Saturday, 18 February 2012
Anglican Covenant rejected in more English dioceses
Four dioceses in the Church of England voted today on the proposal to adopt the draft Anglican Covenant. Earlier results are reported here.
In Leicester the voting was:
Bishops: 2 for 0 against
Clergy: 15 for, 21 against, 3 abstentions
Laity: 21 for, 14 against, 4 abstentions
It appears that there was confusion at the synod in the interpretation of this outcome, but we believe that the defeat in the House of Clergy means that the motion is defeated, and that this will be confirmed in due course.
In Salisbury the voting was:
Bishops: 1 for, 1 against
Clergy: 11 for, 20 against, 2 abstentions
Laity: 19 for, 27 against, 0 abstentions
In Portsmouth the voting was:
Bishop: 1 for, 0 against
Clergy: 12 for, 17 against, 0 abstentions
Laity: 13 for, 17 against, 2 abstentions
In Rochester the voting was:
Posted by Simon Sarmiento on
Saturday, 18 February 2012 at 6:57pm GMT
Bishop: 1 for, 0 against
Clergy: 8 for, 30 against, 3 abstentions
Laity: 14 for, 26 against, 7 abstentions
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
| Church of England
Days such as this give me more faith in the institutional Church.
Hallelujah! What a great day! My cup runneth over.
Many thank you from afar (and we are)! No Anglican Covenant por favor, Guatemala, America Central
A very interesting result from the Leicester Synod. The result from the Bishops was maybe predictable, but was pressure put on the Laity by the Bishops, one wonders? Obviously, the Clergy are not persuaded of the value of the Covenant.
Overall, a good outcome. Keep on like this and Bishop Graham Kings' prediction will come about: That, unless more than 50% of dioceses Vote 'for'; the covenant will be a dead duck at G.S.
Incidentally, I am assuming that in Salisbury, the diocesan, Nick Holtam, will have voted no, and his suffragan, Graham Kings will have voted yes.
Re the confusion in Leicester: the Synod Standing Orders for that diocese don't appear to be on the Web, but those for Blackburn contain the following provisions - 60. 'Subject to the two next following standing orders, nothing shall be deemed to have the assent of the diocesan synod unless the three houses which constitute the synod have assented thereto...' 62. 'If the vote of the houses of clergy and laity are in favour of any matter referred to the diocesan synod by the General Synod under the provisions of Article 8 of the Constitution of that Synod, that matter shall be deemed to have been approved for the purposes of the said Article.' (The omitted wording of SO60 relates only to decisions NOT made on a General Synod reference, and SO61 relates only to procedural questions.)
These provisions are almost certainly replicated in Leicester; and if so then, taken together, they mean the assent of the clergy is essential to approval of a proposal referred by the General Synod. Lacking that approval, the proposal fails.
It is impossible to see how, at this rate, the Covenant can be anything other than a divisive piece of attempted legislation ... the exact opposite of what its proponents claim for it.
Hopefully, this exercise will soon be over, the Covenant quietly consigned to an interesting footnote in history and Anglicanism be allowed to work out its current problems in the traditional way, by fudge, by learning to live with differences and by gradual change and development.
This way everyone stays, more or less, in full communion. However, with the Covenant a new Anglican Babylonian captivity will emerge, minus the vineyards of Avignon.
This is a very good development in allowing the Church of England to breathe more broadly. It does mean (should it continue) the defeat of the core policy - a highly destructive policy - of the present Archbishop of Canterbury and the cue for him to retire. I wonder, though, if the religious bureaucrats are designing how to bring the Covenant back in to the General Synod and get beyond a constitutional crisis by so doing.
Again, I would be interested to see arguments used by those addressing these or any other synods - from both sides. if anyone has anything please get in touch.
It certainly is beginning to look as if considerable numbers in the C of E can't receive the proposed development of an Anglican Covenant. I wonder what special provisions might be proposed for those of us in that position? Hmm?
I suggest Martin looks on the Rochester Diocesan web site
Diocesan Synods have no discretion about how votes are to be interpreted on matters referred to them under Article 8. The Church Representation Rules specify what must be in their standing orders. Here is the relevant rule.
34 (1) The diocesan synod shall make standing orders which shall provide—
(h) that if the votes of the houses of clergy and laity are in favour of any matter referred to the diocesan synod by the General Synod under the provisions of Article 8 of Schedule 2 to this Measure, that matter shall be deemed to have been approved for the purposes of the said Article;
The views of Graham Kings and Nick Holtam are a matter of public record, as are the voting figures so, yes, in Salisbury Graham Kings presented the motion and voted for it and Nick Holtam voted against.
Have followed your advice to Martin and looked at the Rochester web site, Jean. Nothing obvious relating to the vote. A link or other clarification of your statement might help make sense of your short comment.
Could we have an up date as to which dioceses have voted in favour and which against? Which other diocesan synods are due to vote soon?
Perry -- Modern Church has a table that shows all this.
Go to their home page and click on "synod dates and results" on the right-hand side, under "Covenant debates."
According to that list, Sheffield and Worcester are next on February 25, Sodor and Man on March 1, and Chelmsford, Bradford, Carlisle, and Hereford on March 3.
It is becoming painfully obvious that there is no emerging positive consensus about a document purporting to be a way to ensure action by consensus.
The refusal to submit to further drafts and revisions was a tragic choice. The draft as proposed was not "ready for prime time."
The draft was not ready? I would have thought that the fault lay not with the drafting, but with the un-Anglican idea.
Our Diocesan vote (Bath & Wells) is on 10th March. I note in passing that our Diocesan Synod has 200 seats, compared to an average of 80 votes in the above examples. Either the turnout for the vote is pretty poor, or we have a vastly oversized Synod.
Jesus himself summarised 'All the Law and the Prophets' in this single Commandment - 'Love God, first, and then your neighbour as yourself'
Perhaps the Covenant Promoters need to acknowledge the perspicacity (and charity) of Jesus, and just quietly drop the Covenant in favour of another of Jesus' sayings: "They will know you're my disciples BY YOUR LOVE.
This ought to fulfil the 'Law and the Prophets'.
When the vote on women bishops is narrowly lost and this is voted down,..maybe Rowan Williams will have the integrity to resign.
With reference to the comment by RIW, just think of what might happen to the Roman Curia, if they had to depend on a popular vote to maintain the edict about No Contraception. There would simply be no contest.