« Tributes to Gary Gygax | Main | Geeky Reviews »
April 17, 2008
St. Andrews Draft Disagreement Resolution Flowchart
So, I taught a session at the Diocese of Kentucky School of Ministry on the Anglican Communion Draft process. I admit I hadn't really looked at the St. Andrews Draft until last week, and I found the Appendix with the process for disagreement resolution perplexing. Being a person with some programming experience, I thought a flow chart might work better, leading to this:
It's also here as a PDF: draftresolutionflow.pdf
It did seem to help me understand the proposed process.
David+
01:26 PM in Current Affairs | Permalink
Comments
WOW! Great work, David!
I am currently working on a post on the Commentary on and Appendix to the St. Andrew's Draft, but you've done most of the work for me when it comes to the Appendix! Therefore, I will simply give you a sneak preview of what I will post on Communion in Conflict as soon as I get a chance:
As I read your chart, there is no follow-up to a three year mediation (7.2) of an issue between two churches that the Archbishop of Canterbury initially judges to be "No Threat" (3.4.d). This is a serious oversight, as it neglects the fact that even if the Archbishop of Canterbury thinks something is "No Threat" to the Communion, failed Mediation might result in an escalated conflict that was a threat! As the Appendix (and chart) stand now, it's assumed that after three years, things will have resolved themselves.
Here's a suggestion for a Ver. 1.1:
Add three arrows and two boxes after "Parties appoint mediator 3 years" (7.2) at the bottom righthand corner. The first arrow would point to a box labeled "Mediation Successful," and then the arrow would go from there to "Stop." The second arrow would point to a second box labeled "Mediation Unsuccessful," and the third arrow would point from that box to the top box on the chart (2.1)--in other words, return to "Start." The process would then repeat until it ends up in either 8.3 (Rejection compatible with covenant) or 8.4 (Rejection incompatible with covenant), with their attendant consequences. But perhaps since this is left out of the Appendix itself, it can only be a suggested Ver. 1.1.
As I read the Appendix itself (you will need to follow along with the flow chart in order for this to make any sense), there is no provision for an aggrieved Church (Y) to withdraw from the Covenant over disagreement with an Instrument's positive judgment regarding the compatibility of Church (X) with the Covenant! That is, if (Y) doesn't like the fact that the ACC moved (X)along to 8.3, can (Y) simply "voluntarily relinquish the covenant," as (X) has the option of doing under 8.4.a? Further, if (Y) doesn't stop making trouble for (X) after 8.3 has been determined, can the ACC declare (Y) to have relinquished the Covenant?! This, too, is a serious oversight on the part of the drafters of the Appendix, and would have to be addressed in a Ver 2.0, since your chart merely reflects what the Appendix itself states.
Off to mass!
Nathan Humphrey+
Curate, St. Paul's, K St.
Posted by: Nathan Humphrey | Apr 17, 2008 4:24:45 PM
Nathan,
Good commentary, but as you point out, the Appendix itself does not have any provision for whether mediation works or not. I assume you could re-start the process, but it's not explicitly claimed and I'm being descriptive here, not prescriptive.
As far as the provision for an aggrieved church leaving, I think it's implicit that at any time a province may decide as a body to "voluntarily relinquish the covenant." (Therefore begging the question as to whether this is really a covenant in Biblical terms) That provision for X at the end of the chart is kind of like the custom of providing a military officer with a loaded pistol before their execution. It's a way to "save face."
David+
Posted by: FrDavid | Apr 18, 2008 12:47:07 PM
Hi David+,
Yes, I see that my quibble is not with your beautiful chart, but with what it is derived from; I'm hoping it can somehow be remediated, assuming TEC doesn't succumb to appedicitis in the meantime (which symptoms I've already seen manifest in the reactions to the Appendix)...
Your image of the officer and the gun is rather like saying that the best way to "save face" is to blow it off, isn't it? Not exactly my preferred course for the Anglican Communion, which is why I share your concern that the proposed process as outlined in the Appendix might indeed betray the theology of "covenant" itself.
Thanks again,
Nathan+
Posted by: Nathan Humphrey | Apr 18, 2008 1:03:11 PM
