I share your incomprehension that such an obviously destructive measure (to the Church of England as much as the Anglican Communion) should have got as far as it has. I also share your concern that we seem to be sleep-walking into acceptance, not wanting to rock the boat or ‘upset poor ++Rowan’.
In my view, it is pretty much a foregone conclusion that the bishops overall will be in favour of the Covenant – and this is why I find the Wakefield result worrying. Although the overall vote was against, you will have seen that both bishops were in favour. Although I know we have some bishops on our side, it seems to me that it is the old problem of turkeys being disinclined to vote for Christmas. First, and most obviously, it is ++Rowan who is largely responsible for their future careers and, secondly, the Covenant seeks to reassert the authority of the hierarchy to which they belong. The same considerations could also be said to apply to the clergy but luckily there are enough brave & independent-minded clerics around who are true to the moral demands of their calling, if I can put it that way. (My emphasis)
Here's the link to the report in the Church Times on the vote in the Diocese of Wakefield.
THE first English diocesan synod to debate the Anglican Covenant has rejected it. On Saturday, in Wakefield diocese, the vote was lost in the Houses of Laity (10 for, 23 against) and Clergy (16 for, 17 against, 1 abstention). Both Bishops voted for its adoption..
As I see it, Laura's view of the situation in the dioceses in the Church of England is correct. If the covenant is to be defeated, it will be up to the lay people, with, in some dioceses, the help of the clergy.
Laura set up a website, Lay Anglicana, for the laity in the Church of England to share opinions about the adoption of the Anglican Covenant. If you would like to speak your piece or are simply interested in learning more about the covenant and the discussions surrounding it, check out the website.
You may help by spreading the word about Lay Anglicana and by using the "Donate" button at the site to help with expenses associated with their efforts.
Thank-you, Grandmere Mimi, for this generous post. Actually, I am hoping that Anglicans and Episcopalians throughout the Anglican Communion will want to post on the website as, so far as I know, it is the only web space specifically for the laity. At the moment, the main issue preoccupying us is indeed the Anglican Covenant ('a sickening distraction' as a correspondent on Linked In called it), but discussion on any aspect of Anglicanism is welcome.
ReplyDeleteWe would also love to see contributions from any clergy with views on the relationship between the clergy and laity.
Laura, you're quite welcome. I hope that laity across the Communion will work together to defeat the daft covenant. I'd also like to see more support from around the Communion for shared power with the laity and less concentration of power in Primates and bishops. After all, it's the lay folks who pay most of the bills, and we ought to have more of a say.
ReplyDeleteI can only agree. May this die a swift death.
ReplyDeleteMay this die a swift death.
ReplyDeleteGöran, if only. If the covenant dies, I fear the death may be slow and agonizing.
I am unsure as to what will happen if less than half of the provinces vote for it. Is it going to be put into place in any case, thereby putting all dissenting provinces in the outer ring? I was talking to a friend who is a priest and theologian and he said that if TEC rejects it, we will no longer be a part of the communion because we choose to leave, and if we accept it we will be thrown out because of our 'sins.'
ReplyDeletesusan, I have no idea. Your friend may be right, thus we are damned if we do and damned if we don't sign on.
ReplyDeleteSo far as I know, the covenant will take effect immediately for those who sign on. I've heard nothing about how long a period of time the churches will be allowed to make a decision.
He actually was in favor of our accepting it. That way we would not be the ones that made the separation. It all sounds so passive/aggressive to me. At least I think that's what I mean. . .
ReplyDeleteSome of my friends think we should sign on for that reason, but if I had a vote, I'd feel like a hypocrite if I voted in favor of the daft covenant.
ReplyDeleteOwen is also the one who says that sometimes it's best to consider the consequences of the vote over the conscience. . . f'rinstance, remember what happened in Florida when Nader ran and got votes that should have gone to Gore, and Bush was elected by the Supremes?
ReplyDeletesusan, exactly. Only once did I vote against my conscience for manipulative purposes, and I've regretted it ever since. The vote didn't make a difference in the outcome, but I won't do it again.
ReplyDelete