And the point is? There was a procedure for deciding the matter of the Covenant and the issue failed. Yes, if the procedure had been different, the result may have been different as well. But it wasn’t.
Perhaps we should have just let the Archbishop of Canterbury decide.
Perhaps we should just acknowledge that the Covenant lost and the matter is (and should be) dead.
Considering the pressure put on the Dioceses to vote for the Covenant ,it is a miracle that it was defeated and hardly surprising that the voting in the laity wsa so close.Even then it could not be claimed that the Covenant offered a united way forward.
The Bishops are up to their tricks again.All the statements on the Covenant are in favour Not one of the seven bishops who had the courage to vote against has been asked to give their opinion.
Instead of wasting more time on the Covenant the Communion should concentrate on making the traditional ways of Anglicanism work better, based on the Bible , Reason , and Tradition and rooted in a shared history.
Above all the Communion must work on its commomn mission ,while recognising that its implementation will vary in different Provinces owing to their culture and the mores of society.
Yes, but .....
If the diocese such as Lichfield had actually engaged in a real debate rather than ask a declared proponent to give a balanced view ......
Otherwise the vote was lost
This summary gives a "hanging chads" impression of the outcome ..... I think that is unhelpful if one is not willing to also recognise the skewed voting that came when there was no real debate.
In a way - it's all part of this glamour the Church of England likes to flourish within, that dream world where gay people are still evil perverts they are willing to tolerate with compassion.
Let's hope that they take note of the end result of the voting. This is not an issue that should be revived. Far from uniting, the Anglican Covenant would be deeply divisive and exclusive in nature. It was a bad idea promoted simply because once it had been suggested by the ABC no-one had the gumption to actually get up and say it should be dropped.
"And if your aunt had been your uncle", as my mother used to say.
Just what point are they trying to make in paragraphs 9 and 10?
The Covenant was rejected by a majority of English Diocesan Synods - that's it.
It's hard (or perhaps all to easy) to understand why the Business Committee finds it appropriate to include this "as-if" commentary. There was a process and the process yielded a result, which was clearly against signing up to the covenant. I only hope that members of Synod will be alert enough to realise that --- not least because of setting dangerous precedents --- they should resist any attempt to overturn the results of the diocesan votes, however close they were in some cases. If the boot were on the other foot, and it had passed in a small majority of dioceses even by a single vote, I somehow doubt that there would have been this sort of analysis done.
If members of Synod feel that the business committee has exceeded its brief in producing this analysis (rather than just printing the figures) then an appropriate action would, I suppose, be to oppose the usual formal acceptance of the Business Committee's work.
Jean - All diocesan bishops have the right to have their distinct opinion recorded in the minutes of their diocesan synod and included in this report from the business committee. The seven who voted against could have done so if they wished.
Frankly, the report is more balanced than I had expected, having seen the degree to which the desperate proponents of this failed policy were trying to spin the numbers a few weeks ago.
At para ten, the authors acknowledge that the "should'a, could'a, would'a" argument cuts both ways:
"The point can be illustrated in another way by noting that, if a total of just seventeen
individuals spread across five particular dioceses had voted to support the Covenant
rather than oppose it, a bare majority of dioceses would have approved the Covenant,
whereas, if a total of just ten across five other dioceses had voted against instead of in
favour, the diocesan voting against the Covenant would have been much greater
What the report (probably properly) omits is the frankly unethical tactics used in some dioceses to ensure that the "no" side did not get a fair hearing.
At the end of the day, the miracle is not that the aggregate vote was close, but rather that a synodical insurrection with the support of a wee band of bloggers managed to take on the combined organization heft of Lambeth Palace, the Anglican Communion Office and Church House and win.
If Manchester United lost to the children from the local Church of England Primary School, I can assure you that the headlines would not dwell on how ManU kept it close.
Could've, would've, should've. Sorry, Business Committee.
I think the "as if" commentary is quite helpful because it shows just how narrow the vote was and therefore how the church is split right down the middle on this issue.
If anyone seriously considered a resurrection of the process they would only need to refer to this to see that he would have as many people on his side as against him and that the Covenant can therefore never create any kind of unity.
One may only hope that the House of Bishops doesn't fiddle with the figures on the Covenant rejection. A bit of legerdemain can make a difference when people are not looking.
Why can the Church of England not actually admit that the Covenant process has failed - not only in the Church of England Dioceses, but also in most Provinces around the world. It doesn't seem to matter which side of the arguments about gender and sexuality one stands; the outcome is plainly obvious. The Anglican Covenant is a NO-GO.
We have already seen how Bishops can alter the outcome of diocesan synods - and even General Synod - on the issue of women as Bishops. Don't, please, repeat the process with the Covenant.
A resounding Amen to Erika's point. Any document or process designed as a "basic way forward for Anglicanism" should need overwhelming support or it is doomed from the outset. The Covenant debate has introduced more tension, rather than alleviating it. It has given the church something more to argue about. It is a matter of division, not its solution.
There is no way for the House of Bishop to "fiddle with the figures" on covenant rejection. The provisions which allowed the bishops to modify the women bishops legislation do not apply here.
There remains a possibility that somebody will propose starting the process again on the Covenant. That could not now begin until 2013. But whether it makes any sense depends on what the Anglican Consultative Council decides to do about the Covenant at its forthcoming meeting. That too will be reported to the General Synod in November.
Good heavens - this sounds embarrassingly like someone asking for 'best out of three' when they lose the toss.
I can see that the Covenant is (even more) unworkable if the C of E hasn't signed up to it. Rather than trying to find a 'fix' for the inconvenient outcome of the Diocesan Synod votes, is it too much to ask that those who were so keen to push the Covenant ask themselves if those who didn't want it might have a point?
Won't be "best out of three" Pam. Voting will quit the instant they win - if they win.
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.