Jamaica Journal

Friday, 8th May, Day Seven

2009-05-11T05:52:00.001-07:00

Today was difficult and we got very little help from Robert’s Rules. The discussion around the draft Covenant went through a tortuous process, and somewhere along the line Robert just didn’t seem up to the task and retired to the bar for rum punch.

Here’s how it unfolded. The Resolutions Committee apparently thought that there was enough disagreement voiced in the discernment groups regarding Section 4 of the draft Covenant that it would be important to clarify the Council’s disposition on this section before considering the rest of the Covenant text. So they proposed two resolutions. The effect of the first (called ‘A’) was to send Section 4 to a small Canterbury-selected group that would consult with the Provinces and submit a possibly revised Section 4 to the Joint Standing Committee which would then have the option of including it as an addendum to the Covenant. The second resolution (‘B’) contained the gist of the original motion discussed in our discernment groups, which was to send the draft Covenant along to the Provinces for acceptance.

The ensuing discussion treated two main matters. To begin with, the expected arguments in favour or opposed to Section 4 were elicited. We heard from twenty-three speakers who addressed the question of whether or not Section 4 should be retained or referred to a group for further work, and by my count thirteen were wanting to send the draft as it is to the Provinces (and therefore they were opposed to Resolution A). But then, before this was decided, a discussion emerged about the implications of treating Section 4 in isolation from the rest of the document. When Resolution B refers to the ‘Ridley Cambridge Draft’ it means Sections 1-4, so this could complicate Resolution B when we came to it.

Eventually, we were issued a new resolution, Resolution C, which combined Resolutions A and B in a way that smoothed out the process problem. There was some question about which resolution we should now be considering, what with three separate resolutions up for discussion, but after a time, the Chair was persuaded that we had debated A so extensively that we should vote on it and then amend B as necessary. Resolution A was defeated by a vote of 17 in favour, 47 opposed.

Following the defeat an amendment to B was tabled that had the effect of making it look like C (that is, with the substance of A inserted). At first, the Chair disallowed the amendment on the grounds that Resolution A had been defeated. But a protest was made that Resolution A had been defeated for reasons of procedural efficiency and not because of what it was proposing. The Chair accepted the argument and moved quickly to a vote stating that the resolution’s meaning had been fully discussed. The amendment to B passed by a vote of 33 in favour, 30 opposed. There appears to have been some confusion about just what people thought they were voting for, with some supposing that they had simply voted to include the amendment in B for discussion purposes, and others thinking that they were endorsing the amendment’s proposals. After some consultation, the Chair ruled that the substantial discussion on the amendment had had to do with its meaning, and that therefore the decision would stand.

It really was unfortunate that such a critical resolution on the Ridley Covenant should be marred by such procedural confusion, and I could see anxiety on the face of the Archbishop of Canterbury from where I sat. A huge weight of responsibility now rests on the small group to be chosen by him in consultation with the Secretary General, and upon the Joint Standing Committee, to act quickly on the ACC’s directive. We were told that the Joint Standing Committee would be meeting sometime before the end of the year and so it may be possible that we will have a Covenant to consider at General Synod next year. Those who see the necessity of a covenant for the reestablishment of trust in our Communion are urged to pray for those charged with the responsibility of working on Section 4, and for those who are feeling pressured to contravene the moratoria.

Monday, 4th Day, Day Three

2009-05-07T06:55:00.000-07:00

Today we had our first discussion of the draft covenant known as the Ridley Cambridge Draft. It was introduced by the Chair of the group that composed it, Archbishop Drexel Gomez, recently retired Primate of the Province of the Church of the West Indies. Archbishop Gomez spoke graciously but his message was sobering. He said that being in communion is more than belonging to a club, and that how the Council receives the draft covenant is likely to make or break the Anglican Communion. It has been said that never in the history of the Communion has as much consultation taken place among the member provinces as in the process of producing the Ridley draft. Therefore I take Archbishop Gomez’s statement with utmost seriousness.

In the subsequent discussion in our discernment groups it seem to be agreed that a covenant can be an instrument for developing trust. But there were reservations expressed around section four of the draft which describes how our covenanted life together might operate. There are some grey areas here and some feared that this section could be used punitively against provinces in times of conflict. Even in the course of our preliminary discussion, there is already negotiation taking place as people test one another with questions such as, ‘Do we need a covenant?’ or ‘Could we consider dropping section four?’ We will give much more time tomorrow and the next day on this matter.

At the root of our predicament, it seems to me, is the matter of trust. People are respectful, but there is accusation and recrimination: ‘we have been misrepresented and vilified’; ‘we have been mislead and badly treated’; ‘that is an offense against charity’; ‘that is an offense against the gospel’. A vital question is whether there is enough trust left in the Communion for us to buy into a covenant when we know that this instrument for enhanced relationship can be abused and used against us. I am cynical enough to say that if the survival of the Communion depends on our ability to trust one another completely, then we might as well go home. ‘So long, and thanks for all the fish,’ as Bishop Gregory Cameron put it to me the other day. But what if, against all human instinct, we are not being asked to trust one another, but God?

Sunday, 3rd May, Day Two

2009-05-07T06:51:00.000-07:00

The opportunity to worship with our hosts in a massive assembly at the National Arena took us out of our hotel compound for the first time. It was a superb morning, sunny, humid and hot, with the day’s warmth being compounded by the generous reception we received from our Jamaican brothers and sisters. After the obligatory group photo, ably marshalled by Archdeacon Paul Feheley, we processed to our seats in the indoor stadium. The place was packed with young people.

Worship was a joyous, noisy affair, featuring drums and organ, steel pan and piano. The syncopated music made it impossible to stand still, with the mass choir swaying back and forth during the singing of the liturgy. During the hymns, hatted ladies could be seen dancing in the aisles. There were, of course, anomalies: priests and bishops in clothing designed to be worn in draughty European churches; Victorian music set to a reggae beat; and moments of confusion where the earnestness of those leading the service eclipsed any self-consciousness. It was all quite entertaining to this cultural stranger. But more significantly, it was solemn and worshipful, and I felt more at home here than I do in some expressions of North American Christianity.

The afternoon was spent in an exhibition hall of sorts, where representatives of the Communion’s networks hawked their wares and fielded questions. The Rev. Dr Don Thompson, my predecessor at Thorneloe, was there talking up the Colleges and Universities of the Anglican Communion, of which he is the General Secretary. I met an exiled Canadian, The Rev. Doug Fenton, who is in charge of Young Adult and Campus Ministries for the Episcopal Church. I also spent some time chatting with Malcolm Naea Chun, a Hawai’ian from the Anglican Indigenous Network (who says ‘hi’ to all his friends in ACIP). I was also glad to meet Phil Groves, facilitator for the Listening Process, and to get some ideas from him about how we can engage in the Process in the Diocese of Algoma. That evening I had dinner with the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts Schori. She said that she was going to be making a trip to the Diocese of Rupert’s Land soon. I described some of the exciting and creative ministry happening there in places like Peguis Reserve, St Margaret’s Church and St Benedict’s Table.

There are a number of ‘conference junkies’ that attend gatherings like this one (a term that might well be applied to me!). But most of the attendees here have a strong sense of mission in coming to Jamaica, and they well informed, articulate and passionate about the Anglican Church where they come from. I am looking forward to the discussions on the Covenant tomorrow.

Saturday, 2nd May, Day One

2009-05-06T07:23:00.000-07:00

Day One began with worship and a period of reflection lasting the whole morning on the work of the ACC. Archbishop Rowan Williams directed our meditation with a careful consideration of the parables of the Buried Treasure and the Pearl of Great Price (Matthew 13.44-46). The treasure and the pearl are metaphors for the Kingdom of God, he explained, and it is Kingdom business that we are about in the Anglican Communion. Pointing out that Matthew picks up wisdom language from the Old Testament in his descriptions of the Kingdom, Archbishop Williams said that the Kingdom is characterized by God’s love, balance, justice, and interdependence. He said that these are the things that we as a Church seek.

The shocking thing about the Kingdom, Archbishop Williams went on, is that it is not the consequence of human effort. Rather, one comes upon it by surprise. The treasure was discovered when a common labourer, who was simply going about his usual business, finds that ‘his spade is turned’. And though it must have taken the manual worker a long time to save up enough money to buy the field, he does so because it is worth everything. Similarly, the pearl merchant (who is accustomed to trading and not collecting pearls) sells all that he has because he has been captured by this one jewel’s overwhelming beauty.

Now the gift of the Kingdom is solidly embedded in the world, Dr Williams told us, but we miss seeing it because we are so preoccupied with our ourselves. And yet we have glimpsed the treasure in the cross and resurrection. Indeed, ‘we are here because our spades have been turned,’ said the Archbishop. We need now to take time to make this treasure truly ours.

But how does one go about appropriating this gift that surprises, and how long will this process take? There is a significant challenge facing us, I think, in simply identifying the multi-faceted features of the Kingdom. We may agree that love and balance and justice and beauty are essential characteristics. However, what are these? Where is the balance in the radical idea of selling all to possess one thing? What is justice (the reading from our Morning Prayer service ended with the statement that those who had accused Daniel were, along with their wives and children, savaged by lions)? What is beauty? These things are all present in Jesus, to be sure, but too often the Christ we see turns out to be a mirror image of ourselves.

The philosopher Wittgenstein used the language of the ‘turned spade’ when describing the limits of speech. It is the point at which one can dig no deeper because the spade itself is incapable of penetration. But have our spades been turned because we have happened upon the hard reality of God’s Kingdom or simply because of the frailty of our tools? Over the next few days of the Council (and over the next few years of the Communion) perhaps what we really need is a hardening of our spades, a tempering brought about through perseverance and commitment to one another in the working out of our differences. Then, by God’s grace and the illumination of his Spirit, we may find the treasure that also seeks us.

Friday, 1st May, Travel Day

2009-05-04T07:44:00.000-07:00

O, the indignity of travel. I left my home this morning at 4:30 and discovered that my 6:00 flight had been overbooked and that I had been shuffled to another flight departing from a city 1½ hours’ drive away. Got to the second airport in time, but my flight was prevented from going because of poor visibility. Chaos theory begins to set in. This meant that I would miss my Air Canada connection to Kingston. And the next flight was scheduled to leave on . . . Wednesday. Brief prayer of thanksgiving for kind ticket agents and a free wireless connection that had been installed for less than a week. I was able to book an evening flight on Air Jamaica and flew to Toronto in the afternoon. The trip to Kingston was uneventful. But I was a little exasperated when the ticket agent confiscated my wee bottle of laundry detergent (she said it was flammable) and then explained the new Air Jamaica policy that had come into effect as of May 1: snacks have replaced hot meals on the flight. Dinner enroute: banana chips and water.

To people who travel regularly in North America days like this can be very aggravating. But the aggravation stems in part from the service we feel we are entitled to and, for the most part, are accustomed to receive. My instinctive annoyance was tempered, however, when I remembered the great many attending the ACC from much less-accessible regions of the globe. Looking at the list of participants, I am certain that my frustrations are trifling compared to the sacrifices and obstacles that others will have faced (some are still awaiting visas). I met a student from Africa once who said that it had taken him three days’ travel just to get to the airport. What is more, in order to purchase the airfare he had sold a cow and his typewriter.

In 2 Corinthians 8 St Paul describes the generosity of the Macedonians who, despite severe affliction and extreme poverty, counted it a privilege to share in the collection being taken up for the famine-stricken church in Jerusalem. I need to remind myself that it is a great privilege to participate in such a gathering as this. I am hoping that our assembly will match need to abundance, and an attitude of entitlement would detract both from what I can contribute and learn.

Notes to self: in parts of Canada the weather minimums of ½ mile visibility are being more rigorously enforced (expect more frequent delays); that it is sometimes better to select a seat towards the front of the aircraft (when overbooked flights are culled the process often starts with the back rows).