Wednesday, 16 March 2011
Wakefield diocese rejects Anglican Covenant
Updated Friday morning
Press Release from Modern Church, Inclusive Church and the No Anglican Covenant Coalition
First English diocesan vote rejects Anglican Covenant
Modern Church, Inclusive Church and the No Anglican Covenant Coalition are pleased with the result of the first diocesan vote on the proposed Anglican Covenant.
Both clergy and laity (the latter overwhelmingly) rejected the Covenant at the Wakefield Diocesan Synod meeting on Saturday 12th March.
While recognising the need to avoid the bitter controversies of recent years, we are glad that this Synod does not believe the Covenant is the way to do it.
We believe we should retain the traditional Anglican openness in which provinces govern themselves and disagreements are resolved by openly debating the issues free from threats of sanctions or schism.
The proposed Anglican Covenant offers instead a process for suppressing disagreements by establishing a central authority, with power to pass judgements and penalise dissident provinces by excluding them from international structures.
We trust that other Church of England Dioceses will have the courage to follow Wakefield’s example.
Rev Giles Goddard, 07762 373674, www.inclusivechurch2.net
Rev Jonathan Clatworthy, 0151 7276291, www.modernchurch.org.uk
Rev Lesley Fellows, 01844 239268, www.noanglicancovenant.org
The Church Times has a report, Wakefield synod votes against the Covenant.
Posted by Simon Sarmiento on
Wednesday, 16 March 2011 at 9:56am GMT
THE first English diocesan synod to debate the Anglican Covenant has rejected it. On Saturday, in Wakefield diocese, the vote was lost in the Houses of Laity (10 for, 23 against) and Clergy (16 for, 17 against, 1 abstention). Both Bishops voted for its adoption…
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Church of England
I feel encouraged by such a down to earth approach. Traditional British common sense and decency.
I do feel encouraged by this, yes , that's it.
"London Bridge is falling down, falling down...."
As an American with no real sense of the "flavor" of Wakefield, I'm hoping someone will let us know if this was expected.
Is Wakefield a diocese that might have been expected to affirm the Covenant, or is it one where this outcome could have been seen by the most inept of prophets?
Excellent news, I wonder how it was done? It will be very interesting to see reports of the proceedings.
Some common sense at last!
This is good news. I'm glad to hear at least one diocese has voted against the covenant. Those for whom the covenant was designed have already freely admitted that it doesn't meet their demands, it's a bad thing and we should have nothing to do with it.
Michael M. It doesn't really matter how it has come about. It has actually happened. A Common-Sense Diocese from the North of England has signalled the Path of Reason for a continuing Anglican Communion - free from prejudice and the threat of Magisterial Rule, a la Vaticano style.
One can only hope that this tells GAFCON and ACNA that you can't muck about with the Scripture, Tradition and REASON-ability of the Anglican Communion. Either the Gospel is for ALL people, or it is for only the Self-Righteous, and which one of us is capable of judging the integrity of another Province of God's Church? Deo Gratias!
Shocking rejection. Everyone is out of step except for +Cantuar.
Perhaps the Covenant is not as inevitable as we've been told.
To our american friends: I am not sure that anyone will be able to make predictions about this with regard to laity and clergy. It may be more a conservative/liberal split than a churchmanship one but it is rather a unique thing for a Diocesan Synod to debate. My sense would be that laity often look to the Bishop for a steer in this sort of matter...but this clearly didnt happen in Wakefield.Not sure how you would characterise the "flavour" of Wakefield.I sense evangelicals are not strong and there are a fair number of anglo-catholic parishes esp in former pit villages and towns. it would be good to hear from someone in the diocese.
The post on my blog mentioned above (http://revdlesley.blogspot.com/2011/03/what-happened-in-wakefield.html) contains information from someone who was at the synod, and there is a comment from a priest in the diocese who couldn't make the synod meeting.
'The points in favour were that we've come so far with this process that we may as well sign up to it and there isn't any alternative on the table.'
(Quoted on the Wakefield badman link given above)
I have sympathy with this, as after spent ages planning to murder my wife, including doing a lot of research into divers methods and buying the Necessary, so that when I began to have second thoughts, I felt I'd come a long way - and it would be such a shame not to....
Even in Wakefield the conservatism of ministers -especially bishops is appalling - as reflected in the voting figures clergy 16 for; 17 agin;
Bishops all 2 for it !
I do hope it is all done proper secret ballot.
Looking at the actual results in Wakefield. It's fascinating how the bishops are toeing the line (both voted in favour) - I am sure that there won't be a single episcopal vote against in any Diocesan Synod. However, the laity are free to vote with their conscience (clear majority against) and the clergy partly so (just voted against).
Hence the Wakefield results and hopefully they are to be repeated elsewhere.
This result was a surprise to people in Wakefield but I think the answer is (from someone who was there) that Yorkshire people are pretty independent minded and just say what they think. There were good presentations with points for and against well explained and also several points made from the floor so I think people were clear about the issues.
They start growing their rhubarb in the dead of winter in Wakefield, and succeed, that's how stubborn they are there.
"Yorkshire people are pretty independent minded and just say what they think" Joyce Jones
In the same way that gay men have great dress sense?
I also noticed Father Ron Smith, in the thread re women bishops mentioned "a typical Midlands exercise in pragmatism".
I realise that both these comments were meant well but they are still stereotypes, which in the context of both threads is somewhat ironic.
In the same way that gay men have great dress sense?'
Posted by: Laurence C. on Friday, 18 March 2011 at 9:39am GMT
You can't ever have met me ! :)
As a Lancashire child, Lawrence C, I learned
Hm. I wonder how this would shake out if the driving force behind the covenant were the liberals?
Those hot for this thing (the covenant, that is) would be wise to consider their position if at sometime in the future it's their ox that's getting gored.
The old saw is true: Be careful what you wish for...
As a Canadian, I'm resigned to the fact that the covenant will be signed by our Province--operative word being "provincial". However, I am cheered by stories from my neighbors in the States (in the link below) that give hope that such a signing will matter not a hill of beans in the long run.
The original of this rhyme usually runs:
And Yorkshire bred.
Strong in the arm
And thick in the head.
Yorkshire men and women will point out to you that ‘eek’ means ‘also’. Check your Chaucer:
‘His head was balled, that shoon as any glas,
And eek his face, as he hadde been enoynt.
He was a lord ful fat and in good poynt.’
So the rhyme then runs:
And Yorkshire bred.
Strong in the arm
And th’eek (the same) in the head.
Yorkshire men and women are strong-willed and strong-witted.
The sensible Yorkshire folk of Wakefield have shown great good sense and independence of spirit in rejecting this parcel of nonsense which is the Covenant.
No, I’m not a Yorkshireman.
Strongitharm is a surname in the North, Toby. I was at grammar school with someone so named.
Thanks for that info, lapin. New to me and very welcome. I've never come across anyone called that, though I've known several prelates who might well have been call Weakithead, with no Chaucerean gloss.