DIOCESE OF CHELMSFORD:
Bishops - 2 For, 1 Against, 1 Abstain
Clergy - 27 For, 29 Against, 7 Abstain
Laity - 31 For, 30 Against, 3 Abstain
DIOCESE OF HEREFORD:
Bishops - 2 For
Clergy - 15 For, 15 Against, 1 Abstain
Laity - 21 For, 23 Against, 1 Abstain
Defeated in both dioceses.
UPDATE: DIOCESE OF BRADFORD
Bishops - 1 For, 0 Against
Clergy - 15 For, 9 Against, 2 Abstain
Laity - 16 For, 15 Against, 3 Abstain
Passed in the diocese.
The total is now 13 dioceses in the Church of England voting against the covenant and 8 in favor.
For something so important (i.e., "the only way forward") to do so poorly -- even if it were to rally and finally be adopted by a majority of synods, surely indicates that there is no fundamental consensus of support. It should be clear to all by now that the proposed Covenant is not "the future shape of Anglicanism" and is a flawed document put forward for final action too soon, and with too little attention paid to the feedback in the review process.
ReplyDeleteRight, Tobias. Even with a majority in the final tally, the votes in the dioceses so far are an embarrassment to the archbishops.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if their heavy-handedness on the issue of women bishops may have caused doubts about the leadership of the archbishops that pushed a number of members to vote against the covenant. That and having both pro and con information.
I'm not sure about the reasons, though I'm sure they are manifold and complex. But what I was getting at is that I think the leaders have lost a "selling point" just on the basis of reception so far; and that may be having a kind of reverse band-wagon effect. Who goes to the diner with no cars parked outside -- know what I mean?
ReplyDeleteIn the meantime I think England can do us all a service in burying this attempt.
Yes indeed, Tobias, a good many English folks will likely choose not to go to that diner, now that so many others have passed it by.
ReplyDeleteFrom the beginning, the supporters of the covenant hardly ever quoted the text, which I thought more and more significant as time went on. I doubt that anyone besides those on the draft committee had a positive opinion of the final document, which appears to be a poorly contrived compromise, which does not at all address the matters at the root of the controversies in the communion.
I don't feel that is a factor. The diocese are very 'parochial', and will pay little attention to each other and the majority will not be keeping score. There has not been the kind of public debate here about the covenant that it should really have. Unless there has been a pro-active move (pro or anti) in specific diocese, the issue has been kept very low profile, almost in hope that it may pass un-noticed. I haven't heard so much as a peep from parliament on this, broadcast media haven't touched it and print media only as a secondary issue in passing. Women Bishops is a much more saleable story than internal politics.
ReplyDeletetheme, do you truly believe that clergy and lay members of diocesan synods are unaware of how other dioceses voted? I can see that they may not be influenced by how others vote, but not to know how the vote is going seems a stretch. Of course, you know your church better than I do.
ReplyDeleteIt is revoltingly parochial. I still meet clergy who have not looked at it. Laity who are not on synod in this diocese are wholly unaware of it. It's importance has been very much 'back-pedalled' as a minor bureaucratic change of little importance. This is partly why I object so much to the, yes to the covenant website, appalling appeal to empire suggesting that the see of Cantebury has privilege in the covenant arrangements and the 'poor' provinces that will suffer the coonsequences of being sundered from the Church of England. The greater majority of parishioners take no notice of what is happening at diocesan level, never mind nationally or internationally. They do not seem to realise that under the covenant provisions they would likely not have been allowed their vote on women Bishops after a province elsewhere objects. It is shocking arrogance to go forward in the belief that the CofE would be above being relegated to the second division.
ReplyDelete..and the Telegraph makes a liar of me only 15 minutes after my earlier post! Not a useful article though.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9121205/Archbishop-of-Canterbury-Rowan-Williams-faces-defeat-on-gay-deal.html
I used to ask my friend Douglas (Late of Hatfield, UK) what on earth Rowan Who? was thinking when he'd make some indecipherable statement. Before he passed away he told me, "You Americans should just ignore him like the people over here do!"
ReplyDeletePerhaps he was right. I suspect Rowan's nefarious scheme to destroy the Communion and the Church of England will be laid to rest right there in England. They seem like a sensible bunch over there.
Rowan thought (hoped?) the covenant would slip easily through to adoption by churches in the AC, leaving only the rich American church as the single and easily dispensable villain who would object. But something happened along the way, and churches that you couldn't label as rich and likely to throw their weight around, like the Philippines and dioceses in New Zealand, wouldn't sign on. And then rebellion sprang up in Rowan's own church. From the beginning, Rowan's entire scheme was misbegotten and operatively inept, and it backfired. Now his back is against the wall, and he's put his own church at risk over a document that is no more than a POS. Witness: Those in favor of the covenant rarely quote the text because it is such a mess.
ReplyDeletetheme, I didn't think much of the article in the Telegraph.
ReplyDeleteWade, I hope you're right.
Adrian at Pluralist Speaks points out that the votes in the dioceses by clergy and laity are close, sometimes going one way and sometimes another. Not the bishops, though, who vote overwhelmingly in favor of the covenant. Rowan presides over a very divided church.