At the end of a hectic day of often confusing debate and parliamentary maneuvering in which Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams personally intervened four times, the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) on May 8 postponed sending the third draft of the Anglican Covenant to the Communion’s provinces for adoption.
 
The Anglican Communion Institute has issued a statement decrying the proceedings as “an embarrassment to Anglicans everywhere, and a sad display of procedural confusion.”
 
The ACC had been asked to send the entire text to the provinces for adoption. However, some members considered allies to The Episcopal Church raised objections to the processes outlined in Section Four regarding dispute resolution. Their first motion to remove Section Four for review was voted down, but the main provisions of the defeated motion were then inserted into a separate resolution already under consideration. The ACC’s chairman, Bishop John Paterson of New Zealand, initially ruled this re-introduction out of order, but Archbishop Williams, who had called for a vote on the first motion, then challenged Bishop Paterson’s ruling and it was reversed. The pending resolution was amended to include the previously defeated provisions. After a break, Bishop Paterson announced that the resolution had passed.
 
“Evidence indicates that members did not understand what they were voting on, what the Archbishop of Canterbury was proposing, or why he was proposing it,” the ACI argued. “Amid much confusion, the chairman announced that the entire resolution had passed, even though there is no evidence it had even been voted on, the previous votes having been to amend the resolution, not pass it.”
 
As adopted, the resolution now asks Archbishop Williams, in consultation with the ACC’s secretary general, the Rev. Canon Kenneth Kearon, “to appoint a small working group to consider and consult with the provinces on Section Four and its possible revision, and to report to the next meeting of the Joint Standing Committee” of the Primates and the ACC in late 2009, and asks the JSC to approve a final form at that meeting.
 
Reactions following the day’s events were mixed. The Rev. Ian Douglas of The Episcopal Church praised the result. He said that sending Section Four, which he said had “too many ambiguities,” to the working group will allow “for a comprehensive and well-worked process so that when we finally do get the final version of the covenant, we’ll all know what we're talking about.” He said the postponement “is the result of living in Christian community and waiting for each other.”
 
Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said she envisions “some consultation across the church” to prepare The Episcopal Church’s response to the expected request for comment on Section Four. The Executive Council, which submitted the church's responses to the first two drafts, does not meet again until the fall. Bishop Jefferts Schori suggested that the councils of advice that advise her and president of the House of Deputies Bonnie Anderson could be asked for input as well.
 
But Bishop Mouneer Anis of Egypt said in an interview with Anglican TV that “there was manipulation. We had deliberated long about Section Four,” he said. “When the resolution was put for voting, we praise the Lord it was rejected. Then it was like a shock to bring the two main clauses of the resolution we rejected and put it in the resolution we wanted to vote on. It is absolutely wrong.
 
“We wanted the covenant to go straight to the provinces,” Bishop Anis contended. “The ACC is not a synod to take decisions like this. Part of this crisis is due to distrust. I must say that all what happened increased the distrust.”
 
“It is beyond question that these procedures were improper, confusing and manipulative,” the ACI statement concluded. “The credibility of the ACC, already questioned by the Communion’s own advisory groups, has suffered lasting damage.”
 
ACI called on the ACC to revisit the decision immediately and to explain the proceedings by those in charge “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.
 
“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.”
 
Episcopal News Service contributed to this report.