th Volume 1, Issue 14 18 May 2009

ACC Meeting Reveals Deeply Divided

The 14th meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) concluded on 12th May in Kingston, Jamaica, Church of the Province of the West Indies, with little progress made on resolving the deep conflict in the Anglican Communion.

The Church of Uganda is entitled to three delegates – a , priest, and lay person – but was represented only by its lay delegate, Mrs. Jolly Babirukamu.

The ACC meets approximately every two to three years as a consultative body of delegates from the 38 Provinces of the Anglican Communion. It is considered one of the four “Instruments of Communion” within the Anglican Communion. The other three are the Primates’ Meeting, the Lambeth Conference of , and the , who is common to all of them.

The formula for determining the number of delegates a Province is entitled to send to the ACC is a mystery. The wealthier, but small Western Provinces, are over-represented. Nigeria, for example, has more than 18 million active Anglicans and is entitled to three members on the ACC, while Canada, with perhaps less than 600,000 members and TEC, with approximately 800,000 active members, also have three members.

The Rt. Rev. Paul Luzinda, Bishop of Mukono Diocese, is the Church of Uganda’s Bishop delegate to the ACC. He was, however, unable to attend the ACC because of a commitment to participate in the 40th anniversary celebration in the UK of the Church of Uganda and Bristol Diocese’s link relationship. Archbishop Henry Orombi said there was not enough time to organize another Bishop to represent him.

With the retirement of Rev. Canon Job Mbukure two years ago, another clergy delegate was not appointed. When it was realized that there was no clergy delegate appointed, it was, again, too late to organize travel and visas for someone to attend. It was then that Archbishop Henry Orombi appointed one of the Church of Uganda’s American priests to represent the Church of Uganda as its clergy delegate. Rev. Phil Ashey is a priest of Ruwenzori Diocese, but living in America. He was planning to attend the ACC meeting as an observer, so the Archbishop asked him to also serve as the Church of Uganda’s clergy delegate. His name was submitted to Rev. Canon Kenneth Kearon, Secretary General of the ACC in advance, and he was accepted.

Tragically, when Rev. Ashey reached Jamaica, the Joint Standing Committee intervened and refused to seat him as Uganda’s clergy delegate. Archbishop Henry wrote Archbishop , Archbishop of Canterbury, appealing to him to override the decision of the Joint Standing Committee and seat Uganda’s clergy delegate, but to no avail. In part, Archbishop Henry’s letter said,

“The appointment of delegates to the ACC from a Province is purely an internal matter and is not subject to review by any body within the ACC, including the Joint Standing Committee. That the Joint Standing Committee would assume such authority is a gross violation of our constitutional relationships, not to mention a further tearing of our bonds of affection… For the Joint Standing Committee to assume this power is nothing short of an imperialistic and colonial decision that violates the integrity of the Church of Uganda.”

The disturbing context for this decision is that the ACC had made the exact opposite decision in seating a retired bishop as an American delegate for TEC at the ACC meeting in 1999. This was clearly contrary to Article 4(d) of the Constitution of the ACC, which states, “Bishops and other clerical members shall cease to be members on retirement from ecclesiastical office.” At that time, the ACC said they did not have the right to interfere with the appointment process in a Province.

One observer commented, “We see here what appears to be a lack of fairness, evenhandedness and consistency applied to the advantage of those who have caused the current problems by departing from the teaching and practice of the Communion in faith and morals and to the disadvantage of those who have adhered to the teaching and practice of the Communion in faith and morals.”

The major issue facing the meeting of the ACC was the Anglican Covenant, a proposal put forward in the “The“The TEC TEC strategy strategy was was not not to tohave a covenant.have a covenant. If that did If thatnot godid not Windsor Report for providing a basis for unity in faith downgo down well, [theirwell, [theirstrategy strategy was to] wa s and discipline within the Anglican Communion after delayto] delay as long as aslong possible….The as TEC tore the fabric of the Communion by consecrating confidencepossible….The is not there,confidence we are is nonot as Bishop a man living in a same-sex relationship. The longerthere, accountable we are no longerto each other.” Covenant Design Group, under the leadership of now Mr.accountable Abraham Yisa, to each Lay other.”Delegate Mr . andAbraham Registrar, Yisa, Church Lay Delegate of Nigeria retired West Indian Archbishop Drexel Gomez, worked for several years to produce the third draft, known as the Ridley Cambridge Draft (because it was framed at a meeting at Ridley College, Cambridge, England). The ACC was to either commend the Covenant to the Provinces for adoption, or reject it.

Related to the discussion of the Covenant was consideration of the report from the Windsor Continuation Group. The Windsor Continuation Group was a small committee appointed by Archbishop Rowan Williams to make recommendations on a way forward in the midst of the deeply divided Communion after he did not implement the recommendations of the Primates Communiqué from the Dar es Salaam Primates Meeting in 2007. That Communiqué identified four moratoria – four things Provinces in the Communion should stop doing: Blessing of same-sex unions, consecrating as Bishop a person involved in a homosexual relationship, cross-border interventions, and litigation (lawsuits).

For some unexplained reason, every time the Windsor Continuation Group reported on the moratoria, it mentioned only three and omitted the fourth moratorium on lawsuits. When members of the ACC became aware of this omission, there was a motion to include a fourth moratorium that would prohibit lawsuits. But, when this motion came to a vote, it failed by only one vote, thus revealing how deeply divided the ACC is.

The Episcopal Church USA (TEC) and the Anglican Church of Canada (ACoC) have filed a number of lawsuits against churches that have separated from those Provinces and affiliated with other Provinces in the Communion in an attempt to remain faithful to the historic and Biblical faith of . The members of those “The thing that annoyed me today is churches bought the that we are trying to help people; we land on which the church are trying to put something on the floor building is built and paid for the construction that would restrict all the infringements, of the church building. Accordingly, they feel but for one more year litigation will go entitled to continue using the property, even on [by TEC against orthodox clergy and after they have left TEC or the ACoC. But, TEC congregations in America]….We are and the ACoC believe heading for the real disintegration of the property belongs to our communion. Let God’s will be them and have sued many congregations for done.” – Bishop Ikechi Nwosu, Bishop their property. Repeatedly, the Primates Delegate, Church of Nigeria have called for an end to these lawsuits. Instead, they have only increased in number and intensity. Informal reports from both the Lambeth Conference and this ACC meeting reveal that Bishops and delegates from TEC allegedly misrepresent the facts about the lawsuits they have filed, thus creating confusion about the reality on the ground in North America.

One observer to the ACC meeting learnt that Rev. Ian Douglas, TEC’s clergy delegate, was supposedly telling other delegates that TEC had complied with the moratoria, i.e., they were not engaged in the blessing of same-sex unions. When one Global South delegate challenged him with facts demonstrating that at least 20 TEC dioceses permit same-sex blessings, he fell silent. (TEC’s violations are documented in a booklet entitled TEC: Tearing the Fabric.)

When it came time for the ACC delegates to debate “The intention was that the covenant resolutions on the Ridley Cambridge Draft of the would bring healing to an existing Covenant, confusion and chaos reigned in the meeting. wound. Now we discover that those At one point in the debate, Uganda’s lay delegate, who are the cause of the wound Mrs. Jolly Babirukamu, rose to challenge the [TEC] do not want it to heal. They are out to create more wounds. I see parliamentary manipulation as being out of order and this to be Satanic. The delay is described unauthorized resolutions as “instruments of meant to make the Communion to confusion.” She also called the delegates to pray go apart some more.” – The Ven. against the spirit of confusion at work in the meeting. Abraham Okure, Clergy Delegate, Church of Nigeria The first contentious issue surrounding the debate on the Covenant was the timetable by which it would be adopted. Since TEC generally does not support the Covenant, they were proposing a long, drawn-out timetable. This would favour them, since they could continue to utilize delaying and stalling tactics. Others, including most from the Global South, favoured a quicker timetable that would enable the Covenant to become operational as soon as possible.

The second contentious issue was related to Section 4 of the Ridley Cambridge Draft, which proposed disciplinary measures. Again, TEC and the ACoC were very opposed to Section 4. Initially they proposed a resolution that would remove Section 4 from the draft being voted on, despite the fact that no changes were supposed to be made to the Covenant at the ACC meeting. It was either to be approved in its current form, or not approved. Nevertheless, Resolution A, which called for removing Section 4 from the Covenant, was soundly defeated on a vote of 47 – 17.

“This was deliberate. Resolution A The Archbishop of Canterbury had argued was rejected and yet was brought consistently for an Anglican Communion Covenant to back…. This was a shock and be agreed now and sent to the provinces. Archbishop confusion and a manipulation….Part Drexel Gomez told the ACC that if the Covenant is of this crisis is due to distrust. I must not passed now, the Anglican Communion may split. say that all that happened increased the distrust….I am very disappointed [with the action taken on the The debate was going in a positive direction toward Covenant]. I will not let this stop me adoption of the Covenant. An alternative resolution, doing God’s mission. But I am not however, was proposed to delay the whole covenant going to go on mission now as the till the section on discipline (Section 4) could be Anglican Communion. We will go on our own way. Right now the mission reviewed further. The chairman ruled this proposal is delayed. There will be out of order since it brought back elements of separation.” – Bishop Mouneer Anis, Resolution A that had been defeated earlier. President Bishop, Church of the Surprisingly, the Archbishop of Canterbury spoke in Province of Jerusalem and the favour of it. Parliamentary chaos then ensued, and a Middle East vote was called when many delegates were confused. The motion passed. The result is that the entire Covenant, including Section 4, was referred to a small committee that will be appointed by Archbishop Rowan Williams to review the language and wording of Section 4, the disciplinary section. At that point, the Covenant will be commended to the Provinces for consideration.

One observer noted that, in the end, the Archbishop of Canterbury was the architect of the defeat of his own plan.