon Chris Sugden]
LATER
From Anglican Journal 9 May 2009
‘When the delegates returned Archbishop Anis questioned why parts of the defeated section of the resolution had been brought back into the amendments that were approved. “That’s illegal,” he said. “How can we bring defeated clauses into a new resolution?” He also noted that while the introduction of the amendment was approved, the amendment itself was never put to a vote.

At this point, the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams said that the resolution that dealt with detaching Section 4 had been largely defeated because some delegates had understood that two clauses contained in it were to be lifted from it and added as amendments.

Bishop Paterson concurred, saying, “the vote was initially in anticipation of the fact that some other material would be introduced. The ACC was made aware of the act and we voted accordingly. I believe it’s time to move forward.” ‘

‘In a press briefing, Canon Kenneth Kearon, secretary general of the Anglican Communion reiterated the explanation, saying that delegates had voted to discard that section of the resolution, “since a revised text was coming.” ‘

Contributors on this site need to live up to your reputation - how to say in America? Fair and balanced. At times it seems you are under the tutelage of Sean Hannity. (Not Russ Limbaugh: David Virtue has that spot).

ACI’s statement about the meeting is the best explanation I’ve read and almost the only thing that has allowed me to understand what happened. It can be found on their website.

They recommend: “If lawful and proper action on the covenant is not forthcoming from this meeting of the Council, the only appropriate response is for the Churches of the Communion to begin themselves the process of adopting the Ridley Cambridge Text.”

This seems to be the only antidote to the incoherence and chaos of the ACC proceedings.

Sarah is analyzing this in the political realm of the church, which she does so well. I’d like to add another dimension to this thought.
I don’t think it was a coincidence that the day before this debacle the ACC had welcomed the Continuing Indaba Project. The primary purpose of the project was listening to the experience of homosexuals. However, the source of the $1.5 million also promotes abortion rights.
To my knowledge, this is the first time a communion-wide bond with a pro-choice institution has been created. The next day confusion reigned, and some present referred to a spirit of confusion.
The first action of the moderate conservatives and the conservatives coming together should be the renunciation of the affiliation with the SHLI.

Good for the ACI. Its clear, brave statement does help to explain the stunning events of Friday’s vote (if it can be called that). ACI also sees the one way forward—some act of justice and truth that needs to come out of this meeting. I also found Stephen Noll’s comment (on another thread here) envisions practical options that might now reverse the injustice of what has happened; but it is painful to know how unlikely it is that any of them will materialize. May the Lord God save us from disillusionment and despair. I am glad to know there are still good people out there who do understand the truth about this session in Jamaica—and who are not covering it up.

As #160, Jill, points out - the WORST thing that happened in Jamaica is NOT the overt violations of polity - it is accepting the Morehouse/Satcher grant of $1.5 million dollars.

The ACC has, in actuality, signed a pact to embrace TEC’s agenda and promote homosexuality and abortion as a norm for the whole Communion - forcing it on every Province - under the name - THE CONTINUING INDABA PROJECT.

This has been done by the actions of one small select group - The ACC - when all minds and eyes were focused on the conflict, confusion, smoke and mirrors of what they thought was the most pressing issue - the Covenant.

The Primates should renounce ALL the actions of the ACC and JSC in Jamaica immediately and ask for the resignation of Rowan Williams.

I have not said much lately because I was among the strongest supporters of Rowan Williams, and indeed he had it in him once to see beyond faction and beyond earthly structures. As a Professor, I read him widelyand had a sense of the great scope of his understanding. But how could anyone trust him again or care much what he says? Does he have a sense of this, I wonder?

Floridian, I agree with you and Jill that the alliance with the M/S “health” initiative is a lethal blow to the Anglican Communion. It seems to me it is similar in kind to the Episcopal’s Church’s affiliation with the abortion-activist RCRC, and that is what forced me and many others from the American church, lest we be implicated in the darkest of sins. I had thought that the Anglican Communion, at least, would be free of such institutional indoctrination and wrong-doing; but it seems now that is not to be, either. (For some readon, this reminds me of an odd headline I saw yesterday about Michael Nazir Ali; I don’t even know the context, but he was quoted as saying that we should look to Rome for unity. It does become harder to say that we should look to the AC for virtue, for justice, for unity.) May these recent happenings in the ACC be reversed, oh God.

Note the Satcher agenda labels as ‘extremist forces’ those who object to homosexuality, abortion and sexual promiscuity (labeled as sexual rights and sexual health). Christians or anyone who supports abstinence and chastity are extremists.

They have claimed to be ‘the norm’ and call all who disagree with them ‘extremists.’

Rick Warren is willing to work with such groups in order to promote his PEACE plan.
He will surely and eventually find himself entangled with agendas and unwittingly promoting activities that violate Scripture and displease God.

If the ACNA leadership does not take a clear stand for Life and sexual morality and chastity and does not stand against The Indaba Project, it will be spiritually compromised from the outset.

Evidence in science and clinical practice in medicine, psychology and psychiatry contradicts the Satcher Health Initiative.
They are really not promoting women’s health, but women’s ruin.

The goals and agenda of the Satcher Initiative, Ford Foundation are the same as those of TEC and Western Provinces.

The $1.5 million dollars is to be used to foist their mutual agenda upon the whole Anglican Communion - in the name of the Continuing Indaba Project.

#124
This must be the first time I’ve ever agreed with laud on anything, but I think he’s absolutely correct here. ++Orombi bears much of the blame for this fiasco. I don’t see how he can look ++Mouneer in the eye after letting the side down so badly.

Floridian, It does matter. I am well aware of the agendas of all involved. But inaccuracy in attributing the words of one agency to another leads to a loss in credibility.
There’s plenty of material to critique in all the links I posted.

Fiasco? This outcome is almost ideal. The Covenant (a snare and a trap for the orthodox) has been critically and in all likelihood mortally wounded. The duplicity of the process and RWs part in it were on display for all to see. A credibility gap has opened between the orthodox and the true locus of the problem in the Communion - the leadership in England. Everything has been delayed for at least six years. For there to be any resolution, it must now come from outside the formal structures of the Communion. This is perhaps the impetus necessary to take the problem out of the hands of those who have no intention of solving it, and thus force action.

Our God is a holy God. He cannot share His glory with lies, deceit, death. The closer we draw to Him in holiness, the more we fall under His wing of protection. The further we draw away, in sin, the less we fall under His protection, whether individuals or institutions.
On May 7, the Anglican Communion took a step further away. The name Continuing Indaba Project sounds innocuous, but its financial source is not. On May 8 confusion, deceit, and chaos reigned at the highest level.
The first step is renunciation of affiliation with the SHLI. No one is immune to Satan’s wiles. Those portions of the AC which publicly renounce this affiliation will be drawn further under God’s wing of protection, and Satan’s access will be correspondingly reduced.

#167 Ralinda - thanks for the links. In case it is helpful here is my response to you on T19:

Thanks Ralinda. You are correct that the quote is not from Morehouse-Satcher, but from their financial backers.

Thank you also for the links on SF from which the following quote from Morehouse comes:

From them I learned that The Moorehouse Center of Excellence in Sexual Health was funded by the Ford Foundation whose mission is to oppose traditional Christian positions on sexual behavior and morality and the religious objection to homosexuality and abortion.

Leaders from groups ranging from LGBT groups to Focus on the Family met and talked nine times from 2004-2006 and in 2006, the Moorehouse CESH published an interim report of their talks. The 55 page Interim Report is here: http://www.msm.edu/Documents/Research/CESH_NCP_InterimReport.pdf

Dr. Satcher’s concluding statement pages 1-3 describe a process of listening and dialogue aimed at achieving a consensus. Page 4 of the report lists the participants and the organizations they represent.

The report concluded with several kinds of statements:
- 1-2 sentence quotes from each of the participants
- A concluding summary of the meeting with multiple statements such as, ‘We agree on this___’ and ‘We hold diverse views (disagreed) on ____ ,’

- the validity of the term ‘sexual orientation’
- the age when sexual activity and knowledge ceased being inappropriate (harmful and traumatic) and when it was healthy, what kind of sexual activity is healthy, etc..

We are not told if a follow-up or final statement has come from or will come from this group.

To come to a sound final conclusion about exactly what constitutes healthy human sexual behavior it would require a willingness to examine and evaluate actual evidence in a longterm assessment of research and clinical practice of medicine and mental health, CDC statistics and police/hospital reports, and from the actual outcomes and outcomes in the lives of people exercising philosophical, spiritual and moral values and engaging in various sexual behaviors - outside of the bias of sexual agenda idealogy.

So far, we have seen this:
The sexual agenda does not does not tolerate disagreement but is willing to silence or malign anyone who holds a differing view.
The sexual agenda does not bow to facts and evidence, but is willing to lie about or hide facts and evidence.
The sexual agenda will hold large ‘indaba, consensus, dialogue’ meetings and publish a report afterward that proports their own desired results and there is no evidence presented to support their conclusions.
The sexual agenda does not bow to the voice of God in Scripture, to 2000 years of Church history and theology.
The agenda does not want to hear or want you to hear the testimonies of people who have found in Christ freedom from bondage to sexual behavior and identity problems.

Do you believe the Ford Foundation with its stated mission would give 2.4 million dollars to fund a study if their own desired outcome was not presented in the end?

Would TEC have gotten $1.5 million (of those dollars?) if they were not willing to accomodate and cooperate with the Ford Foundation mission statement?

ATTENTION - it is important - give very close to what Jill Woodliff, #172 has said.

We have argued the events in Jamaica from polity/political infractions and the idealogical sexual angle, but a church has to put the Spiritual realities and God’s Word and Will and Ways FIRST.

When a group or individual violates spiritual laws and the congruent evidence in creation/science/reality, they always suffer negative consequences.

Sin exacts an unpleasant and painful price on those who sin, are sinned against and are under their influence. We are suffering from the consequences of our own and our leaders sins.

With you on the last, there, Floridian (#175). I renounce with vigor ALL the actions of the ACC/JSC in Jamaica.

Also, according to the NCP interim report:
During the process, seven leaders of these organizations with divergent perspectives withdrew from the NCP:
• Advocates for Youth, James Wagoner, Executive Director
• Concerned Women for America, Janice Crouse, Senior Fellow
• Focus on the Family, Walt Larimore, Vice-President for Medical Outreach
• Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network, Kevin Jennings, Executive Director
• National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, Sarah Brown, Executive Director
• Traditional Values Coalition, Andrea Lafferty, Executive Director
• Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Kevin M. Cathcart, Executive Director
Perhaps these organizations withdrew because they realized the results of “indaba” were predetermined and/or not worth their time and effort

Many blessings, and by all means, keep digging because the dirt on the Ford Foundation and the Satcher Institute is deep and as you noted, there are unanswered questions about what the NCP has done since their interim report. Continuing Indaba looks to be a way to extend the “conversation” to the global arena and influence religious leaders/policies.

Thanks for your input, clarification and information. I do not mind being corrected at all. I often need it.

BTW, I understand Kevin K. will be broadcasting ++Rowan’s Presidential Address tonight around 6 pm Central

Will that be before or after Mark Harris posts the email conversations between Kevin and the ACI?
And don’t let canon Kearon get too close to the power cable, we’d like to see this broadcast. It may be historic, like Chamberlain presenting his peace deal after Munich.

...and in a symbolic gesture, I will “watch” the Abp’s address with my back turned toward my computer…

Some more info on SHLI. David Satcher’s brother is Dr. Robert L. Satcher, Sr. According to Episcopal Life Online, he was recently named president of Saint Paul’s College in Lawrenceville, Virginia, one of three historically black colleges of the Episcopal Church.

Satcher, whose brother is Dr. David Satcher, former United States Surgeon General, has held various positions at Saint Paul’s, including interim president, professor of chemistry, physics and physical science, vice president of academic affairs and provost.

Thank you for that *very interesting* fact. It is not an extraneous bit of trivia, but a certain connection to The Continuing Indaba Project, this latest attempt to foist TEC/PC agenda morality and therefore grave spiritual ills upon the entire Anglican Communion.

We await and expect the denunciation and repudiation of this action by the ACC/JSC by all orthodox clergy and laity.

For too long, Anglicanism has tried to function under the pall of Henry’s and his successors’ spiritual and bodily manipulations, adulteries, deceptions (self and other) and control.

If Charles does not repent of his delving into false religions and renounce his past sins (he and Camilla recently visited the Pope, hopefully it was personally efficaceous and they received corrective truth) Anglicanism will continue to founder on the rocks of human pretense (at sovereignty) human pride (exaltation of self, exemption by entitlement, assumption of station and authority that should belong to God alone) human folly (frailty masked by required obedience to man’s blood and law rather than God’s own provision of The Blood and The Law).

These are grave deceits and conceits and must be repented and renounced if any reformation is to take place.

Reformation and restoration to God, any reformation and restoration of humanity, individual or collective, may only come from one source…it issues from the Cross.
Christianity factors down to this one thing; the basic common denominator of Christianity is one wretch alone before God Almighty, King and Sovereign Ruler and Creator of all that is, asking forgiveness, help and mercy at the foot of the Cross.

Actually…pall is not the right word…*spiritual bondage* should be substituted in this sentence:

For too long, Anglicanism has tried to function under the *spiritual bondage* of Henry’s and his successors’ spiritual and bodily manipulations, adulteries, deceptions (self and other) and control.”

Dr. Radner’s response clarifies the wrongdoings of the ACC ‘vote’ on the Covenant and I hope it will be posted here along with Anglican TVs coverage of the interview with Archbishop Mouneer Anis and the other orthodox delegates.

“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….It doesn’t get any more faithful or Anglican than this!
...
All these articles are 35 years old! Yet, they sound as if they were written during the current crisis.”

©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.