In five days there have been only two "official" daily reports and those "reports" raised more questions than answers (there's been no disclosure to the finances for example). In this happy report from The Episcopal Church (while there is no report from the Anglican Communion Office yet of yesterday's activities), 815 says that while there was a "course of transparency and open communication," the meetings themselves were "five days of closed sessions."
And to make matters worse, we suddenly learn that the only way one can "communicate" if one is an Anglican in the mind of this little group (a group that has seen recent resignations of members representing that overwhelming majority of Anglicans worldwide), is that it must be through something called the "officially sanctioned networks." What is up with that? What happened to Provinces in the Anglican Communion? No, now it's these self-appointed "networks" that are "officially sanctioned" that revolve around American-style political advocacy groups. And this Standing Committee is going to "monitor" these efforts? What does that mean?
So much for dioceses and provinces - in this American-style political activism model we see a major (and progressive dominated) realignment of the historic understanding of the polity of Anglican Christians around the world - namely, the organization of local parishes around a bishop.
THURSDAY UPDATE: From the Anglican News Service "report" of Day 4:
In the subsequent discussion Archbishop Philip Aspinall reiterated that the Standing Committee did not have the power to undertake such an action. He reminded the Committee that the Covenant had been drawn up to address just these kinds of points of disagreement. It was also stated that the Standing Committee did not have all the powers of the ACC, especially when it came to the Membership Schedule.
Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori questioned why the proposal was singling out The Episcopal Church. Bishop Ian Douglas stressed he was present in his role as an elected representative of the ACC, not a member of The Episcopal Church and he desired to always be responsible to the Council. He thanked Dato' Stanley Isaacs for attending the Standing Committee meeting despite his [Isaacs'] feelings about recent events in the Communion. He said that having other elected representatives present who represented a genuine segment of the ACC helped him [Bp Douglas] to be a better member. He added that he missed having Bp Azad's voice at the meeting.
Dr Tony Fitchett agreed that the Committee needed as full a range of views as possible. "I'm conscious I'm not here representing my province," he said. "I'm here because I was appointed by the ACC. My accountability is not to my Province. I expect to continue to serve on the [Standing Committee] even if my Province were ever to be unacceptable to other churches because of its actions."
After what Canon Elizabeth Paver described as "the time, prayer and space necessary for everyone to be heard on this matter" the Standing Committee agreed a resolution that it: "regrets ongoing breaches of the three moratoria that continue to strain the life of the Anglican Communion; regrets the consequential resignations of members of the Standing Committee which diminish our common life and work on behalf of the ACC and the Primates' Meeting; recognises that the ACC and the Primates' Meeting are the appropriate bodies to consider these matters further."BB NOTE: No wonder so many have resigned from this self-appointed "standing committee." It's just a farce. Note too that Rowan Williams is not quoted. Pay attention to that.