Stephen Noll put his left foot in, and has now taken his left foot out. He is blaming the machinations of the ACC, as he thought politics might happen, for the failure of a situation where GAFCON type Churches might all rush in and make the Covenant their own (and Gregory Cameron, against that of Kenneth Kearon, did talk about a weight of Churches that sign up to this thing one by one and that might affect its inclusion/ exclusion). But the ACC takes its authority from the spread of Anglican institutions, and whilst Noll thinks Canterbury might have 'campaigned' for what Noll wants, in the end the doors were shut by the balance of power against the GAFCONites and against those seeking destruction from below, via dioceses signing on. So Noll is right, however, that this Covenant does nothing, and is dead, and he advises that the Global South produces its own. But many in the Global South won't want to join the religious Trotskyites with its own decision making centre. So the car crash film continues to run until the mess is all over the place. Graham Kings's "Stephen Noll is on our side" needs its own about reverse too.

Little wonder that the Fourth Moratorium nearly failed. The Episcopal Church has done an extremely poor job of explaining to the rest of the Communion what its schismatic congregations are actually up to, as may be gauged by the following comment on the (English, moderate Evangelical) Fulcrum Forums:

"But to be even handed – Schori’s statement on the earlier motion for a fourth moratorium on legal action that 'I would urge you to vote against this amendment. The reality is that those that remove property from TEC have done so without dialogue...the Archbishops of Sudan, Harare, and Brazil have had to go to court in order to get their property back...the current bishop of Jerusalem has had to go to court to defend his property' (from the Stand Firm blog) quite properly brought accusations of misrepresentation at best and deliberate deceit at worst. Personally I am sad that the fourth moratorium amendment was defeated..."

Many in British Evangelical circles and elsewhere still believe that the Episcopal Church leadership is "persecuting the orthodox." More has to be done to counter this smear.

Archbishop Rowan is right. Reconciliation takes as long as long as it takes. The present muddle comes from forcing ourselves as a Communion to take decisions when we are perhaps half a century or longer away from being ready to decide. The ACC has many fine people as members. What they lack, again as +Rowan understands, is a theology that helps us all to understand what the Spirit is saying to the church when there is root-and-branch disagreement.

Is an English translation avaliable of Pluralist's last post?

"Our Lord said: "For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men (Matthew 19:12). The Covenant is to be numbered among the latter" - Stephen Noll -

What Stephen Noll omits to include in his biblical quotation here is the closing words of Jesus discourse, mentioning a 3rd category -Eunuchs who have made themselves that way, quote: "For the sake of the kingdom". One could be led to conclude that a re-wording of Section 4 of the Ridley Draft of the Covenant could indeed be "For the sake of the kingdom". I say this because, if the dissidents were allowed to get into the Anglican Communion by the back-door entrance of Section 4, then the Communion might no longer be called 'Anglican'.

Noll, Ridley and Nazir-Ali (and many others including Orombi, Akinola and Jensen) may well be frustrated by what they each see as manipulation of the process at ACC14, but one only has to recognise their own manipulative tactics - e.g.: Orombi's attempt to place one of his decoy ducks at the ACC meeting - to know that when one's own manipulative tactics are not working, God might well use what we see as the 'manipulations' of others to bring about God's perfect will.

My perception of the process at ACC14 has been that, despite the sometimes chaotic behaviour of the some of the Press Representatives, and some very brisk interchange between the various groups, the Anglican attributes of Scripture, Tradition and Reason have been manifestly upheld -at least by the majority, who want to open up the Communion to modern understandings of the Gospel.

In today's sermon on the Ethiopean Euchuch, to whom Philip's exposition of Isaiah brought new insights into God's raising of the status of a despised minority, our preacher compared the Eunuch to the modern LGBT community. Stephen Noll's use of the Matthew 19:12 quotation might well apply to gays who, "From their mother's womb" have been that way. Maybe now the Church can enter into that paradigm by bringing the Good News of the Gospel to LGBTs in the Church and beyond to the world - without impedence from the New Puritans.

"One delegate from Uganda described what was taking place as nothing short of "demonic possession." - David Virtue - V.on line web-site -
As there is only one offical delegate from Nigeria at ACC14, David Virtue is attributing this inflammatory statement to her. One wonders if this is the theological reality encountered in the minds of more than one of the accredited delegates to the ACC? To gleefully report of such a point of view from the membership of the world-wide Anglican Consultative Council shows the measure of disrespect which Virtue (as a reporter) and others from the GAFCON and ACNA sodality are content to portray about a lawful decision made within this official organisation if the Communion. The question here might be: "Who would want people capable of such accusations of 'demonic behaviour' in its official business to continue to be be part of Anglicanism?"

If this is the sort of primitive fundamentalism that could be expected of any 'other Churches' which might have been allowed to sign the Covenant document with the inclusion of Section 4, it might be as well that Section 4 is to be radically changed.

Culpa Mea AGAIN! In my last post (at 7.15am) the country mentioned in the second line of text should, of course, have been Uganda - not Nigeria. It was Uganda that has only one delegate.

Indeed, as Brian says, this is all too hasty and it has all the signs of something to be repented of at leisure.

The language of the CDG has been punctuated with calls for speed and Bishop Gomez's plea last week was all about quickly grasping the opportunity or disaster was imminent. I always feel I am being hustled when I hear: " Sign! Sign! Or you will miss a wonderful opportunity.

Like Brian (who hangs out somewhere from a century to 50 years) I think our family of churches is likely to be transformed into a Church sometime in the future, but it would be a shame if what is best about Anglicanism is lost on the way. the test of becoming a Church in our world must surely be that we have a charism, a special gift that in some way reveals how God relates, that marks us out - rather than transforming ourselves into a something other churches recognise as a pale imitation of themselves by throwing out all that makes us different.

What makes us different, in my view, was best expressed by the untidiness so clearly on show to the world at this ACC meeting. I may find untidy frustrating even occasionally embarrassing, but I always prefer it to the alternatives, and what I am hoping is that somehow that raggedness can be preserved as it seems so hospitable - while slickness feels hostile and exclusive.

I think a Covenant such as we see in its many forms has something to offer - but not yet.

If there is to be a central authority with an empowered secretariat then let us build this carefully and slowly and intentionally! - not by accident or under threat of impending doom. If there is to be such a thing then the separate jurisdictions are going to have to work on their own structures first especially in say Australia where final power remains with the individual diocese. One of the strange features of the present debacle has been some bishops fighting to maintain their total independence while offering to commit themselves to the overlordship of African Primates or the Instruments of Communion.

My deepest regret is that despite everyone seeming to accept that all the Instruments need to be reviewed and the Covenant needs a rethink, we still have not grasped the idea of a Constitution Convention where all is on the table.

T19 has some interesting responses to Noll, with extensive cross-comments by Noll & by C Seitz.

http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/22480/

No Brian. I disagree. Our theology of how we understand what the Spirit is saying happens precisely through on-going conversation. That is the Anglican theological method. Archbishop Williams' want to on the one hand promote conversation and on the other impose an Anglo-catholic style centralism modeled on Rome has sent very mixed signals and heighted a sense of crisis. I suspect that the reason the Indaba was so well received because in their hearts, many bishops felt a return to the Anglican method rather than the pull and push of Evangelical, Anglo-catholic, and Liberal solutions.

"God might well use what we see as the 'manipulations' of others to bring about God's perfect will."--Fr. Ron Smith.

My own meditations keep being drawn back to Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address. Forgive me if I quote at length from its conclusion:

"Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. [Sc. the growing acceptance of gay people as such in Western societies, and the recent political changes in the US.] Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. 'Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.' If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether'.

"With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan – to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations."

How can I help? from a conservative point of view (opposite from mine) the Covenant is distrusted because it is ineffective. No, said Stephen Noll, GAFCON theologian, because it has entry conditions, even if not exit disciplines, that give it a conservative integrity. However, 'politics' might undermine this. ACC in Jamaica took anti GAFCON steps that he calls politicking, and his rather lonely voice from that perspective in support of the Covenant has now become another against it. He does though want one made by the Global South, but he forgets that sections of the Global South do not trust GAFCON, which makes advance decisions itself.

From the theological left, the Covenant is unnecessary and only has value as a statement of Anglicanism - but these already exist.

There are moderated (I don't think they are moderate: Andrew Goddard and Oliver O'Donovan are as anti-inclusive as the rest) right wing voices that are very bureaucratic, and surely they too realise that hard right talk of betrayal and left side talk of reasonable indifference means this Covenant is doomed.

To return to my usual style: the few keep flogging the horse hoping it will get up, but it doesn't. The nag does nothing.

Thank you creepy rabbit, Seitz is very agitated and well he might be!

There are very influential players who are quite sure that the ACC would have passed the Covenant had it not been for the uncertainty over who could sign it initiated and stirred up by his mate Radner...

I am sure that when the history is written the fault will not be fixed on the Primate of Uganda or any they blame for the failure of their plots - it will fall where it belongs on Radner/Seitz and their partners, whose arrogance and public crowing is simply breathtaking.

No Sydney are deceptive as they are playing ball with Anglo-Catholics...which goes against their real belief in what Anglicanism stands for.

Noll and many of his crowd seem to see the Covenant as reactive: a way to punish the "wayward" TEC and ACoC for past actions, since no such mechanism for punishment exists in the current structures of the Communion.

From the beginning, they have not realized that what is done is done (though even the Windsor Report did not talk about undoing actions that had already been taken, merely expressing regret for the actions and their consequences). The real (and perhaps the ONLY) value of a covenant is forward looking: how can we order our common life so that the next big issue does not cause a similar blow-up?

"One wonders if this is the theological reality encountered in the minds of more than one of the accredited delegates to the ACC? "

It certainly seems that demonic possession and witchcraft form major landmarks on the mental maps of at least some African Christians. Remember the impromptu exorcism of a gay man at Lambeth a few years ago? The African pastor laying hands on Governor Palin in order to protect her from witches? The periodic killing of old women in parts of rural Africa?

Full disclosure: I admit the possibility of demonic possession. I'm pretty sure, though, that simply disagreeing with me is not *necessarily* a symptom.

The ACI is squealing like a stuck pig. I guess they had this whole "What is a church" timebomb waiting to go off and Radner blew it by mentioning it publicly on T19. That itself opened the door to a "this isn't finished" attitude. He doesn't like that someone else has taken on the job of cleaning up his draft.

Plus, the drafts are taking the turn that they can just as easily be used against the GAFCON provinces for their cross-border hegemony which makes it sort of difficult for them to sign on to the current draft.

The whole Covenant was begun as a way to discipline TEC but any such document was always going to be DOA in the US, Canada and several close allies.

Instead of stampting their feet and throwing accusations around the ACI should actually produce evidence of so-called procedural irregularities/illegalities. There is nothing in the ACC Bylaws and Guidelines to support their accusations.

The ACC chairman has the power to rule conclusively on any matter regarding procedure:

1.c "Conduct of business at any meeting of the council shall be regulated by procedural rules adopted from time to time by the council, and insofar as any procedural matter shall arise that shall not be dealt with in the procedural rules currently in force, the chairman shall have power to determine such matter conclusively after such consultation as he shall think fit."

All Motions were validly brought:

5.2:1 "In the case of motions forming part of the main agenda, bya member of the council nominated by the Standing Committee; and
5.2:2 In the case of motions formulated by a regional or other group set up for a specific purpose as part of the work of group of sessions, by a member of such group; and
5.2:3 In the case of any other motion to be brought to a plenary session designated by the Standing Committee for such business, by any member of the council with a written indication of support; signed by ten other members;"

The motions / amendments were made available in writing within the required time-scale:

5.1 "[R]elevant motions shall be made available in writing...not later than the commencement of the session in which it is proposed to be presented or discussed, unless the chair of the session shall permit otherwise."

5.3 "Members wishing to submit any amendment to an existing motion shall submit the full text of such motion or amendment in writing, signed by the mover and ten other members, not later than the time directed by the Standing Committee in advance of the relevant discussion in order that the full text may be made available for consideration by all members unless the chair of the session shall permit otherwise."

All amendments were dealt with before the motion was put to the Council:

5.7 "When all amendments shall have been dealt with, the motion, subject to any agreed amendments, shall be put to the council."

It is up to the Chair to rule how a motion is assented to - that means 'clause by clause' is as valid as 'taken as a whole'.

6.2 "The chair of each session shall put the motion under discussion to the council for general assent, which may be indicated in such manner as the chair shall think fit."

In addition there is nothing in the Bylaws or Guidelines against discussing more than one Motion at a time. Nor is there anything preventing material from one Motion being used in another.

http://www.anglicancommunion.org/communion/acc/resources/docs/constitution.cfm

Given the various factions, from GAFCON (a movement born of rebellion) to various slants pro-/anti-/different- Covenant, what is the desired state of play?

Which is better: a world in which the Communion becomes a legalistic body with its own decided treaty, or one in which such a thing is unnecessary and unused and people accept their differences and act as friends, out of love for each other?

IMNSHO you can't preach "not under Law but under grace" and be pro-Covenant. The "old" anglicanism I would hold as ideal is more accurately characterised by "grace" than anything else, especially in such a comparison.

"One could be forgiven for thinking that the debate on Friday morning about the covenant was actually about matters of faith. However it was actually about the issues of property and litigation in the United States."

Damn right it was all about the issue of property and litigation in the United States! The Secessionists, faced with the realization that they face an imminent avalanche of rulings against them in the property cases currently before various US courts - evidence that even their hyped-up wishful thinking can no longer ignore - made an all-out push for an end-run around any and all such rulings, trying to nail a "fourth moratorium" to the three already in place.

(As we know, AC moratoria are binding only on "revisionists", never on the "re-asserters", but right now that's beside the point.)

And they failed. By one vote they failed, but a miss being as good as a mile, they failed.

Over the next few days, things will quieten down. Blame will diverted from where it should, from their point of view, be placed - Orombi's richly-layered incompetence; the difficulties Radner seems occasionally to have expressing himself clearly. The cacophony of confusion and "analysis" that we presently hear - Noll's drama postings, Seitz's self-importance, and now A S Haley's insights - will be distilled to the irreducible minimum of the age-old mantra "We Wuz Robbed"!

These words from the Anglican Communion Institute speak volumes of irony:

"Members were given complex resolutions right before the vote without sufficient time to study them and understand their consequences. Resolutions that had been distributed earlier were replaced by resolutions drafted by a committee largely composed of members from provinces known to be opposed to the Ridley Cambridge Draft."

Now, change the word "resolutions" to "proposals for a Covenant" and "largely composed...." to "including individuals personally involved in efforts to undermine the integrity of TEC, and even chaired by an ex-Primate who has improperly involved himself in the affairs of TEC." Presto! You have a comment on the whole Covenant Design process.

The hard sell for a Covenant which is still hardly half-baked, and the desire to push it through a fast track to create mechanisms for the overthrow of TEC, with an unpredictable amount of collateral damage to the rest of the Communion, is the problem here. Those who recruit Global South Primates and Provinces in their mad power struggle against the Episcopal Church, and who seek to manipulate the levers of power in the Communion, have been relentlessly pushing us through this Daft Covenant process, and we have been letting them get away with it.

If (and it's still a big "if") there is to be a Covenant, it cannot be slapped together through a dodgy process involving a quick glance by Lambeth at one version, a fast-talking selling of another version at ACC before the Provinces have even had a chance to see it, and then a demand that Provinces sign up or find themselves in some kind of second tier of membership.

The work of producing Draft after Draft and selling it with a bait and switch campaign should be put on hiatus. What we need now is a proper, informed debate on the fundamental question which has to date been bypassed: whether having a Covenant is even desirable. The answer to that debate will inevitably depend on what we mean by a Covenant, and it is clear that there is no agreement on that point.

The Communion has hardly scratched the surface of the potential fallout from the current series of proposals. We have the Mother Province apparently unable to sign a Covenant as currently conceived; we have a Province in waiting in North America which will amount to institutionalized schism - a case of ACNA that will leave permanent blotches on the face of the Communion; we have signs that the same sort of schism is likely in other Western Provinces (and here I include Brazil and Southern Africa); we have no idea what is likely to happen in the so-called Southern Provinces.

The debate should not be allowed to conclude before the next Lambeth Conference. Then, and only then, if there is a wide consensus on the desirability of a Covenant and the basic framework for what it should include, then a process could begin to draft something that will hold water for the future - something that is future-oriented, as Jim Pratt wisely suggests, and not an attempt to create a retroactive weapon. Such a process would be allowed to continue at least until the following Lambeth Conference before there is any attempt to recommend adoption.

Reading around and around, I thought I really do want to know, as simply and as logically as possible, what happened. Here is what I think what happened, with a minimum of comment other than explanatory. Is this right?

http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2009/05/how-it-was-done-acc.html

I find it interesting that the voices who claim to be speaking for the Global South are protesting the procedures, and specifically that proper (i.e., Western) parliamentary procedure, such as only discussing the motion or amendment on the floor, and considering different motions serially and disjointedly, were not followed, and therefore the members from the Global South were confused as to what was going on and what they were voting on.

On the other hand, after the Canadian General Synod in 2004, their allies were arguing that procedures were followed to the letter, and that this overemphasis on parliamentary procedure disenfranchised aboriginals and others from non-Western cultural backgrounds.

The range of outcomes in Jamaica were always: (A) Realignment dominates, and TEC plus Canada are punished. Also, maybe the covenant is pushed ahead. Dissenting conservatives rush to sign it, making it a realignment covenant as signing takes hold. Or, (B) Lefty To Middles believers dominate, so the covenant or parts of it are subject to more talk and more redrafting. Or, (C) a messy mix of all people and all views attending.

We got (C).

I think common sense tells us we will be enduring messy mixes for the foreseeable time being.
The USA court cases need time to be adjudicated. That will put some fair, neutral test to the competing property claims, and be a sort of stand-in code for adjudicating the underlying ethics or theological claims which attach to the competing legal issues. Rather silly of the realignment folks to have staked so much on their claims to property and money (because they alone are God's righteous on the earth). Now any number of people in the global audiences will tend to understand the court case rulings as seeming to also be adjudicating the ethical-theological justifications for the property/money
appropriations.

I still find it very, very odd that such highly educated leaders as Radner, and such high profile African figures like Orombi, should signal their not so hidden agendas, so clearly, to nearly everybody who was watching.

By the time the meeting in Jamaica convened, a whole lot of people already knew that the pending draft covenant could be used as a de facto vehicle, since its use of the term church was vague. Realignment could rush in to sign the covenant, thus making it a realignment event. We would probably have had charges or complaints filed by realignment signers at the earliest possible moment as the covenant was signed.
Then, surprise, people began to also realize on the Anglican rights that border crossings could be policed as much as gays and their family/friends. Alarm bells went off, all over the place, all along the spectrums.

All that mess to me just points out, yet again, how shaky it all was, right from the start.

Gomez is such a bad faith figure, he alone could have scuttled the fairness. And he did help some, by preaching doomsday if we did not sign the covenant, now, blindly.

God bless our Anglican mess.

You know how it goes, Jim Pratt: they argue whatever they think they need to argue to make their case at that moment, and never mind what they argued yesterday.

Someone really ought to compile a list of the contradictory statements made over the years by Anglican Mainstream, the AAC/Network, CANA/CAPA/ACNA and various other spokesmen for the right:

e.g. that the Archbishop of Canterbury was all-powerful in the Communion (when they thought they could make him do whatever they wanted) as well as useless and irrelevant (when they realized they could not)

or that Primates are the rulers of the Anglican "Church" worldwide and can give orders to an entire province, although the diocesan bishops composing that province do not answer to any ecclesial authority higher than themselves.

or that ... anyone want to continue?

"a messy mix of all people and all views attending."

A pretty succinct definition of Anglicanism, if ever there was one!