From the No Anglican Covenant Coalition:
Church of England
General Synod voted 24 November 2010 to send the Covenant to diocesan synods. If a majority of synods , the question will be brought back to General Synod for a final vote.Diocesan votes in favor of adopting the Covenant:
Lichfield
Durham
Europe
Bristol
Canterbury
Diocesan votes against adopting the Covenant:
Truro
Birmingham
Wakefield
St Edmundsbury & Ipswich
Derby
Gloucester
(Added as per votes taken today)
Salisbury
Portsmouth
Rochester
Leicester
Since the Anglican Communion Office sends out only pro-Covenant material, our like-minded brothers and sisters in England (with a little help from their friends in other churches of the Communion) are working double time to assure that as many dioceses as possible receive material presenting the argument against the adoption of the Covenant. It seems that when the delegates to diocesan synods hear both sides of the argument, they are more likely to vote against adoption of the Covenant.
That the ACO uses its resources to present only one side of the matter in question seems not right, if the goal is a fair assessment of the sentiments of the church at large as to whether the adoption of the Covenant would be a good thing. The materials that go out to the churches of the Anglican Communion from the ACO demonstrate the same lack of balance.
"A Short Introduction” also attempts to give a more balanced view of the Covenant than is available elsewhere. As our Convenor for the Scottish Episcopal Church, the Revd. Canon Hugh Magee, has said, “Many people have complained that the official study material from the Anglican Communion Office has lacked balance and has failed to take seriously the concerns of Covenant critics.”Further news from the NACC:
"PROFESSOR MARILYN McCORD ADAMS APPOINTED AS COALITION’S FOURTH PATRON LONDON – The Revd Dr Lesley Crawley, Moderator of the No Anglican Covenant Coalition, and Dr Lionel Deimel, the Coalition’s Episcopal Church Convenor, have announced the appointment of Professor Marilyn McCord Adams as a Patron of the Coalition. Professor McCord Adams joins Bishops John Saxbee and Peter Selby, and Professor Diarmaid MacCulloch whose appointments were announced previously." (My emphases)We win some, and we lose some. What happens if the results of the votes in diocesan synods in the Church of England come down with a majority against adoption?
....
McCord Adams is Distinguished Research Professor of Philosophy at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. From 2004 to 2009, she was Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford University and Residentiary Canon at Christ Church, Oxford. She also served as a member of the Church of England General Synod at the time when the Anglican Covenant was being developed.
UPDATE: Today four Church of England dioceses voted against adoption of the Covenant. My cup runneth over!
UPDATE 2: Thinking Anglicans posted the vote totals for the four dioceses.
and Rochester says No!
ReplyDeleteHallelujah! What a great day!
ReplyDelete...and Leicester, and Portsmouth, and Salisbury all NO... superb day..
ReplyDeleteMy cup runneth over! Take THAT, Rowan!
ReplyDeleteIt seems that when the delegates to diocesan synods hear both sides of the argument, they are more likely to vote against adoption of the Covenant.
ReplyDeleteActually, as far as I know, no diocese has voted for the Covenant after hearing both sides.
What happens if the results of the votes in diocesan synods in the Church of England come down with a majority against adoption?
As I understand it, if a majority of diocese fail to vote for the Covenant, it cannot come back to General Synod in July (or for the rest of the quinquennium). So 50% or more against effectively kills it.
So the memory of Nazir-Ali didn't carry the day in Rochester? Or maybe it did?
ReplyDeleteAlan, I so hope for a stake in the heart of the Covenant in the CofE.
ReplyDeleteThere's rejoicing in south Louisiana! I'm pinching myself to make sure I'm not dreaming.
I remain in agreement with Archbishop Barahona, Bishop of El Salvador, Central America and in addition thank the Church of England folks for making Anglicanlife more noble and human and inclusive throughout the Anglican Communion:
ReplyDeleteWHY DO WE NEED ANOTHER COVENANT?
“The Windsor Report,” he said. “It’s just a report. When did it become like The Bible? The Covenant. Why do we need another covenant? We have the Baptismal Covenant. We have the creeds. What else do we need?”
Archbishop Martin Barahona, Bishop of El Salvador and Primate Emeritus of Central America
sorry, above is Leonardo Ricardo/Len in Guatemala
ReplyDeleteLapin, the memory of Nazir-Ali may have carried the day.
ReplyDeleteI remain in agreement with Archbishop Barahona, Bishop of El Salvador, Central America and in addition thank the Church of England folks for making Anglicanlife more noble and human and inclusive throughout the Anglican Communion:
ReplyDeleteWHY DO WE NEED ANOTHER COVENANT?
“The Windsor Report,” he said. “It’s just a report. When did it become like The Bible? The Covenant. Why do we need another covenant? We have the Baptismal Covenant. We have the creeds. What else do we need?”
Archbishop Martin Barahona, Bishop of El Salvador and Primate Emeritus of Central America
Leonardo Ricardo
Oh, Grandmère, please don't rejoice too much yet. The Archbishops will redouble their efforts to ensure that the rest of the dioceses to vote are in favour.
ReplyDeleteWhat I have noticed is that while in many cases the Houses of Bishops and Laity vote for the Covenant, the House of Clergy votes against. I suspect it's because the clergy are neither beholden to His Grace of Lambeth nor uninformed about both sides of the debate.
The Bishop of Southwark has stated that he will speak for the Covenant at Diocesan Synod on March 10th. As nearly all our Deaneries have voted against it, I suspect that his words will be of no avail.
Looking forward, if the Covenant is not approved in the Dioceses, and thus does not come before General Synod, I expect that Rowan Williams will be a professor again by the end of the year.
Chris, you won't deny me my joy in what happened today. The majority of the dioceses may, in the end, vote in favor of the Covenant, but I'm happy today.
ReplyDeleteI'm certain Rowan will redouble his efforts and use every means at his disposal to insure that the rest of the dioceses vote to adopt the document, but at least some of the members of the CofE are put off by his highhandedness.
If they are put off by his highhandedness already there is a good chance redoubling his efforts will put them off even more.
ReplyDeleteIt's quite possible Rowan will overplay his hand. The consequences for him if the Covenant is defeated in England are grave, indeed.
ReplyDeleteHappy happy joy joy!
ReplyDeleteAnd also happy about Marilynitud McCord Adams
Marez, I'm still dancing a happy jig from time to time.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm pleased about the distinguished professor, too. She's a real asset to NACC.
TBTG . . . and God bless THE Anglican Covenant: the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral!
ReplyDeleteNo, I don't want to deny you your joy, Grandmère. But I think we must ensure that joy does not make us think that rejection by the dioceses is a done deal. We must continue our efforts, each in her or his own place, to make sure it gets defeated in each diocese still to vote.
ReplyDeleteI note with some satisfaction that, while Rowan and John Sentamu can control small gatherings (such as that which rejected Jeffrey John for Bishop of Southwark), they do not seem to have the same level of control over the whole church. The bishops, of course, feel bound by ties of loyalty (in most cases) to vote for the Covenant. The laity, in many cases, are apathetic because they either don't fully understand it or have only been presented with one side of it. The clergy, however, are fully aware of the consequences of the Covenant and seem to be prepared to speak and vote against it. As all these votes are by orders, when the covenant falls in one House it falls in the Synod as well.
If it falls, it cannot be brought up again until the next Synod is elected and seated; that will happen in November 2015. By that time, by all accounts, Rowan will have departed for the academic life and another Archbishop will have been enthroned. I do not believe that the new Archbishop (whoever he or she be) will have the stomach for trying to force this down the throat of the Church.
Just a note: If it is, by some mischance, passed by General Synod, there are several points of civil law which would be violated. First, each act of GS must be ratified by Parliament, who is sovereign in such matters. The lessening of the degrees of freedom of Parliament to legislate which the Covenant implies might be problematic constitutionally, even though in almost all matters acts of GS are duly ratified by Parliament and signed into law by the Queen (she doesn't really do it; the House of Lords does it for her).
Second, passing the Covenant might also put pressure on the Government to appoint a non-UK citizen as Archbishop of Canterbury (it would become a de jure international position, like the Secretary-General of the United Nations. There would be an outcry if the US, on the grounds that the UN is sited in New York, demanded that the SecGen be an American citizen. Since the ABC is a member of the Lords by right of office that might mean that a bishop from, say, Malaysia might end up in the House of Lords.
Chris, thanks for your further information. Even if the dioceses that vote 'no' don't end up being a majority, the argument that the Church of England wants the Covenant will be harder to make.
ReplyDeleteI don't see the Episcopal Church demanding to have a American citizen as the ABC.
This is an important turn of events. I feel that a lot of diocese may have been waiting to see if anyone would vote against before jumping themselves. The subsequent process will become irrelevant, M'Lords would crap themselves if +Katherine turned up in the house.
ReplyDeleteThis is an important turn of events.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. The dioceses have set a precedent.
M'Lords would crap themselves if +Katherine turned up in the house.
Agreed again, and we don't want our Presiding Bishop in the position anyway.
I don't think that TEC would demand a turn at Lambeth Palace. I do know that last time around serious consideration was given to drafting in an African bishop as ABC (and not +Sentamu). This to make it a more "international" office.
ReplyDeleteThere are a few difficulties with an American citizen as ABC, starting with the fact that the new ABC would probably lose his/her American citizenship upon taking a post in a foreign legislature. Second, there is so much residual anti-Americanism in the C of E that I think it unlikely in the extreme that anyone here would consider an American for the post.
Thanks - as always!!!
ReplyDeleteHere's my take:
http://liturgy.co.nz/cofe-covenant-vote-10-5-against/8812
Chris, what is the basis for the anti-Americanism in the Church of England? Is it associated with the present imperialistic behavior of the US on the world stage? If so, that's not at all fair, for it seems to me that the Episcopal Church is quite decent about not throwing its weight around in the Anglican Communion. It's plain that Rowan's lips curl in dislike each time he speaks of us.
ReplyDeleteGrandmère asked: Chris, what is the basis for the anti-Americanism in the Church of England?
ReplyDeleteI think that there are two main reasons for this, from my own observations, and one subsidiary reason.
First, many priests and bishops who are around my age remember the Cold and Vietnam Wars, and the protests associated with each. Their formative years in school and university were consumed by anti-American protest and journalism.
Second: There is a lingering whiff of superiority over other Provinces, especially the USA. "We had it (Anglicanism) first." attitudes mean that there is a sneer in their voices when they speak of TEC or ACC. There is a strain of thought that our liturgy is of a higher standard, our theological colleges produce a better grade of cleric, and the Established Church status gives us a protected and special place in the nation's heart which TEC or ACC don't have.
The subsidiary problem is with those of us who are expat Americans living and worshipping in England. We tend to be bold, interested in improving the C of E by using out experience in the US to inform our actions here.
Example: When Diocesan Synod was discussing the problems Southwark is having with raising funds in the parishes, I got up and spoke about how stewardship is conducted in the US, and pointed out that in England, speaking about money is a big taboo and to raise funds for God's work we will have to be a bit more open about income, expenditure, and people's responsibilities to the Kingdom of God. +Tom Butler, then Bishop of Southwark, commented afterward something to the effect that "It's very illuminating to hear what Americans can do but I don't think it would work here." and was very condescending about it. There is a mindset here that the C of E practice is best and we cannot change anything. There is a whiff of little old ladies cycling to Sunday Evensong through the mists of a country lane.
I do not say that everything that TEC does would translate well to the C of E. However, there needs to be a willingness to learn from the experiences of others and there is none of that in the C of E. It will kill the C of E if this is not changed.
A long answer to a short question; I apologise. I could write volumes.
Concise Chris and I would agree. I would only add that the pejorative image of faith in the USA, presented here is predominantly right wing evangelical and not of TEC or even the RC's. Like everything else we exported as mission be it 'Anglicanism' or cricket, the rest of the world has become much better at it than we are and its easier to dislike them for it rather than learn.
ReplyDeleteChris, thanks. Your long answer is quite helpful.
ReplyDeletetheme, the policies of TEC and the ACofC that annoy Rowan and his allies so, openly-gay clergy, the blessing same-sex relationships, and inclusion of women in all orders of ministry, are hardly the same policies as those of the right-wing evangelicals in the US. I remain confused at the level of anti-Americanism at the Anglican church-to-church level, although Chris' mention of 'we had it first; we do it better' helps explain the disdain.
Thats the key difference, TEC has learned the inclusivity of the gospel. The CofE is still tied to exclusivity. It makes lots of positive noises about inclusivity but it is only 'on terms' - you will be assimilated. The policies are not the prerogative of right-wing evangelical churches but those are the churches which receive populist media coverage here. Our lordly masters are also old enough to have sat at the feet of men who taught them about the horrors of a strange American who challenged the status quo with his radical ideas and caused a lot of consternation in the 20's and 30's.
ReplyDelete...the horrors of a strange American who challenged the status quo with his radical ideas and caused a lot of consternation in the 20's and 30's.
ReplyDeleteWhich American would that be? More than one fits your description.
Fran Buchmann.
ReplyDeleteFrank Buchmann. Yes, Frank would cause consternation.
ReplyDelete