ACI calls for a do-over

The Anglican Communion Institute, sharing the same frustration as many who have been supportive of the Ridley Draft of the Covenant, is calling the ACC to return today to the matter it discussed on Friday.

Specifically, the ACI is frustrated that the controversial ruling the effectively will delay the Covenant's adoption. The ACI is committed to the belief that the Covenant is the only way out of the present controversy. Any delay would have deleterious consequences in their mind.

They lay the blame for the state of affairs at the feet of the Archbishop of Canterbury, though they do not assign motive.

They end their statement:

"Two actions are required as a matter of urgency:
  1. 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?

  2. 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."

Read the full statement here.

Tobia Haller is unimpressed. Read Vanity of Vanities.

Comments (8)

It's my football so it's my privilege to make the rules. If you don't play by my rules, you'll make me take my football and start my own game.

Lawful? Proper? Don't these ACI folks realize they are dissing the Instruments -- at least two of them?

This sums up the vanity of the whole agenda: to give authority to those whom even the givers distrust to implement the very authority they desire.

So the same ACI whose former executive director Don Armstrong, late of Grace Church, Colorado Springs, claimed at T19 in April 20th, 2007 that his church had funded ACI to the tune of $170,000 in the four years since 2003 ("lasting questions", "improper"?), is now thundering from high moral ground at ACC, like a Bishop of Rome ex-cathedra, to right the wrong done to them?

Did someone finally elect the "four guys with a website" dog-catcher?

Roger Mortimer

It is just one tantrum after another with these guys.

I agree that the resolution in question was handled ineptly, beginning with the ruling from the chair who seemed to think that a motion to refer Section 4 for further study was the same thing as a motion to drop section 4 entirely. Overruling him was the right move. The problem with the resolution was compounded by the fact that the ACC seemed to have agreed to vote on it clause by clause, but then the vote to include the "refer to study" clauses in the final resolution was interpreted as a vote to approve those clauses. I don't doubt that the vote to approve would have been identiical to the vote to include, though, so I don't think the will of the body was distorted.

OK ... can we get a do-over on B033 based on +Frank's handling of the resolution in the House of Bishops?

Oops ... that was Susan Russell

One other thing, much of the commentary on these admittedly cockeyed procedings seems to have been written by people who have never seen a legislative body in session.

Great indignity is expressed about the fact that resolutions are amended, substitute amendments are offered and legislative advantage is sought.

It's as though they are at a hockey game getting all worked up because the other team's goalie is blocking their team's shots.

RE Tobias' point and Jim's last comment. One critic of the deliberations has written " does say something about how the ACC is regarded in much of the non-Western world. The churches here know what a bishop is; they know what an Archbishop is and even a chief Primate is; hence they can understand three of the so-called Instruments of Unity in the Anglican Communion. But they don’t understand what a consultative council is, why it is constituted as it is, and they don’t frankly take much care in preparing for its meeting."

Which brings to mind Churchill's dictum: "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Dictatorship of course isn't nearly as messy nor as costly nor as much work for the participants (prepare for a meeting?). Let's just clear up our ecclesial deficit and become a majesterium church.

RE Susan, while we're at it let's travel back in time and have a do-over of Lambeth 1998.

Add your comments

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.

Advertising Space