Tuesday 12 May 2009

Like the Resurrection?

We all know that the resurrection accounts vary widely, and also people disagree on how to interpret them, and disagree on how they were constructed, subsequent to whatever Paul may have considered he experienced when he came to describe it.

It's just a thought that the ACC voting in Jamaica is beginning to be like this. Give these some more days, never mind thirty years, and the accounts will be very varied as to what happened in Jamaica.

I'm sticking to my filtered account, but this section of the account by George Conger for Religious Intelligence headlined Defeat for Archbishop as Covenant draft is rejected concerns the time after all the voting. It is quite instructive:

Delegates questioned by Religious Intelligence appeared confused by the proceedings. One francophone delegate stated he had voted against A, but as Dr Williams had commended the Trisk amendment, he had switched his vote. A second delegate from Africa told CEN he had understood Dr Williams as not having commended the Trisk amendment but was offering housekeeping advice to the meeting to straighten out a confused situation, while a third delegate whose native tongue is English said he understood the Archbishop to have switched horses, and was now calling for section 4 to be stripped out of the Covenant.

Upon resumption of business at 5:00 pm, Bishop Patterson announced there would be no further vote on the Covenant, as the "legal advice" he had been given stated the matter had been settled.

Dr Anis rose to object, saying "Resolution A was defeated, then brought back as a resolution. It is illegal. How can we bring back a defeated clause?"

Fascinating. A French speaker thought Rowan Williams had commended the Amendment regarding material from the new Resolution C inserted into Resolution B. An African delegate believed Rowan Williams had not commended the Amendment but was giving advice on procedure, and a third English delegate thought Rowan Williams had changed his mind. And then Bishop Mouneer Anis hearing that there would be no further voting thought that Resolution A had been brought back, when Resolution C had been absorbed into Resolution B giving B some of the characteristics of Resolution A (George Conger's own report also implies that A was brought back).

Wonderful. Such different accounts. Clearly, Christianity in action! And, apparently, according to the report, Rowan Williams was angry at the outcome.

No comments: