Showing posts with label Church of England. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Church of England. Show all posts

Saturday, March 31, 2012

DIOCESE OF MANCHESTER REJECTS ANGLICAN COVENANT

From Paul at Not the Same Stream:

Manchester Against
Bishops  For: 1,  Against: 2,  Abstained: 0
Clergy     For: 15,  Against:  25,  Abstained: - 0
Laity        For: 12,  Against: 23,  Abstained: - 7


Summary

Dioceses for the Covenant to date: 15
Dioceses against the Covenant to date: 25

There are 4 dioceses yet to vote 

Southwell and Nottingham 12 April (Thursday), Chichester on 21 April,  Newcastle and York 28 April.

UPDATE: Percentages from Alan Perry:
With Manchester's figures, we now have:

Bishops: 77.4% for, 16.7% against, 6.0% abstentions
Clergy: 45.0% for, 50.9% against, 4.1% abstentions
Laity: 48.1% for, 47.0% against, 4.9% abstentions

Overall: 47.5% for, 48.0% against, 4.5% abstentions
Overall (clergy and laity only): 46.7% for, 48.8% against, 4.5%
abstentions
 

Friday, March 30, 2012

YES TO ANGLICAN COMMUNION

Commentary from the church press on the defeat of the Anglican Covenant in the Church of England.

Giles Fraser in the Church Times:
I WILL not disguise my joy at the death of the Anglican Covenant. And death it is — despite the fact that some people will inevitably try to give its corpse the kiss of life. The idea that the Church of England has given it so emphatic a thumbs-down, especially in the face of huge episcopal and archiepiscopal lobby­ing, is evidence of how un­popular the idea is in the pews.

Here, the majority of bishops have shown themselves to be completely out of touch with the centre of gravity of the Church of England. It is not that we do not care about our brothers and sisters in other parts of the Communion. It is simply that we want our Christian solidarity to be expressed through our Anglican heritage, our common baptism, and the development of friendships — and not through a treaty that can be haggled over by church politicians, the purpose of which was always to isolate those Churches that had a different view of sexual ethics.
 From the Church of Ireland Gazette:
The moral of the story has at least two dimensions. First, from a practical perspective, when faced with a divisive crisis, setting up a bureaucratic procedure that is going to take years to get anywhere, if it is to get anywhere at all, is hardly a good idea. If anyone thought that ‘buying time’ would allow the same-sex relationships imbroglio to subside, that was a very mistaken notion, and we in the Church of Ireland do need to take note of that as we face our own difficulties over the issue.

Second, from a more conceptual perspective, we now know, as surely as we can know, that Anglicanism is set to remain a Communion of wholly autonomous Cchurches (sic), bound together by ‘bonds of affection’. It should be added, however, that such mutual affection is far from a weak ideal; it is, in fact, a considerable calling and it is surely true that at times we do have to work at loving one another. There has been talk about being in communion implying ‘interdependence’ and thus justifying central regulation, however light, but that interdependence argument is actually quite vague because everything in the world is interdependent and, from an ecclesiological perspective, all Christians of whatever denomination, in communion or out of communion, are interdependent. Thus, as Anglicans, we are all, across the globe, now challenged to ponder our affection for one another and, where it is waning, to seek to nurture it carefully and prayerfully.
That's our Lesley Crawley, Moderator of No Anglican Covenant Coalition, which is mentioned in the article.


Also from the Church Times:
Speaking on Monday, Dr Williams said: “This is, of course, a disap­pointing outcome for many of us in the Church of England and many more in the Communion. Unfor­tunately, the challenges the Covenant was meant to address will not go away just because people vote against it.

"We shall still have to work at vehicles for consultation and manag­ing disagreement. And nothing should lessen the priority of sus­taining relationships, especially with some of those smaller and vulner­able Churches for whom strong international links are so crucial.”
 Of course, we face challenges in the Communion, and we will have to work on relationships, just not through the vehicle of the covenant.

And it appears that Archbishop Rowan has given up on trying to resuscitate the covenant in the Church of England.




H/T to Simon Sarmiento at Thinking Anglicans for the links and to MadPriest for the cartoon.

Thursday, March 29, 2012

DIOCESE OF LONDON REJECTS ANGLICAN COVENANT

From Thinking Anglicans:
London diocesan synod voted on the Anglican Covenant motion this evening.

The motion in favour of the covenant was lost, being defeated in both the houses of laity and clergy.

Bishops: 2 for / 1 against / 0 abstentions
Clergy: 17 for / 32 against / 1 abstention
Laity: 26 for / 33 against / 2 abstentions


These are the confirmed figures taken from the diocesan website, please ignore earlier incorrect results taken from a garbled tweet.
Summary from Not the Same Stream:
Dioceses for the Covenant to date: 15
Dioceses against the Covenant to date: 24

There are 5 dioceses yet to vote

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

WHO'S IN? WHO'S OUT?

Opinions differ on the number of provinces who have adopted, suscribed to, acceded to (or whatever other term is used) the Anglican Covenant.  Kenneth Kearon, Secretary General of the Anglican Communion Office claims that eight provinces have adopted the covenant, while Simon Sarmiento at Thinking Anglicans suggests six.

Kearon does not explicitly say that the covenant was rejected in the dioceses in the Church of England.  He speaks simply of "today's news" and notes, "What next steps are taken by the Church of England is up to that Province."  Nor does Kearon mention that the Episcopal Church in the Philippines rejected the proposed covenant.   Despite the rejection of the covenant by "that province" (Church of England), the provinces in the Communion which have not yet declared their positions are encouraged to carry on with consideration of the covenant.

According to the text of the proposed covenant:
(4.1.6) This Covenant becomes active for a Church when that Church adopts the Covenant.
Now that the 'mother' church has rejected the covenant, I  wonder if the provinces that have already signed on are asking themselves, "Where do we go from here?"  The covenant states only the following:
(4.2.1) The Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and of the Primates' Meeting, or any body that succeeds it, shall have the duty of overseeing the functioning of the Covenant in the life of the Anglican Communion. 
There is no prescribed time limit for adopting the covenant, nor is there a requirement for a specific number of provinces to sign on before the document is in effect.


Saturday, March 24, 2012

ENGLISH DIOCESAN VOTE TOTALS & PERCENTAGES

Blackburn: covenant accepted
Bishops: 2 for / 0 against / 0 abstentions
Clergy: 40 for / 7 against / 1 abstention
Laity: 33 for / 16 against / 1 abstention
Exeter: covenant accepted
Bishops: 3 for / 0 against / 0 abstentions
Clergy: 28 for / 8 against / 1 abstention
Laity: 30 for / 20 against / 2 abstentions
Guildford: covenant rejected
Bishops: 2 for / 0 against
Clergy: 14 for / 22 against / 1 abstention
Laity: 23 for / 18 against / 2 abstentions
Lincoln: covenant rejected
Bishops: 0 for / 3 against / 0 abstentions (corrected figures)
Clergy: 6 for / 28 against / 3 abstentions
Laity: 2 for / 34 against / 2 abstentions
Oxford: covenant rejected (some uncertainty in exact figures, apparently the tellers did not agree, but definitely lost in house of clergy)
Bishops: 3 for / 1 against
Clergy: 14 or 15 for / 36 or 38 against / 2 abstentions
Laity: 32 or 35 for / 24 or 29 against / 3 abstentions
Peterborough: covenant accepted
Bishops: 2 for / 0 against
Clergy: 22 for / 19 against / 1 abstention
Laity: 28 for / 13 against / 7 abstentions

Vote totals from Simon Kershaw at Thinking Anglicans.


"There was some confusion in the tally of Oxford's votes, which has made the update of the statistics difficult, because I had to decide how to include them. There is no doubt about the end result in Oxford: the Covenant proposal was defeated in the House of Clergy."
Bishops: 79.5% for, 14.1% against, 6.4% abstentions
Clergy: 45.7% for, 50.1% against, 4.3% abstentions
Laity: 48.6% for, 46.4% against, 5.0% abstentions

Overall: 48.1% for, 47.2% against, 4.7% abstentions
Overall (clergy and laity only): 47.3% for, 48.1% against, 4.7% abstentions
Percentages from Alan Perry at Comprehensive Unity.

A PERTINENT RANT

Jonathan Hagger on Facebook:
Following the Holy Spirit's destruction of his personal tower of primatial babble, Archbishop Ozymandias should resign today, and stand down today. He has wasted hundreds of thousands of pounds (probably millions) flying theologians and bishops round the world, arranging conferences etc., etc. which, as Jesus Christ said, should have gone to the feeding of the poor or the spreading of the Gospel.

But there is another reason why he should stand down now. He has spent the last six or so years acting as if the Covenant was already in place. He sacked theologians from communion think tanks, he banned a duly elected (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit which has been proved conclusively by time) bishop from attending the Lambeth Conference. He has flown all over the world bossing other provinces around. He has been a despot.

And his church has overwhelmingly told him (and their friends throughout the world) that this is not the style of church and church leadership that it wants or considers in keeping with its catholic/protestant identity. Therefore, his church has told him that everything he has done over the last six years has been bogus. Can he carry on with such a complete lack of confidence in him as shown by those he is supposed to SERVE? Well, if he was a politician he would be out. As he is a Christian bishop and we are Christians, we will pretend this covenant thing didn't happen and let him enjoy his hobnobbing with the Queen this year.

Rowan Williams was not a good archbishop. He was a lousy archbishop. Possibly the worst archbishop this country has known since archbishops of Canterbury stopped launching bloody crusades against other countries (which I believe was at the end of the 14th. Century).
Now I didn't write the words above; I merely copied and pasted, so don't blame me.  I don't even know enough about the history of the Church of England to vouch for the final paragraph.  See?

Jonathan (aka MadPriest) blogs at  Of Course, I Could Be Wrong....

CAJUN JIG DANCE - D L MENARD 'THE BACK DOOR'



See the girls dancing in the background?  That's the Cajun jig.  I don't want to appear triumphalist or anything, but I'm dancing a joyful Cajun jig in my humble abode in the swamps of Louisiana.  Why do I dance a joyful Cajun jig?  I dance because the Anglican Covenant was voted down in the Church of England.  You may say that I am triumphalist, but I would never say that.

STATEMENT FROM NO ANGLICAN COVENANT COALITION

COALITION STATEMENT ON THE DEFEAT OF THE PROPOSED ANGLICAN COVENANT IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

LONDON – No Anglican Covenant Coalition Moderator, the Revd Dr Lesley Crawley, has issued the following statement on the defeat of the proposed Anglican Communion Covenant in the Church of England.

“With today’s results from the dioceses of Oxford and Lincoln, the proposed Anglican Covenant is now dead in the water in the Church of England. This also poses serious problems for the Covenant in other Provinces as it seems nonsensical to have the Archbishop of Canterbury in the second tier of the Anglican Communion and excluded from the central committees.

“When we launched the No Anglican Covenant Coalition 18 months ago, we were assured that the Anglican Covenant was an unstoppable juggernaut. We started as simply a band of bloggers, but we would like to thank the hundreds of supporters and our patrons for their dedication to promoting debate. The Covenant needed the approval of 23 diocesan synods, as of today, that result is no longer possible.

“Especially we would like to congratulate people in Diocesan Synods across the Church of England who, despite attempts in many dioceses to silence or marginalize dissenting voices, endeavoured to promote debate, ensuring that the Anglican Covenant was subjected to significant and meaningful scrutiny. We found, as the debate went on, that the more people read and studied the Covenant, the less they liked it.

“Under Church of England procedures , this proposal to centralize Communion-wide authority in the hands of a small, self-selecting group cannot return to the agenda of General Synod for at least three years.

“We are seeing the momentum turning internationally as well. The Episcopal Church of the Philippines has officially rejected the Covenant, the opposition of the Tikanga Maori virtually assures that the Covenant will be rejected in the Anglican Church of Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia, and we are seeing increasing opposition in other Provinces of the Communion.

“While today’s diocesan synod results are exciting and gratifying, we are well aware that there is still work to do. However, if the proposed Anglican Covenant does not stand up to scrutiny in the Church of England, we are confident that it will not stand up to scrutiny elsewhere.

“We hope that the Church of England will now look to bring reconciliation within the Anglican Communion by means of strengthening relationships rather than punitive legislation.”

ANGLICAN COVENANT DEFEATED IN CHURCH OF ENGLAND


    With 22 votes against the covenant, the deed is done.  Thank you Lincoln and Oxford!  As further results from the dioceses come in, I will post them.

    Blackburn - For
    Exeter - For
    Guildford - Against
    Lincoln - Against
    Oxford - Against
    Peterborough - For

    Friday, March 23, 2012

    TO PEOPLE OF SYNOD ON THE ANGLICAN COVENANT...

    Why not click over to Paul Bagshaw's post at Not the Same Stream to read his excellent advice writ large in LIVING COLOR on casting your vote on the covenant.  Best of all, Paul is English and not some ex-colonial interloper interfering in England's affairs.

    Alas, the covenant is the affair of everyone who is a member of a church in the Anglican Communion.

    DIARMAID MACCULLOCH ON THE ANGLICAN COVENANT



    Tomorrow, March 24, 2012, six diocesan synods in the Church of England will vote on whether to adopt the proposed Anglican Covenant.

    • Blackburn
    • Exeter
    • Guildford
    • Lincoln
    • Oxford
    • Peterborough

    There are 12 dioceses yet to vote.

    Dioceses for the Covenant to date: 12

    Dioceses against the Covenant to date: 20

    For the Covenant to succeed 11 more dioceses must vote in favor

    For the Covenant to fail 2 more dioceses must vote against

    Almighty and everliving God, source of all wisdom and understanding, be present with those who take counsel and vote on Anglican Covenant. Teach them in all things to seek first your honor and glory. Guide them to perceive what is right, and grant them both the courage to pursue it and the grace to accomplish it; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
    From the Book of Common Prayer of the Episcopal Church (edited).
    Diarmaid MacCulloch is Professor of the History of the Church at the University of Oxford and Fellow of St Cross College, Oxford. He was knighted for his service to scholarship in January 2012.

    Monday, March 19, 2012

    'MADPRIEST'S TOTALLY SERIOUS SUGGESTIONS'

     
    ...for the position of Archbishop of Canterbury.  I have my own favorite, but I won't say who it is, as I don't wish to influence you as you click on over to Of Course, I Could Be Wrong... to add your suggestions to the mix.  Once you see MadPriest's post, if you're very clever and observant, you may be able to deduce my first choice.

    Saturday, March 17, 2012

    A GENEROUS ORTHODOXY

    From the Presidential Address of Bishop James Jones to the Church of England Diocese of Liverpool synod, in which he speaks against the adoption of the proposed Anglican Covenant:
    ...the Church has been born for mission. Two thousand years of church history tell us that the mission of God brings with it adventure and risks and takes us to new places that we never dreamed of. Right from the outset when the Jewish disciples of  Jesus engaged with a Gentile world they found themselves challenged, conflicted and more importantly changed by those encounters. The Church must be free to go into all the world and to engage with new cultures enabling us all to learn Christ. As we do we will find that we too are changed by this engagement with the world. Such change lies at the heart of repentance as we continually re-think, re-assess what it means to be a follower of Jesus Christ in a new context. The problem with the Covenant is that it introduces a dynamic which makes the Communion essentially introspective and resistant to change. Instead of setting us free to engage with a changing world it freezes us at a given point in our formation, holding us back and making us nervous about going beyond the boundaries and reaching out to God’s world. Indeed, just at the point that the church needs to be innovative and courageous against the forces ranged against us we will find ourselves constrained by fears as to whether our bold actions might mire us in procedures of dispute resolution.  There are bound to be times in mission when it is right to go out on a limb. If we hold back all bold initiatives until every Province agrees then we shackle the church in chains. The beauty of the Anglican Communion is that each Province can respond uniquely to its own cultural context within the triangle of Scripture, Reason and Tradition.
    And the final paragraph:
    The Church of England and the Anglican Communion have over the centuries developed a generous embrace allowing seekers to taste and see the goodness of God.  Within our borders, within the borders of what Cranmer described as that “blessed company of faithful people”, there is a generous orthodoxy. There is space for the seeker to breathe, to enquire, to ask questions, to doubt and to grope towards faith and to find God. That I believe is a space within the Body of Christ worth preserving. The Covenant will change the character of the Communion and, I fear, the Church of England.
    What a splendid and eloquent address!  I urge you to read the speech in its entirety at the PDF link.  All three houses of the Diocese of Liverpool voted against adoption of the covenant.

    H/T to Nicholas Knisely at The Lead.

    CHURCH OF ENGLAND DIOCESES VOTE ON ANGLICAN COVENANT

    Three out of five dioceses voting March 17 voted against the Anglican Covenant.  Two voted for.  


    Chester For 
    Bishops For: 3,  Against: 0,  Abstained: 0
    Clergy   For: 22,  Against: 14,  Abstained: 5
    Laity     For: 26,  Against: 23,  Abstained: 5
    Ely  Against
    Bishops For: 1,  Against: 0,  Abstained: 1
    Clergy   For: 16,  Against: 23,  Abstained: 1
    Laity     For: 19,  Against: 19,  Abstained: -
    Liverpool  Against
    Bishop James has spoken against the covenant in his presidential address before the covenant debate.  
    Bishops For: 0,  Against: 2,  Abstained: 0
    Clergy   For: 10,  Against: 26,  Abstained: 1
    Laity     For: 8,  Against: 28,  Abstained: 5
    Norwich For
    Bishops For: 3,  Against: 0,  Abstained: 0
    Clergy   For: 26,  Against: 10,  Abstained: 0
    Laity     For: 19,  Against: 15,  Abstained: 1
    St. Albans  Against
    Bishops For: 2,  Against: 0,  Abstained: 0
    Clergy   For: 21,  Against: 31,  Abstained: -
    Laity     For: 17,  Against: 44,  Abstained: - 
    Summary
    Dioceses for the Covenant to date: 12
    Dioceses against the Covenant to date: 20
    therefore:
    For the Covenant to succeed 11 more dioceses must vote in favour
    For the Covenant to fail 2 more dioceses must vote against
    There are 12 dioceses yet to vote.
    Dioceses voting next Saturday:
    • Blackburn
    • Exeter
    • Guildford
    • Lincoln
    • Oxford
    • Peterborough

    After that, London votes on 29 March (Thursday) and Manchester on the 31st. Southwell and Nottingham vote on Thursday 12 April, Chichester on 21st, with Newcastle and York bringing up the rear on 28 April.

     My thanks to Paul Bagshaw at Not the Same Stream.  The information above is lifted from his blog.

     Alan Perry at Comprehensive Unity crunched the numbers to give us the percentages.
    Total figures for the 32 dioceses that have voted show the following breakdown:

    Bishops: 80.7% for, 11.3% against, 8.1% abstentions
    Clergy: 44.8% for, 50.7% against, 4.5% abstentions
    Laity: 48.1% for, 47.0% against,  4.9% abstentions

    Support continues to drop among the bishops. A majority of clergy is against the Covenant, and less than a majority of laity is for (though a slim plurality of laity is for).

    Overall: 47.4% for, 47.8% against, 4.8% abstentions
    Overall (clergy and laity only): 46.6% for, 48.7% against, 4.7% abstentions

    A growing plurality of the overall vote is against the Covenant. 

    Wednesday, March 14, 2012

    JEFFREY JOHN - C OF E LAST REFUGE OF PREJUDICE

    From the Telegraph:
    Dr Jeffrey John, the Dean of St Albans, claimed that the Church’s mishandling of the gay issue was at the root of an increasingly secular society.
    The 59-year-old was pressured by the Archbishop of Canterbury to stand down as Bishop of Reading following revelations that he was in a gay, but celibate, relationship.
    His remarks are likely to further provoke a damaging split within the Church as the Government seeks to launch its consultation on same-sex marriage later this week.
    Dr John told The Times: “Exactly the same love and commitment are possible between two people of the same sex as between two people of different sexes, and it is not immediately clear why the Church should regard such a relationship as ethically or spiritually inferior to a heterosexual marriage.
    “The fact that fifty years on [after the decriminalisation of homosexuality] the Church is seen as enemy No 1 of gay people is a disaster, both for our own morale and for our mission to the country. We have become the last refuge of prejudice.”  (My emphasis)
    The Church as the 'last refuge of prejudice' is so very sad to read...sad but all too true. Jeffrey John knows, since he's twice been on the receiving end of prejudice.  I doubt that John's words will worsen the split within the Church of England, which is obviously gaping, but more people in England are likely to dismiss the Church as unworthy of their attention.
    UPDATE: Simon Sarmiento at Thinking Anglicans has more from an interview with Jeffery John by Ruth Gledhill in the Times, behind the paywall. 
    2. What are your views generally on gay marriage?
    I have always believed that the only possible Christian model for a same-sex relationship is monogamy. I wrote a booklet about it in 1991 called ‘Permanent Faithful Stable’ which will be republished later this year. At that time I took the view that it didn’t matter whether we call it a marriage or not – what really matters is the nature of the relationship and the commitment on which it rests. In a sense that is still true. But of course the obvious, natural term for monogamy is marriage, and most people instinctively refer to civil partnerships as marriages anyway. So I think ‘marriage’ probably is the best term to use for same-sex as well as well as heterosexual monogamy, and it also has the great advantage of making clear that both should be given equal respect.
    ....
    5. What do you think of what George Carey has been saying and his new Coalition 4 Marriage?
    They seem to ignore the fact that the ten other countries which have already legalised same sex marriage have not experienced any of the horrors that they keep predicting. Marriage and family life in those countries have not been harmed in any way. The ‘slippery slope’ argument that same-sex marriage will somehow lead to polygamy or incest or increased debauchery is particularly illogical and rather insulting. Nor am I impressed by the argument that we should not use the law to bring about social change. If we had not made changes in the law discrimination against women, ethnic minorities and the disabled would still be firmly in place.
    Read the rest at Thinking Anglicans.

    Tuesday, March 13, 2012

    NO ANGLICAN COVENANT COALITION NEWS RELEASE

    Tuesday, March 13, 2012



    The No Anglican Covenant has issued a news release remarking on the status of Covenant voting in the Church of England and emphasizing that the Coalition is against the adoption of the Covenant but not opposed to the Anglican Communion. You can read a PDF version of the news release here. Below is reproduced the title and body of the news release.
     
    YES TO COMMUNION – NO TO COVENANT

    LONDON – With more than half of English dioceses having voted, leaders of the No Anglican Covenant Coalition are cautiously optimistic. To date, a significant majority of dioceses have rejected the proposed Anglican Covenant. Coalition Moderator, the Revd Dr Lesley Crawley, welcomes the introduction of following motions at several recent synods emphasizing support for the Anglican Communion. Four dioceses have already passed following motions (Bath and Wells; Chelmsford; Worcester; Southwark) and a further six have following motions on the agenda (St Alban’s; Chester; Oxford; Guilford; Exeter; London).

    “The more widely the Covenant is read and discussed, the more likely people are to see it as a deeply flawed approach to the challenges of the Anglican Communion in the 21st century,” said Crawley. “The introduction of following motions in several dioceses has emphasized what has been our position from the beginning: we oppose the Covenant because we love the Anglican Communion.”

    “The proposed Covenant envisages the possibility that Provinces of the Communion may be barred from representing Anglicanism on certain councils and commissions with the clear implication that they are no longer sufficiently Anglican,” said Coalition Patron Bishop John Saxbee. “It is precisely this dimension of the Covenant which renders the Covenant itself un-Anglican.”

    “Some have argued that the Covenant is necessary for ecumenical relations to indicate how Anglicans understand catholicity, even though this is already laid out in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral and the Declaration of Assent,” according to Coalition Patron Bishop Peter Selby. “The Covenant adds nothing to these other than a bureaucratic disciplinary regime which denies to Anglicanism a distinctiveness which ecumenical partners might come to appreciate or even envy.”

    “I’m very disappointed that some Covenant supporters have tried to turn this into a contest about who loves the Communion more, like self-centred parents in some ugly divorce drama,” said Canadian Coalition member, the Ven Alan Perry. “Our position has always been that ‘No’ to the Covenant really is ‘Yes’ to the Communion. Companion diocese relationships came into being without the Covenant and will continue to exist, Covenant or no. Anglicans from around the world care about their Anglican brothers and sisters in places like Haiti or Zimbabwe, and we will continue to care about them with or without the proposed Anglican Covenant. Our current ecumenical relationships began long before the idea of an Anglican Covenant, and they will continue whether the Covenant is accepted or rejected. We are a family, and we shall continue to be a family regardless of what happens.”

    To date, the proposed Anglican Covenant has been approved by ten dioceses of the Church of England (Lichfield; Durham; Europe; Bristol; Canterbury; Winchester; Sheffield; Bradford; Carlisle; Coventry) and rejected by 17 (Wakefield; St Edmundsbury and Ipswich; Truro; Birmingham; Derby; Gloucester; Portsmouth; Rochester; Salisbury; Leicester; Sodor and Man; Chelmsford; Hereford; Ripon and Leeds; Bath and Wells; Southwark; Worcester). Approval by 23 diocesan synods is required for the Covenant to return to General Synod for further consideration. Rejection by 22 dioceses would effectively derail approval of the Covenant by the Church of England.

    From the No Anglican Covenant Coalition.

    Sunday, March 11, 2012

    BBC RADIO 4 - DISCUSSION OF ANGLICAN COVENANT

    Transcript of the program from the Diocese of Salisbury, with Edward Stourton discussing the Anglican Covenant with Bishop Graham Kings and Professor Diarmaid MacCulloch.
    Stourton - The Anglican Covenant was Rowan Williams’s big idea for securing unity of the worldwide Anglican Communion after the row over the American church’s decision to appoint a gay Bishop. It lays out a set of basic principles to which all churches in the communion would be required to subscribe. In the Church of England the Covenant needs to be endorsed by a majority of the church’s 44 Dioceses. 10 [sic 6] of them have been voting this weekend and the running total stands at 17 against and only 10 for the Covenant. Dr Graham Kings is the Bishop of Sherborne and Diarmaid MacCulloch is the Professor of the History of the Church at Oxford.

    Stourton - Good morning to you both. Bishop you are going to have to make up a good deal of ground if you are going to get this through. How do you persuade people to vote for the Covenant?

    Kings - Yes, the momentum is against the Covenant at the moment but there are still 17 Dioceses to vote. I think we can look at the image of a bunch of grapes or a bag of marbles. A bunch of grapes is what the communion is at the moment and we want to keep it like that. It is to do with personal interdependence. A bag of marbles is about isolated autonomy that don’t actually meet together. The interesting thing about today is that I am in Bournemouth in a studio, Diarmaid is in Oxford and you’re in Manchester and we are connected. And I think that is interdependence. The danger is if we get cut off from each other we have isolated autonomy.

    Stourton - Diarmaid you’re more of a marbles man.

    MacCulloch - I don’t understand those images very much, I just don’t think they are very useful images at all. What is very interesting, is the way the figures have consistently built up as people have understood the arguments for the Covenant and they realise just how incoherent they are.

    Stourton - Right, what is the argument that you think swings it?

    MacCulloch - Well, what swings the argument against is that people realise that this is a sort of centralisation, proposed for the Anglican Communion, which has never been Anglican, which is against Anglicanism. The Anglican Communion is not an Anglican church it’s a family of churches and you don’t need some punitive, centralising, disciplining sort of process to make the churches work together. That’s not the Anglican way, and I’m delighted at the way that the Dioceses have recognised that. This is a great thing for the Church of England.

    Stourton - Let me put that to Graham Kings, because it is a very serious charge that the idea that this runs against the fundamental spirit of what Anglicanism is?

    Kings - I thinks it’s worth watching the Archbishop of Canterbury’s video which was put on Youtube on Monday this week. He specifically says, quote “Some people say there’s a misunderstanding that it is some sort of centralising proposal creating an absolute authority which has the right to punish people for stepping out of line!”, that’s what Dairmaid has just said, and the Archbishop says, “I have to say, that I think this is completely misleading and false”. In the introduction you said they would be required to sign the Covenant. No, this is an ‘opt in’ Covenant; nobody is required to sign it at all.

    MacCulloch - Yes, but what happens Bishop, if you ‘opt in’, what if you ‘opt out’? You are not opting out you are forced out. If you will not sign up to a set of arguments, a set of propositions, which have been drawn up by one body and they have decided what Anglicanism is. Then you have to say, am I going to agree to something, which someone else has decided on Anglicanism

    Stourton - Let’s just be clear Dr Kings is that right in formal terms? If you don’t sign up to this you are not a member of the Anglican Communion?

    Kings - No. That’s not right. You are still a member of the Anglican Communion. It may be some particular committees that you cannot take part. Yes, you are still fully a member of the Anglican Communion but not in the central committees. Nobody is forced to do anything. These are recommended courses of actions. It is not one central committee that has drawn up this, it has been discussed all over the Communion and the Church of England had a huge input into it.

    Stourton - Professor MacCulloch?

    MacCulloch - Well, it has been discussed by those who want to discuss it. There is a curious sense in which this lunatic proposal has gone down a path. Once you start you don’t see the alternatives. Watching it happen has been like a rather slow motion version of the Gadarene Swine.

    Stourton - A quick final word Dr Kings. On a practical point doesn’t this or won’t this, if it goes against the Covenant, as it appears to be doing, very much damage Archbishop Rowan Williams’ authority in the church because he set enormous store by this idea?

    Kings - I think we need to look at the Provinces. Provinces have voted worldwide. So far, six in favour and only one against. A liberal province, Mexico, has voted for it, Southern .......

    Stourton - But, the Church of England is the Mother church in a way ...........

    Kings - In some ways yes, we will see. The business committee have to report in July and we will see what their report is.

    Stourton - Graham Kings, Bishop of Sherborne and Diarmaid MacCulloch Professor of the History of the Church at Oxford, thank you both very much indeed.

    Listen here. The segment begins at approximately 13:27 minutes into the broadcast.

    Saturday, March 10, 2012

    DIOCESAN SYNOD VOTES ON THE COVENANT IN CHURCH OF ENGLAND TODAY

    Final results for the day in: final update 13.57

    Bath and Wells Against

    Bishops For: 0, Against: 1, Abstained: 1
    Clergy For: 17, Against: 22, Abstained: 1
    Laity For: 18, Against: 23, Abstained: 1

    Carlisle For

    Bishops For: 2, Against: 0, Abstained: 0
    Clergy For: 19, Against: 13, Abstained: 2
    Laity For: 33, Against: 17, Abstained: 0

    Coventry For

    Bishops For: 2, Against: 0, Abstained: 0
    Clergy For: 22, Against: 7, Abstained: 0
    Laity For: 26, Against: 2, Abstained:

    Ripon and Leeds Against

    Bishops For: 2, Against: 0, Abstained: 0
    Clergy For: 12, Against: 22, Abstained: -
    Laity For: 8, Against: 17, Abstained: -

    Southwark Against

    Bishops For: 1, Against: 0, Abstained: 1
    Clergy For: 10, Against: 27, Abstained: 2
    Laity For: 21, Against: 32, Abstained: 0

    Worcester Against

    Bishops For: 2, Against: 0, Abstained: 0
    Clergy For: 5, Against: 19, Abstained: -
    Laity For: 6, Against: 22, Abstained: -

    Summary

    Dioceses for the Covenant to date: 10
    Dioceses against the Covenant to date: 17


    therefore:

    For the Covenant to succeed 13 more dioceses must vote in favour
    For the Covenant to fail 5 more dioceses must vote against

    There are 17 dioceses yet to vote.

    Dioceses voting next Saturday:

    Norwich
    Liverpool
    St Albans
    Chester
    Ely


    Results copied directly from Paul Basgshaw at Not the Same Stream.

    The numbers are better than I hoped for. I would have considered 3 for and 3 against a good day. No proponent of the covenant can now say that there is a consensus favoring the document in the Church of England. And it's plain to see the bishops are either well out of touch with their flocks or extremely loyal to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Only in Bath and Wells and Southwark did bishops stand apart from Canterbury.

    UPDATE: Alan Perry does the math for us at Comprehensive Unity.
    Across all 27 dioceses, the votes by houses look like this:
    Bishops: 82.0% for, 10.0% against, 8.0% abstentions
    Clergy: 44.6% for, 50.8% against, 4.7% abstentions
    Laity: 50.1% for, 45.2% against, 4.7% abstentions
    Comparing against last week's figures, one can see that support is dropping in all houses, opposition is growing, and confidence is growing (judging by the declining number of abstentions) except in the House of Bishops.

    Friday, March 9, 2012

    NO TO THE ANGLICAN COVENANT - YES TO THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION

    Tomorrow six Church of England diocesan synods will meet to vote on whether to adopt the Anglican Covenant. The vote now stands at 13 dioceses against, and 8 dioceses for. Posted below are three videos which may be helpful to synod members who are as yet undecided as to how they will vote.



    In the video, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams tells why he thinks the Anglican Covenant matters. I hope for a different outcome than the archbishop, that a majority of Church of England dioceses votes 'no' to the covenant.



    Louie Crew, founder of Integrity, makes great good sense with a few, clear, well-chosen words as he cautions against probable punitive consequences of adopting the Anglican Covenant.


    There are other ways forward, and I urge you if you have anything to do with this process, make sure that this Covenant is voted down.
    Diarmaid MacCulloch is Professor of the History of the Church at the University of Oxford and Fellow of St Cross College, Oxford. He was knighted for his service to scholarship in January 2012.

    I pray that God bestows the gift of wisdom on those who vote.

    Note: The idea for the title of my post is from Kelvin Holdsworth at What's in Kelvin's Head?