Monday, 7 February 2011

General Synod - Monday business

The General Synod of the Church of England began its February group of sessions this afternoon.

Here is the official summary of the day’s business.
General Synod - Summary of business conducted on Monday 7th February 2011 PM
This includes links to audio recordings of the debates.

One item of business was this follow-on from the debate on the Anglican Communion Covenant held in November 2010.

Mr John Ward (London) moved:

‘That this Synod resolve that final approval of the Act of Synod adopting the Anglican Communion Covenant shall require the assent of two-thirds of the members of each House present and voting.’

Following debate, and a division by Houses, the motion was lost. Here are the voting figures.

  ayes noes abstentions
Bishops 4 32 2
Clergy 82 92 1
Laity 66 112 0

We will be reporting on some of the questions and answers separately.

Posted by Peter Owen on Monday, 7 February 2011 at 8:23pm GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Church of England | General Synod
Comments

Of course the CofE establishment voted down any attempt to require a supermajority. They are terrified at the prospect of keeping their fraudulent scheme alive, and the more people they have to fool, the harder that will be.

Posted by: Malcolm French+ on Monday, 7 February 2011 at 8:57pm GMT

I'm trying to read the runes on this vote to get a sense of the mood of the Synod on the Covenant. This motion was lost in the House of Clergy by only a small margin. I'm not sure now how the final vote will add up because on the basis of these figures if there were to be a simple majority required in the whole Synod it wouldn't go through and in any case the House of Clergy could easily reject it by a simple majority.

A lot will depend on the diocesan synods, it'll only take a few voting against to increase the number of waverers in the Synod at the final vote.

Posted by: Concerned Anglican on Monday, 7 February 2011 at 10:27pm GMT

It's worth mentioning now that there will be no roll-call published of this vote. That's because the electronic voting system failed, and the vote had to be taken manually, i.e. by members walking through doors past tellers who counted the numbers but did not record the names. This is how all votes used to be taken.

William Fittall remarked later in the proceedings that every time ACNA is mentioned in synod (this happened at two points today, one before the failure and one after) the electronic voting system fails.

CORRECTION: I have now listened to the recording, and I misheard William Fittall: what he actually said was "every time we discuss the Anglican Communion the technology breaks down".

This is a bit confusing, since the technology did not break down when the Anglican Covenant was discussed last November. So I think I was wrong in what I originally heard, but he is wrong in his assertion.

Posted by: Simon Sarmiento on Monday, 7 February 2011 at 11:26pm GMT

It seems a bit bizarre to vote by Houses on this motion NOT to vote by Houses on the substantive motion. Which motion is the more significant?

Posted by: Peter Edwards on Monday, 7 February 2011 at 11:43pm GMT

All we like sheep...

Posted by: Cynthia Gilliatt on Tuesday, 8 February 2011 at 3:36am GMT

So is this monstrosity to be rammed through w/ a simple majority vote?! Say it ain't so... (And God bless TEC!)

Posted by: JCF on Tuesday, 8 February 2011 at 5:11am GMT

The final vote on the Covenant will undoubtedly be taken by houses (with a simple majority required in all three). It only requires 25 members to force such a vote.

Posted by: Peter Owen on Tuesday, 8 February 2011 at 11:12am GMT

"It's worth mentioning now that there will be no roll-call published of this vote. That's because the electronic voting system failed, and the vote had to be taken manually, i.e. by members walking through doors past tellers who counted the numbers but did not record the names. This is how all votes used to be taken."

How about counting the legs that pass by and dividing by two?

Do the tellers not KNOW who these folks are? They could wear nametags on their ankles ...

Posted by: Cynthia Gilliatt on Tuesday, 8 February 2011 at 12:54pm GMT

It seems that the English GS mentions ACNA more often than it would be mentioned at the Canadian GS or the TEC General Convention. Why? There must be agents-provocateurs(euses) in the room.

Posted by: Derek Gagne on Tuesday, 8 February 2011 at 5:33pm GMT

"William Fittall remarked later in the proceedings that every time ACNA is mentioned in synod (this happened at two points today, one before the failure and one after) the electronic voting system fails." - Simon Sarmiento -

Perhaps this reflects the effectiveness of the dissentient community within the Communion. ACNA's very existence might cause the failure of more than just the lights at the English General Synod. If the Church of England were ever to grant them 'Room at the Table' the failure rate would be even more catastrophic.

I noticed that most of the House of Bishops were against trusting the 2/3 majority passage of the Covenant legislation. If it passes by simple majority, it could be that the Church of England becomes the only Covenant 'Partner'.

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Wednesday, 9 February 2011 at 8:39am GMT

I have corrected my earlier comment about what William Fittall said. See above.

Posted by: Simon Sarmiento on Saturday, 12 February 2011 at 9:28am GMT
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.