| Friday 5th June, 2009 You are here: Home - 5th June 2009 Index Page - 5th June 2009 Editorial |
Editorial
ACC-14 And The Draft Covenant
The debate at the recent Anglican Consultative Council meeting in Jamaica (ACC-14) on the Ridley Cambridge Draft Anglican Covenant has undoubtedly placed yet more strain on inter-Anglican relations, trust now having broken down to a considerable extent in parts of the Communion. Following a debate marked by a lack of procedural clarity at ACC-14, the decision was taken to refer Section 4 of the Ridley Cambridge Draft - the section which includes ‘dispute resolution’ - to a new working group for reconsideration.
Some members of the ACC were dismayed by the procedure by which a clear decision against detaching Section 4 from the Draft for possible revision (17 for, 47 against doing so) was effectively reversed by an amendment to a subsequent motion. Furthermore, this reverse decision was taken on a narrow vote (33 to 30) and after a long, confusing and quite convoluted discussion. Very seriously indeed, the impartiality of the Resolutions Committee has been called into question.
The fact that representatives from The Episcopal Church in the US (TEC) appear to have gone away from Jamaica very happy with the outcome is ironic, given that, in terms of sequence of events, the actions mainly of TEC have led the Anglican Communion into its current sorry divisions. It should not be forgotten that in proceeding in 2003 to the episcopal consecration of a priest living in a same-sex relationship, TEC defied the counsels of the Lambeth Conference, the Primates’ Meeting and the Archbishop of Canterbury.
The President Bishop of Jerusalem and the Middle East, the Rt Revd Mouneer Anis, has written in his personal reflection on ACC-14: "My own impression is that the fear behind accepting the text of the Covenant, especially Section 4, originates from the desire to avoid anything binding which would affirm the interdependence of the Anglican Churches. Denying the interdependence of Churches is contrary to the very meaning of the word ‘Communion’. For this reason, without this section the ‘Covenant’ would not be a Covenant and the word ‘Communion’ would lose its meaning." Bishop Anis claimed that as a result of what he called a "manipulative process" at ACC-14, the sending of the Covenant text to the Provinces was deferred "with the hope of playing further games".
The comments of Bishop Anis are indicative both of a crisis in confidence in Anglican Communion structures that needs to be addressed as a matter of great urgency and of the extreme caution with which the new working group to be chaired by the Archbishop of Dublin should approach any modification of Section 4.