Seclusion At An Odd Time

Does it seem strange to anyone but me that Archbishop Williams of Canterbury was in seclusion at Georgetown during the General Synod of his own Church of England?

If Bishop Katherine chose to remain in seclusion somewhere or other during the House of Bishops meeting, I would think it odd, and I would feel somewhat resentful that she was not performing what I think of as her duty as Presiding Bishop.

However, the ways of the English Church are mysterious to me, and perhaps this is quite a normal practice over there.

In the meantime, while the cat's away, the mice have been playing and are up to no good.

From the Church of England's web site:

At the invitation of the Presidents, the Most Revd Drexel Gomez (chair of the Anglican Covenant Design Group) addressed the Synod.



The Bishop of Chichester moved the motion:

‘That this Synod:

(a) affirm its willingness to engage positively with the unanimous recommendation of the Primates in February 2007 for a process designed to produce a covenant for the Anglican Communion;

(b) note that such a process will only be concluded when any definitive text has been duly considered through the synodical processes of the provinces of the Communion; and

(c) invite the Presidents, having consulted the House of Bishops and the Archbishops’ Council, to agree the terms of a considered response to the draft from the Covenant Design Group for submission to the Anglican Communion Office by the end of the year.’



This was carried unamended.

So. The covenant business moves a step forward - the covenant that we don't need at all, since Jesus Christ gave us the New Covenant of Love, the Two Great Commandments, which contain the whole law and the prophets, and which seems sufficient to me.

From Stephen Bates at The Guardian:

One member, Kevin Ward, representing the northern universities, said: "Gay Anglicans have reason to be suspicious of a covenant. Its sole aim is to punish and discipline dissent ... its whole raison d'etre is one of threat, hardening and solidifying a divisive neo-Anglican communion on a narrower, less tolerant and less joyful basis."

But Tom Wright, the Bishop of Durham and one of the covenant's strongest supporters, told the synod: "Our present framework simply isn't working. We need a framework to enable us to live in the house together. We are not being asked to sign a blank cheque. It is a commitment to a way of working together. It simply will not do to live with differences."

John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, leading the synod in the absence of Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is on study leave, called on the synod not to give lukewarm approval to the covenant and promised: "Rowan and I will not sign a document that betrays our church life in this country."

Certain folks whom I respect are saying that the passing of this motion doesn't really mean too much, because the process to carry it forward to a vote by the provinces will be lengthy, and there will be many amendments added that will water it down considerably. But I don't necessarily believe that to be the case, since, at least among the primates, this thing seems to have legs. And what a colossal waste of time, energy, and money!

Fr. Jake asks the question, "Is the proposed Covnant(sic) concept a Gay Expulsion Plan?" I think so. Here's what I said in the comments at his site:

Jake, I like it [naming it the Gay Expulsion Plan], too. Let's move on from euphemisms. The whole exercise is about gay sex, no matter the attempts to disguise that by using other labels.

It's a power grab by certain primates to form a "Curia" who will declare who's in and who's out of the Anglican Communion.

One caution: if the plan succeeds, it may come to be about more than gay expulsion, in that the "Curia" will begin to search out those who do not line up as doctrinally "pure" enough to suit them and begin to weed them out, too.

In their obsessive search for "purity", I wonder who will be found to be sufficiently "pure".

Thanks to Fr. Jake for the links.