Saturday, 28 April 2012
Anglican Covenant: final two diocesan synods
Updated with final diocesan synod vote (Newcastle)
This Saturday the final two English diocesan synods voted on the Anglican Covenant motion: Newcastle and York.
Newcastle: covenant rejected
Bishops: 2 for / 0 against
Clergy: 8 for / 18 against
Laity: 14 for / 15 against
York: covenant accepted
Bishops: 4 for / 0 against
Clergy: 26 for / 5 against
Laity: 38 for / 5 against / 1 abstention
The final tally of Church of England votes is that 26 diocesan synods voted against the covenant and 18 in favour.
Posted by Peter Owen on
Saturday, 28 April 2012 at 11:49am BST
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
| Church of England
Good to see Newcastle (where I work) voting virtuously, unlike Durham (where I live).
If York had gone otherwise that would have been the final farewell to John Sentamu's aspirations to move to Canterbury. As it is they have voted for the Covenant in such numbers that it could be construed as an enthusiasm to hasten him on his way!
Meanwhile, last, today, one final glimpse of the attempt to save the ¨Anglican Covenant¨and save
face by Cantuar, Ebor and associates as their excessively determined pro-covenant management style creaked forward at York and Newcastle Synods at the Church of England.
Dry dock again today:
If REAL people are expected to live and pray
together under the insistant demands/commands
of manipulative and my-way-or-the-cry-way,leaders there is resistance--lots of wind, little movement.
Better: Lets all take a BIG LEAP into *believing*
and trusting in God to deliver us from the pompous silliness of dangerous excluditarians who seem to have fits when confronted and challenged with REALITY...all of humane reality (it´s nothing personal) but, does include ALL authentic human beings who aspire to life amongst us at all levels of Church life.
As you see, The Anglican Covenant has now sunk into the shallow swamp of Drexel Gomez and Gregory Cameron's anti-LGBT and Heterosexual dredging...hopefully, never to be raised again from the muddled thinking and excluding others at Church (thank goodness there was little of real value on board).
Bravo, way to go, Church of England, Anglican Communion...all ashore who are going ashore as we sail off into the horizon of the revelations of the Holy Spirit.
My first thought was to lament the monumental waste of time and effort the whole Windsor/Covenant process has been, leading to the very splits that they were supposed to paper over. But I now wonder whether that was an ungenerous reaction. The debacle of the Covenant vote has shown clearly, by a 2 to 1 majority, that the CofE doesn't want to be pushed around either by its bishops or some elements in the Anglican Communion. The concurrent meetings and declaration by FCA and Amie show that those who whom the Covenant was expressly designed had already rejected it and moved beyond to proposing a refashioning of the Communion in their own image, an image which I hope and expect the CofE and other like minded churches will also reject as against its history, spirit and ethos. Perhaps all this was necessary, inspite of the time and effort. But I hope that this will be the end of such Communion-wide misguided attempts. The divisions are now too wide to be healed by fine words and wall paper. Why not just agree to disagree and go our own ways? Am I being naive?
The covenant is dead - take it away please.
It passes my understanding why, once it was clear the thing was 'dead in the water' that some diocesan synods continued to vote in favour of it, knowing full well that it would be the 'monumental waste of time' which another poster quite correctly described the whole wretched thing as. I'm ashamed of my home diocese of Southwell & Nottingham for voting in favour of the wretch. However one looks at it, the Covenant's a thinly disguised implement for punishing progressive churches for being liberal and tolerant. The less the Church of England has to do with the whole silly business the better.
'some diocesan synods continued to vote in favour of it, knowing full well that it would be the 'monumental waste of time'
I'm sorry that you dismiss the hard-won and much undervalued role of diocesan Synods in the scheme of Synodical government. Given that the General Synod might well have been minded to approve the covenant, the scale of the definitive 'no' from the dioceses has come to most commentators as something of a surprise.
Now that the ultimate result is known, it's a bit ungenerous to dismiss the votes of those Synods still taking part in precisely the process which has achieved exactly what was intended of it - and has in any case delivered the result that you wanted.
I guess if York had voted against, there would have been the most awful row.
Dido's |Lament comes to mind.
Diocesan Synods need to be valued more, and their voices heard. Also Deanery Synods - Hello ! Deaneries -so neglected and unvalued.
We can't leave important decisions to bishops who when not dissembling, tell untruths and pretend to be of One Mind on queer issues alone. They would have us believe they are being pastoral or moral, but we all know they are being cowardly.
How do they spend their time and energies ? Not caring for ministers or parishes -by and large.
Why has St Edmund's, Forest Gate, had not even one phone call or text from any bishop - let alone a visit or any kind of on-going support, at their time of crisis, so publicised of late ? Do church wardens count for nothing ?
What disgusted me was that the Covenant if it had been passed by the dioceses was set to be only approved by a simple majority in General Synod. The bishops knew it would not pass on a two thirds vote so thay lowered the bar. Yet in July the Synod needs a two thirds vote for women bishops to be passed!
Well at least Robert, in the Church of England, the Faithful Laity and the Clergy do have a Synod Vote!