The official report of this afternoon’s session can be found here.
The afternoon started with some appointments which Synod was asked to approve. Allan Bridgewater’s appointment as Chair of the Church of England Pensions Board was extended until 31 December 2008. Andrew Britton was appointed to the Archbishops’ Council for a five-year term from 1 October 2007, where he will replace Michael Chamberlain, and Katherine McPherson and Anne Sloman’s membership of the Council was extended to 31 December 2009.
Synod then moved onto the clergy pension scheme and gave final agreement to the modifications to the scheme provisionally agreed in February. These will reduce the benefits for future service a little but will keep costs within manageable limits.
The debate on the Private Member’s Motion about Possible Military Action Against Iran that should have been debated during the afternoon was terminated early.
The original motion was:
That this Synod, in the light of growing international concern about possible US military action against Iran, believe that in present circumstances unilateral pre-emptive military action by the US or any other government against Iran cannot be justified.
There was also a long amendment proposed by Dr Philip Giddings which replaced the above with a series of more detailed recommendations, including one urging the government of Iran to comply with UN Security Council resolutions and Treaty obligations.
Immediately after the proposer, The Revd Canon Simon Bessant, had made his opening speech, Dr Chris Sugden put a procedural motion to move to next business. His stated reason for this was to avoid prejudicing the position of the new and soon-to-be-installed Anglican bishop in Iran.
This motion was eventually passed, but only after a formal division of the synod. The voting was 113 to 96. The motion therefore lapsed and the topic cannot be taken up again in the lifetime of this synod, without express approval of the business committee.
This opened up a half-hour space in the agenda so Synod started to consider amendments to its standing orders.
Finally, there was a short presentation on plans to provide hospitality to visiting bishops in the days leading up to next year’s Lambeth conference.
Church Times Report of Saturday
Wm. Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book 4 Chapter 8 wrote: “5 Elizabeth c/1 To refuse the oath of supremacy will incur the pains of praemunire and to defend the pope’s jurisdiction in this realm, is a praemunire for the first offense, and high trreason for the second.” Praemunire in its original meaning is the introduction of a foreign power into the land and creating an imperium in imperio. [a government within a government] The APO scheme for the US described by +Duncan in his November request to the Steering Committee of the Global South, and… Read more »
More properly, I should ask, has Parliament ceded its power to the the Churchmen to decide?
EPfizH – Thank you for putting this core value in such a historical perspective that it can only help those who are about to vote on legislation affecting this very point. Let us pray for clarity and wisdom in their counsels – and confusion to the enemy.
I don’t see any way around the fact that the current draft of the Proposed Covenant is a violation of the Royal Prerogative. The Church of England is, by definition, not self governing and therefore cannot cede the right to any outside authority.
“I don’t see any way around the fact that the current draft of the Proposed Covenant is a violation of the Royal Prerogative.” Living, as I do, far from the Muvverland, this matters not a whit WRT the New New Covenant. Far more important for me is the betrayal of the Reformation ideal that The Bishop of Rome (which I have always taken to mean, perhaps naively, any foreign bishop) hath no authority. Why is it that those who are most idolizing of the Reformation are the ones most in support of this setting up of a new Papacy and… Read more »
Ford Elms on Monday, 9 July 2007 at 1:02pm BST The Puritans have never been opposed to authoritarianism in theory — as long as they were the ones in authority! First they want to purify the church by driving out the “papists” (by which they meant non-puritans) & then the list of those to be expelled continues to grow — happily, with the exception of Cromwell’s Commonwealth, they have never been able to cease power but have always left (as separatists, or dissenters or non-conformists, etc.) when they couldn’t call the tune — this might be the major change in… Read more »
Prior, I sometimes think perhaps we SHOULD “walk apart”. We can keep ourselves open, and as one group after another gets kicked out for crimes against purity, we could welcome them into our fellowship of the impure. It wouldn’t take much more than a generation or two for us to reconstitute the Anglican Church, as the numbers of the ‘perfecti’ continue to diminish in the face of harsher and harsher interpretations of the New New Covenant. I predict the first will be the conservative Anglo-catholics, whose idolatry and superstition will soon prove unbearable for the Real Christians. It’ll start with… Read more »
Ford Elms on Monday, 9 July 2007 at 3:53pm BST
We may see sooner than we expect — Veneables, Primate of the Southern Cone, has already suggested the TEC will be joined in a separate communion by Canada & Mexico (& Scotland & Wales — maybe the rest of the British Isles as well!) OR perhaps it is Equatorial Africa (+ Sydney?) that will leave the WWAC — time will tell, I suppose.
Rome already has the slipper chapel!
“We may see sooner than we expect — Venables, Primate of the Southern Cone, has already suggested the TEC will be joined in a separate communion by Canada & Mexico (& Scotland & Wales — maybe the rest of the British Isles as well!) OR perhaps it is Equatorial Africa (+ Sydney?) that will leave the WWAC — time will tell, I suppose.” – Prior Aelred It seems Venables may be nearsighted (perhaps by intent?) in his assessment, in that he has also forgotten Brasil and South Africa, and Scotland, which have already rejected the Abuja coup. And, besides the… Read more »
I think I generally agree with Jerry’s assessment. However, a caution on referring to the non-Abujan grouping as the “Traditional Anglican Communion.” I believe that is already the name of one of the coalitions of “continuing” Anglican ecclesial bodies which came into being in the wake of the ordination of women.
I’d suggest the following nomenclature:
The Anglican Communion – those Provinces and / or remnants of Provinces which reject the coup d’eglise.
The Abujan Communion – those Provinces and / or breakaway sects from Provinces which accept the coup d’eglise.
Nigeria, Uganda, Rwanda and Kenya Anglican Communion: The NURKs.