Here’s how the Living Church reports the debate and outcome of the CoE General Synod resolution on the Anglican Covenant.

Separation of faith: Vestal church’s parting from Episcopal Church not a one-issue decision

By Warren Musselman

As a member of St. Andrew’s Anglican Church, I was disappointed that the June 22 article “Vestal church to sever ties to Episcopal organization” on our separation from the Episcopal Church (TEC) emphasized homosexuality as the issue. The acceptance and blessing of homosexual behavior by TEC is only a symptom of the theological problems that we, and most Anglicans in the world, have with it.

Radical changes over the last 40 years or so have made it acceptable in TEC to deny the Trinity, the Resurrection, the divinity of Jesus, and many other basics of Christianity. Even some priests and bishops deny these basic tenets of the faith, and are not corrected or disciplined in any way. We know that no church on Earth can be perfect, but we cannot belong to a church that openly and blatantly contradicts the faith that we believe. Homosexuals are welcome at St. Andrew’s. We do not reject them. We will accept and embrace them as we would anyone else. Their sins, whatever they are, are no worse than ours. Just don’t ask us to bless any sins, either ours or theirs.

Read it all here.

“All those vague theosophical minds for whom the universe is an immense melting pot are exactly the minds which shrink instinctively from that earthquake saying of our Gospels, which declare that the Son of God came not with peace but with a sundering sword.”

–G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, chapter 8 (“The Romance of Orthodoxy”)

The headline above is from yesterday’s WSJ Europe, page 9–KSH.

Last Saturday afternoon, baggage handler John Smeaton was standing in front of Glasgow Airport smoking a cigarette when a Jeep Cherokee burst into flames nearby. He watched its burning driver emerge. A police officer pursued the passenger.

What happened next has turned Mr. Smeaton, 31 years old, into an unlikely folk hero. When he saw the passenger hitting the officer, Mr. Smeaton ran over and kicked the assailant.

Mr. Smeaton has been interviewed on the BBC, CNN and other networks about his response to the attack in which two suspected terrorists attempted to ram into the airport’s main terminal. (See the CNN interview.) In a Glaswegian accent that is at times impenetrable — Australia’s Channel 7 subtitled its interview with him — Mr. Smeaton voiced a defiance that has turned him into a de facto spokesman for Glasgow’s fighting spirit. His message to terrorists: “You come to Glasgow, we don’t stand for it,” he says. “We’ll just set aboot ye.” (Translation: “In Glasgow, we’ll just deck you.”)

By the next evening, an admirer had created a Web site devoted to Mr. Smeaton — nicknaming him Smeato. It includes links to his media interviews, purported details from his past (he once owned a ferret) and a plea for Britons to buy him a pint in the bar at the airport’s Holiday Inn hotel. There is also a picture of Osama bin Laden with the caption: “You told me John Smeaton was off on Saturdays!”

Read it all.

AGAIN: Turning from the ancient to the modern, can you give us an overview of the state of Anglicanism today? Orthodox Christians in America need to know about the Anglican communion in order to have a fruitful dialogue with individual Anglicans and Episcopalians and with their parishes as they live out their own witness of the Orthodox faith.

TM: It is important for me to explain just a little bit how the Anglican compromise has resulted in such interesting things in terms of structure, which has so much to do with the current problems. The more conservative elements of Anglicanism tend to be its most Protestant elements, and its most liberal elements are usually people who think of themselves as highly catholic. . . .

The heart of the Anglican compromise boils down to putting St. John Chrysostom and John Calvin in the same pew. But neither one of those men want to be there. There are things on which they do not agree with each other, and they would not compromise. And yet the Anglican compromise tried to have both sides of a Protestant and ancient equation be equal. You simply can’t pull that off.

People need to understand that there are very strong parts of Anglicanism that are rigorously Protestant. Some of the liveliest Anglicanism you will meet in the world is thoroughly Reformed, very Calvinistic. This is the John Stott and J. I. Packer wing of low-church Anglicanism. In that context, you will find a heavy emphasis on congregationalism. They will be very Protestant, and this is probably the most conservative and biblical part of modern Anglicanism. That’s where, for the most part, you had the missionary societies that went to the Third World. Then you have the traditional branch that would be called Anglo-Catholic, which would deny or water down a lot of the Protestant side of the compromise and put a much heavier, more Roman emphasis on ecclesiology, on the role of the bishop, on church tradition as a part of interpreting Scripture as opposed to sola scriptura””a very consciously Catholic element. . . .

Anglicans are highly skilled and genuinely talented in compromise. When you say that Anglicanism is the church of the via media””the middle way””that implies a kind of compromise position between two camps that often don’t want to compromise. And on moral and social issues, what you have ended up with is a never-ending march to the left””because you’re constantly compromising on the church traditions of the ages. This steadily, slowly but surely, pulls you to the theological left on critical issues. . . .

Episcopal bishop William Frey used to say that Anglicans have been doing this via media theological method for so long they can’t stop. As he put it, if one side says Jesus is Lord, and the other side says Jesus is not Lord, the Anglican compromise is Jesus is occasionally Lord. He meant that as a joke, but you can see that in the history of the Frey Amendment. [Editor’s note: This was a failed attempt by traditionalists to make a doctrinally conservative addition to Episcopal Church law.] Frey said Episcopal clergy must not be sexually active outside of marriage. That leads to a theological statement: Sex outside of marriage is sin. But the other side says sex outside of marriage is not always a sin. Which means the Anglican compromise is sex outside of marriage is occasionally sin. The left isn’t happy, and the right isn’t happy, but you have moved in the leftward direction. You’ve compromised the absolute truth of an ancient doctrine. That’s how the mechanism works.

Right now, what we have is two groups of true believers who don’t want to compromise. It’s so interesting that sexuality ended up being the line in the sand, when it could have been””and I argued it should have been””the Resurrection. Why when Anglican bishops began to deny historic doctrines related to the Incarnation and Resurrection and salvation through Christ alone, and other critical doctrines, why didn’t the war break out then? Whereas now it has broken out over sexuality.

AGAIN: Why do you think that is so?

TM: My own hunch is that first of all sexuality gets covered in the media, whereas a doctrine about theological language is harder for the press to cover. The other thing frankly is that the theological left has learned how to state its beliefs about Resurrection and Incarnation in a way that sounds OK. And, they’re very hard to pin down. In other words, you could talk about the hope of the Resurrection, but you’ve redefined what all the words mean. You need to understand that Anglicanism defines itself as being united by certain liturgical texts””but you don’t have to all agree on what the words mean. A lot of Anglicans will say it’s important that when they say the Creed, instead of saying “I believe,” most Anglican churches say, “We believe.” Meaning the body affirms this, but it is not necessary for the individual to do the same.

AGAIN: Since issues of sexuality have been what has sparked the current conflicts, though, do you have thoughts in general on how that is playing out? Where are the lines being drawn? And, to what extent are the issues of sexuality bound up with the related issues of gender in general, like say the female priesthood?

TM: For the Anglicans, sexual issues do not automatically connect with gender issues, even though Orthodox would see that they do. For a lot of Protestant Anglicans, remember that they are placing more of an emphasis on congregationalism and less on classic catholic orders. So, there are a lot of charismatic Episcopalians and evangelical Episcopalians who have no problem with the ordination of women, because their concept of priesthood is subtly different from those who see it in the full catholic sense. Even though they are conservative, the ordination of women was not a make-or-break issue for them. They don’t connect it with the transcendent, sacramental understanding of what the priesthood is, because their theology is more Protestant and more Reformed. There’s this very low church Protestant element there that can be conservative on some issues but not on others that the Orthodox would see.

AGAIN: It seems that something the Orthodox need to keep in mind in their encounters with Anglicans is that they need to be prepared to speak to two different audiences. On the one hand, you have the more Protestant wing, where you may have more agreement on questions of, say, scriptural truth and their application to social issues. And on the other hand, there is the more Catholic side of the Anglican communion, where you may have some common ground about, for example, sacramentalism and mystery in the faith.

TM: There are still conservative Anglo-Catholics, but not as many. The most vital and alive conservative elements in modern Anglicanism are charismatic or evangelical low-church Anglicans. There are still some very high-church, fully Catholic Anglicans. But I find it very interesting that modern liberal Anglicanism tends to identify much more with a high-church, liturgical smells-and-bells approach to Anglicanism.

This makes many Orthodox confused, because they see these people and they say, gosh, they even have icons in their church. We have a lot in common with them. When theologically, you may have almost nothing in common with them. And then you walk into another Anglican church, and it will be like a megachurch. There will be a rock band, and it will be very low church. The liturgy may be much more informal, but their view of morality and basic doctrines and biblical authority and ancient traditions of the Church would be much closer to the Orthodox””even though it doesn’t look like it in terms of style.

The whole interview is here.

This elf’s opinion? TMatt not only “Gets Religion” but he really gets Anglicanism too!

Sunday’s New York Times had a long feature on the July 1967 Newark NJ riots. Interesting reading for one for whom news of these riots and the anxiety of family members (my grandfather’s factory was on the outskirts of Newark) is one of her earliest memories. The feature includes lots of photographs here.

NEWARK, July 6 ”” Four decades later, many people here still cannot agree on what to call the five nights of gunfire, looting and flames that disemboweled the geographic midsection of this city, leaving 23 people dead, injuring 700, scorching acres of property and causing deep psychic wounds that have yet to fully heal.

To the frightened white residents who later abandoned Newark by the tens of thousands, it was a riot; for the black activists who gained a toehold in City Hall in the years that followed, it was a rebellion. Those seeking neutrality have come to embrace the word disturbance.

“There is not one truth, and your view depends on your race, your age and where you lived,” said Linda Caldwell Epps, president of the New Jersey Historical Society.

The society has planned a series of panel discussions and film screenings to mark the 40th anniversary of the violence, which began the night of July 12, 1967, after false rumors spread that an African-American cabdriver had been killed by police officers after his arrest for a traffic infraction. Avoiding the semantic controversy, the society has titled a planned exhibit “What’s Going On? Newark and the Legacy of the Sixties.”

There are no public monuments to mark the episode that painted Newark as a national symbol of racial disparity, police brutality and urban despair, but there is a newfound willingness here to confront the past. City officials, who ignored previous anniversaries, will dedicate a plaque Thursday at the Fourth Precinct station house, where the first skirmishes erupted between residents and the police.

“It’s still a touchy and contentious subject, but the fact that there is dialogue taking place is highly positive and would not have happened 10 years ago,” said Max Herman, a sociology professor at Rutgers University who has collected 100 oral histories about those five calamitous days. “I think for the first time Newark feels secure enough to turn back and look its history straight in the eye.”

Of course, that history is still open to interpretation.

The rest is here.

On the front page of this morning’s FT:

The world is facing an oil supply “crunch” within five years that will force up prices to record levels and increase the west’s dependence on oil cartel Opec, the industrialised countries’ energy watchdog has warned.

In its starkest warning yet on the world’s fuel outlook, the International Energy Agency said “oil looks extremely tight in five years time” and there are “prospects of even tighter natural gas markets at the turn of the decade”.

The IEA said that supply was falling faster than expected in mature areas, such as the North Sea or Mexico, while projects in new provinces such as the Russian Far East, faced long delays. Meanwhile consumption is accelerating on strong economic growth in emerging countries.

The problem is exacerbated by the fact that supply from non-members of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries will increase at an annual pace of 1 per cent, or less than half the rate of the demand rise.

Read it all.

From This is London:

A mother is facing jail after it was discovered she was married to a man and a woman at the same time.

Suzanne Mitchell has appeared in court accused of being the country’s first lesbian ‘bigamist’.

The mother of five admitted making a false statement to the registrar at her civil partnership ceremony by failing to mention she was already married.

Read it all.

From yesterday’s Telegraph:

Mr Duncan Smith has made uncompromisingly clear that, in his commission’s view, it is the breakdown of the two-parent family and the decline of marriage that is at the heart of this collapse of values in British social life – and heaven be praised, Mr Cameron has indicated that he endorses this conclusion.

This is not to be construed – as everybody keeps hurrying to point out – as some sort of moralistic condemnation of existing single parents or an attempt by politicians to impose a particular pattern of personal life on the entire population.

It is simply a statement of hard fact based on overwhelming empirical evidence: children are far less likely to fall into crime and addiction, to fail at school and to end up as teenage parents if they are raised by two parents who remain together.

And those two parents are far more likely to remain together if they are married than if they are cohabiting.

The statistical support for these propositions is now so crushing as to extinguish any rational argument to the contrary.

Read it all.

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori is on an official visit to the Province of Brazil this week. ENS has its first report of her trip online. Here’s an excerpt:

Primate (or “Bispo Primaz” in Portuguese) since 2006, Andrade also pointed to the shared mission priorities engrained in the ties between the two churches, including pastoral and environmental care consonant with inter-Anglican commitments to achieving the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

One emphases is environmental advocacy informed by Amazon-region experts vigilant in the protection of Brazil’s unique natural resources: 12 percent of the planet’s fresh water and 20 percent of the world’s animal species are found in this vast nation of more than 8.5 million square miles and 170 million people — South America’s largest country with 26 states and one federal district — now working systematically to fight deforestation and climate change.

Environmental minister outlines progress
Welcoming the delegation on July 6 to government offices in Brasilia, national environmental minister Marina Silva told the group of the “holistic, integrated” work of protecting the nation’s unique biodiversity locally, regionally and globally amid such factors as climate change and economic exploitation.

Silva’s perspective, shaped by her own upbringing in the Amazon, takes an egalitarian, comprehensive, multi-agency approach to environmental protection seeking “self-maintaining development,” she said.

Because Brazil is “a developing country, we cannot talk about the environment unless we talk about the social issues facing the nation, including the distribution of wealth and the reality of 53 million people living below the poverty line,” Silva said, speaking through interpreter Ruth Barros, wife of Amazonia bishop Saulo Barros, also present for the briefing.

The Barroses had earlier that afternoon outlined for the delegation the challenges of ministry in the newly formed Amazonia diocese where social services are stretched to capacity given demand. The diocese would benefit from a companion relationship with a dedicated and supportive diocese of the Episcopal Church, the delegation agreed.

Similar existing and emerging companion relationships, in addition to Brasilia-Indianapolis, include Sao Paulo-Central Pennsylvania; Rio de Janeiro-Atlanta; Curitiba-California (San Francisco Bay Area); and Pelotas-Ottawa, Canada. Open to new companion relationships, in addition to Amazonia, are the Recife, Southern, and Southwestern dioceses, as well as the Missionary District of the West.

“The great challenge is to achieve a process of social inclusion that is just,” environmental minister Silva said, noting that in the last four years of Brazilian President Luis Inacio Lula da Silva’s government, the number of persons living in poverty has decreased by some 19.4 percent.

“Developing countries don’t want to make the same mistakes developed countries have made,” she added.

Silva spoke of her agency’s tenacious work to overcome problems with large-scale private-sector development projects, including the building of roadways.

“Now a diverse group of various segments of society is involved in building this road, and this group is evaluating the process to see the government keeping its promises according to the plan,” Silva said. “Today, the road is being built, and deforestation has diminished by some 91 percent.”

She said the matter of “combating deforestation in the Amazon now involves 13 government ministries” coordinated by national officials under a plan begun in 2004.

“In the beginning, no one believed it would work. In its second year, the plan decreased deforestation in this area by 50 percent,” Silva said, “and this year, the plan’s third year, it appears that deforestation will decrease again.”

Noting Jefferts Schori’s own training as an oceanographer, Silva spoke of the need to protect Brazil’s fresh water supply and unique animal species.

Jefferts Schori, in sermons following the dialogue, said Silva “has passion and certainty about her work, and she believes it is about bringing peace that is only about bringing justice”¦ bringing abundance to those who suffer with so little,” considering the “whole garden” of creation.

Preaching in both the Brasilia and Porto Alegre cathedrals on the Sunday scripture lessons of Isaiah 6:1-8 and John 20:19-23, Jefferts Schori called the congregations to “Receive Holy Spirit, and go out there to build a world of peace.”

She asked: “What prevents us from being able to say ‘yes’ to God’s dream of a healed world? Who can God send? Who will go for us?

“The prayer of our hearts is that we will be able to say, ‘Here I am, send me,'” she said. “May peace be the product of our hands and hearts and minds. May we be peace for the whole world.”

The full article is here.

Through [Samuel] Crowther’s consecration in Canterbury, the apostolic succession was assured. Apostolic succession, however will be ineffective and irrelevant if it is not followed with apostolic focus and success. The Bishop with apostolic succession must follow in the steps of the apostles as a leader in mission, ministry and community development, as a teacher and pastor. As Archbishop Peter Akinola would say at the consecration of bishops, “the days of ceremonial bishops are over!” Through Crowther and his successors has come the vital passion and drive for mission and evangelism today. The demonstration of the power of the gospel runs through our veins from head to foot. In Nigeria other great African Bishops and Archbishops have followed in the wake of Crowther, down to Archbishop Olufosoye in 1979 and Archbishop Adetiloye in 1988, and now our present primate, Archbishop Peter Akinola. In their time the Church of Nigeria has grown, and grown beyond human expectation. It has developed from being a part of the Province of West Africa, to being the Province of Nigeria, then three Provinces and now ten Provinces. From just a handful of dioceses, we now have 121 ”“ and more are on the way! The creation of missionary dioceses was an inspiration from the time of the Decade of Evangelism and has proved its value and effectiveness. Anglicanism in Nigeria is only Anglican in its true sense when it is missionary, evangelical and socially active in community development and community transformation. It was not actually an Anglican, but a Roman Catholic missionary to Africa who summed it up so well:

“Mission is the meaning of the church. The church can exist only insofar as it is in mission, insofar as it participates in the act of Christ, which is mission. The church becomes the mission, the living outreach of God to the world. The church exists only insofar as it carries Christ to the world. The church is only part of the mission, the mission of God sending his Son to the world. Without this mission, there would be no church. The idea of church without mission is an absurdity.” (Vincent J Donovan Christianity Rediscovered, London SCM 1978, p.102).

Read it all.

Until the American Anglican Church defied the rest of the Communion and ordained the openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson, in 2003, the idea of an Anglican rule book would have been unthinkable.

One of the hallmarks of Anglicanism is its lack of rules. In fact there’s barely any definition of what it is to be an authentic Anglican.

But on Sunday evening, the synod faced up to what many of its members see as a regrettable necessity and voted for a covenant – or binding agreement – setting out the responsibilities of each Church to the others.

It was best put by the Bishop of Durham, Tom Wright.

“We thought we had some sort of agreement and then, four years ago, it turned out that we didn’t,” he said testily.

“Lambeth, and the Primates [the archbishops leading the 38 independent Anglican churches] asked the Americans not to do something, and they did it anyway.”

Read it all.

=========

Note: thanks to a kind reader, we have an unofficial transcript of Bishop NT Wright’s remarks posted below in the comments.

Gordon Brown’s announcement that the Government will no longer have the final word in the appointment of diosesan bishops in the Church of England has fascinated the General Synod that is meeting in York. The announcement ends two centuries of intrigue over episcopal patronage, and many in the Church ? with memories of recent prime ministerial interference ? will be grateful that appointments are not being sanctified by a prime minister, who, in theory, could be a Catholic. But it also reawakens the vexed issue of disestablishment, bringing nearer a break between Church and State for which many, within the Church and beyond, have been campaigning.

Despite a general feeling that the Church of England should not enjoy unique favour by a secular State, not all the bishops are unreservedly pleased at the prospect of a change. One issue that troubles some is money. Would disestablishment also mean disendowment?….

Read it all.

From today’s Wall Street Journal Europe:

In neat Arabic writing above the mirrors of the Easy Cut barbershop here, signs tell patrons to praise Allah, work toward paradise and refrain from talking politics in the shop.

“You’re not allowed to talk about religion or politics here because we don’t want trouble between our customers,” said Ejaz Ahmed, who owns the shop in this city’s Pollokshields section.

His modest storefront is around the corner from a mosque on Forth Street where police found a car tied to the plot to ram a burning jeep into Glasgow Airport’s main terminal on July 1.

As a handful of customers waited for haircuts and Middle Eastern news played on a grainy television set one recent afternoon, Mr. Ahmed said religion and politics can lead to heated argument and he would rather not risk it.

Read it all.

from Wired magazine:

Children with autism are often described as robotic: They are emotionless. They engage in obsessive, repetitive behavior and have trouble communicating and socializing.

Now, a humanoid robot designed to teach autistic children social skills has begun testing in British schools.

Known as KASPAR (Kinesics and Synchronisation in Personal Assistant Robotics), the $4.33 million bot smiles, simulates surprise and sadness, gesticulates and, the researchers hope, will encourage social interaction amongst autistic children.

Developed as part of the pan-European IROMEC (Interactive Robotic Social Mediators as Companions ) project, KASPAR has two “eyes” fitted with video cameras and a mouth that can open and smile.

Children with autism have difficulty understanding and interpreting people’s facial expressions and body language, says Dr. Ben Robins, a senior research fellow at the University of Hertfordshire’s Adaptive Systems Research Group, who leads the multi-national team behind KASPAR.

“Human interaction can be very subtle, with even the smallest eyebrow raise, for example, having different meanings in different contexts,” Robins said. “It is thought that autistic children cut themselves off from interacting with other humans because, for them, this is too much information and it is too confusing for them to understand.”

With this in mind, the team designed KASPAR to express emotion consistently and with the minimum of complexity.

KASPAR’s face is made of silicon-rubber supported on an aluminum frame. Eight degrees of freedom in the head and neck and six in the arms and hands enable movement.

The researchers hope that the end result is a human-like robot that can act as a “social mediator” for autistic children, a steppingstone to improved social interaction with other children and adults.

“KASPAR provides autistic children with reliability and predictability. Since there are no surprises, they feel safe and secure,” Robins said, adding that the purpose is not to replace human interaction and contact but to enhance it.

Robins has already tested some imitation and turn-taking games with the children and his preliminary findings are positive.

“When I first started testing, the children treated me like a fly on the wall,” he said. “But each one of them, in their own time, started to open themselves up to me. One child in particular, after weeks on end of ignoring me, came and sat in my lap and then took my hand and brought me to the robot, to share the experience of KASPAR with me.”

The full article with a bunch of embedded links is here.

By the end of this year, police officials say, more than 100 cameras will have begun monitoring cars moving through Lower Manhattan, the beginning phase of a London-style surveillance system that would be the first in the United States.

The Lower Manhattan Security Initiative, as the plan is called, will resemble London’s so-called Ring of Steel, an extensive web of cameras and roadblocks designed to detect, track and deter terrorists. British officials said images captured by the cameras helped track suspects after the London subway bombings in 2005 and the car bomb plots last month.

If the program is fully financed, it will include not only license plate readers but also 3,000 public and private security cameras below Canal Street, as well as a center staffed by the police and private security officers, and movable roadblocks.

Read the rest here

The following story from the Washington Post is already over 2 weeks old, but this elf hadn’t seen it before tonight and found it quite fascinating.

Changing Patterns in Social Fabric Test Netherlands’ Liberal Identity

By Molly Moore
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, June 23, 2007; Page A12

AMSTERDAM — For years, W.B. Kranendonk was a lone ranger in Dutch politics — the editor of an orthodox Christian newspaper in a nation that has legalized prostitution, euthanasia, abortion and same-sex marriage and allows the personal use of marijuana.

Today, with an orthodox Christian political party in the government for the first time, and with immigration anxieties fueling a national search for identity, the country that has been the world’s most socially liberal political laboratory is rethinking its anything-goes policies.

And suddenly, Kranendonk no longer seems so all alone.

“People in high political circles are saying it can’t be good to have a society so liberal that everything is allowed,” said Kranendonk, editor of Reformist Daily and an increasingly influential voice that resonates in the shifting mainstream of Dutch public opinion. “People are saying we should have values; people are asking for more and more rules in society.”

In cities across the Netherlands, mayors and town councils are closing down shops where marijuana is sold, rolled and smoked. Municipalities are shuttering the brothels where prostitutes have been allowed to ply their trade legally. Parliament is considering a ban on the sale of hallucinogenic “magic mushrooms.” Orthodox Christian members of parliament have introduced a bill that would allow civil officials with moral objections to refuse to perform gay marriages. And Dutch authorities are trying to curtail the activities of an abortion rights group that assists women in neighboring countries where abortions are illegal.

The effort to rein in the Netherlands’ famed social liberties is not limited to the small, newly empowered Christian Union party, which holds two of the 16 ministries in the coalition government formed this year. Increasingly, politicians from the more center-left Labor Party are among the most outspoken proponents of closing some brothels and marijuana shops — known here as “coffee shops.”

“Has the Netherlands changed? Yes,” said Frank de Wolf, a Labor Party member of the Amsterdam City Council. “There is not only a different mood among our people and politicians, but there are different problems now.”

The full Washington Post article is here.

Sadly, we are now faced with a much less clear situation. Events are now likely to unfold in a way that is piecemeal in a context that is very uncertain. All this means that it is going to be harder, not easier, to maintain peace and unity within the church.

The synod has left us in a confusing and parlous state. On the one hand, it has been unwilling to affirm the right of dioceses to make pastoral provision for the blessing of same-sex unions where they might need or wish to do so. Although, technically, this does not take away the right of a diocese to proceed on the grounds that the defeat of a motion is not the affirmation of its contrary ”” it seems unlikely that many dioceses will not proceed as dioceses.

On the other hand, the synod has also ruled that the blessing of same-sex unions in not contrary to “core doctrine.” Further, in its response to the St. Michael report, it has affirmed the conclusions of that report, which stated that blessings were not core doctrine but rather had the status of “adiaphora,” meaning a matter that is not essential to salvation, or not essential to our identity as Anglican.

If this is true, it becomes unclear what could be the basis of a decision to discipline any priest who in blessing a same-sex union acts on the basis of a matter indifferent even if he or she does so, on a matter of significant controversy, and without the authorization of the church.

Read it all.

Interesting commenterary over at First Things today (of course!) on Pope Benedict’s authorization of the Tridentine Mass. This section caught our eye:

By associating the Latin Mass that is now universally approved with John XXIII, Benedict steals a card from the deck of liberals and progressives, for whom John XXIII is always “good Pope John,” in contrast to his successors. But this is much more than a deft rhetorical move. “Summorum Pontificum” is a thoroughly liberal document in substance and spirit, remembering that liberal means, as once was more commonly understood, generosity of spirit.

In his letter to the bishops, Benedict is directing them to be generous in embracing the fullness of the Catholic tradition and responding to the desires of the Catholic faithful. This is proposed in contrast to the rigidity, bordering sometimes on tyranny, of a liturgical guild that mistakenly thought that the Second Vatican Council gave them a mandate to impose their ideas of liturgical reform on the entire Church.

The whole text is here.

The audio of Abp. Drexel Gomez’s speech to the CoE Synod is now online. Also the motion on Senior Appointments has been passed resoundingly, our tipster informs us…
———-

Sunday Synod Audio
The audio file of Archbishop Gomez’ speech yesterday together with the debate on the Covenant has finally been fixed and posted [a powerful speech]:
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/news/gsjul0807pm1.html

papers referred to are here:
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/gensynod/agendas/july2007.html

Monday pm Synod Report – motion passed

This afternoon an amended motion on Senior Appointments has been passed almost unanimously as follows:

That this Synod, noting that proposals in the Government’s Green Paper of 3 July (attached to GS 1650A) will necessitate further discussion with the Church:

(a) welcome the prospect of the Church achieving the ‘decisive voice in the appointment of bishops’ for which Synod voted in 1974;

(b) affirm its willingness for the Church to have the decisive voice in the selection of cathedral deans and canons appointed by the Crown, given the Prime Minister’s “commitment to a process of constructive engagement between the Government and the Church” ( The Governance of Britain Green Paper, CM7170);

(c) invite the Archbishops, in consultation with the Archbishops’ Council and the House of Bishops, to oversee the necessary consequential discussions with the Government and to report to the February group of sessions, including on the implications for those matters covered by chapter 8 of GS 1650; and

(d) subject to the above, endorse the recommendations in chapter 10 of GS 1650, invite those responsible to give effect to them and invite the Archbishops’ Council to report to Synod during 2008 on progress with implementation.

Reports on this afternoon here alone at the moment – Simon Sarmiento is ahead of either the CofE website or Church Society
http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/

======
Also: Sarah Hey has a roundup over at Stand Firm of some of the media reports about General Synod

Here is an excerpt from the Presidential address today by the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, to the Church of England General Synod:

As a church, we need to learn once again to become risk-takers, people who take risks for the Gospel, who take risks for Christ, who take risks in the service of God and one another. We have to take risks, in order to make the journey. We discover courage by doing courageous, God-like actions. “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son”. An act at a particular time and place. It is the sin of the world that Christ takes away. Action!

So what are we afraid of? And what are the consequences of our fearfulness? The result of fear can be dangerous, fear itself can create its own risk. Because often when we’re reacting out of fear we don’t behave with courage and determination and grace, we become defensive, we behave badly.

And this Bad Behaviour doesn’t only afflict us as individuals but at every level, as churches, as nations. The language of fear has become the language of international relations; worldwide, a new book on terrorism is published every 6 hours!

Fear has begun to shape the minds and the decisions of those who take counsel for the nations. As Jim Wallis has noted, “The politics of fear can have disastrous results in both foreign and domestic policy. To name the face of evil in the brutality of terrorist attacks is good theology, but to say simply that they are evil and we are good is bad theology that can lead to dangerous politics. The threat of terrorism does not overturn Christian ethics.” It’s mercy, loving-kindness, deeds of mutual charity, reciprocal solidarity, walking in God’s ways of love and justice.

And our fear of terrorism can lead us to false conclusions about our Muslim neighbours.

The challenge we face isn’t about moderate Muslims versus so-called radicalised Muslims; the challenge is about Islam being used for quasi-political ends at whose heart is getting into paradise now by suicide bombing propelled by a hatred of the West and its way of life. Attempting to avenge past hurts by piling them on present problems.

Therefore the question is in fact about our discernment between those Muslims who, being loyal to the holy Qur’an, are dedicated to a vision of Allah who is merciful, holy and kind – in contrast to those who tendentiously make Allah vengeful, violent and merciless ”“ promising paradise now through acts of brutality and mass murder. In remaking God in their own image, they commit the ultimate act of blasphemy.

In the same way we Christians must beware of taking the holiness of God to imply that his wrath and judgement are out to destroy sinners instead of redeeming them, loving them and forgiving them. For those who follow the man of Galilee who was crucified, self-righteousness must die at his Cross. It’s from the Cross that the light of God shines forth upon the world in its fullest splendour. And as David Bosch has said (in Transforming Mission) “The Church is an inseparable union of the divine and the dusty.”

We are still human and the chorus to the song ”˜Anthem’ by the Canadian writer, Leonard Cohen reminds us that there can be a point to our lack of perfection:

“Ring the bells
That still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That’s how the light gets in.”

We must resist the temptation to abandon Christian principles of justice to those who suggest that fear is a better teacher than Christ Himself. For us, the opposite of fear isn’t courage, but the gift of wisdom, knowledge, discernment and insight from the Holy Spirit.

Sin harms the individual believer. Heresy (the wrong understanding of God) harms the Church. Idolatry destroys both the believer and the Church and is the cause of both sin and heresy. Our mission, like that of Jesus, is to confront idolatry.

So, what are we afraid of? Are we afraid of the loss of identity? Of a diminished sense of who we are and what it means to be us? You might think so, given the amount of time our society at present devotes, in its public conversation, to the question of what it means to be British.

And as a church, are we afraid of the future? Are we afraid of change? Are we privately content with the comfortable certainties of decline?

Or are we afraid of the public square? Of the public conversation about faith and society, difference and identity? In a space which we once confidently thought belonged to us as of right, how do we preach the words of life afresh in our communities of diverse ethnicities, cultures and peoples of other faiths present; and in a generation that is sceptical, cynical, fearful?

The full text is here (Church of England website)

=======
Update: The audio of this speech is here:

In the latest release of the 2006 National Church Life Survey (NCLS) on Tuesday, the Sydney Anglican Diocese’s congregants are getting younger and are being integrated into church life.

The survey showed a significant rise of 4 percent in the current period from 3 percent of total teenage attendants in 2001. This rise is used as a benchmark for Australian Churches.

Reverend Zachary Veron, the incoming YouthWorks CEO, has attributed the rise in youth attendance to the diocese holding the Bible as the ultimate authority and placing an emphasis on sharing the message that Jesus is Lord. On average, he said, this approach had a higher youth attendance compared to a liberal approach.

He told Christian Today Australia: “Anglican churches in Australia which hold the Bible as the ultimate authority over our lives as God’s written word to his created beings, and therefore place an emphasis in their ministry on Bible teaching and sharing the message that Jesus is Lord with others, on average have many more young people attending church than most Anglican churches which have a more ‘liberal’ approach to the Scriptures.”

He also said that if any Anglican churches abandon the authority of the Bible over our lives, then young people will usually abandon them.

Dr Philip Selden, Archbishop Jensen’s Executive Officer, described the latest result as “very encouraging” in the Sydneyanglicans.net, but acknowledged that more work is required since a third of Sydney Anglicans aged between 19 and 25 were not satisfied with their church.

From Christian Today (Australia).

Another commentary about the data regarding religious belief and church growth / decline from Australia can be found here

In the Augsburg Confession of 1530 (a conciliatory statement of faith intended to unite Lutherans with other Protestants), Luther publicly agreed with other reformers of his day that biblical references that depart from New Testament inclusiveness ”” abstaining from eating pork, for example, or requiring male circumcision ”” not only can but should be set aside. A 21st century Luther would surely recognize that the few biblical proscriptions against “sodomy” ”” shaky in themselves as condemnations of same-sex love and rooted in a worldview vastly different from our own ”” should not bar the loving union of two gay or lesbian persons. Equally, a 21st century Luther would affirm the ordination of such persons, as in line with his theology of the “priesthood of all believers.”

The American church that bears his name will have an opportunity to revisit the question when its Churchwide Assembly (the ELCA’s highest legislative body) convenes Aug. 6-12. Schmeling may yet get a reprieve, should the church revisit what the disciplinary board itself called “bad policy” regarding sexually active gay pastors. The ELCA has until Aug. 15 to act on his case.

Meanwhile, The Episcopal Church USA has until the end of September to respond to the Anglican Communion’s ultimatum. The American bishops have, so far, roundly repudiated the pressure coming from Canterbury. The extent of the potential rift remains to be seen.

One thing seems clear, however. In working through these issues in the months to come, Protestants in both American denominations would best begin by asking, “What would Luther do?”

Read it all.

At the Episcopal Church of the Good Shepherd in Dallas, Texas, more and more parishioners have signed up to give tithes and offerings automatically through their Visa or American Express cards.

“They want to get the points, and that’s fine,” said Bobby Brown, the church’s business manager.

But is it really Christian to collect frequent-flier points on the way to heaven? Are churches that take plastic contributing to the nation’s credit card debt crisis? Does tithing by automatic assessment rob from the thoughtfulness and spirituality of giving?

And is the latest innovation, the ATM-like “Giving Kiosk” – which lets people swipe a credit or debit card as they’re entering or leaving worship – simply too suggestive of money-changers in the temple to work for most congregations?

Read it all.

Jesus was saying that the old laws are wrong. (I believe there were 864 such laws, including killing of unruly children). If the churches are following the Bible, how many have stoned any adulterers in their congregations lately?

He never directly preached on the gay syndrome, which is too bad. I am proud of the Episcopal Church selecting a woman as the Presiding Bishop and selecting a Bishop on his ability, even though he is an open and practicing gay. They are abiding by the American documents that state “All men are created equal.” The gay people are created in the same way the so-called straight people are, and we are all supposedly created in God’s image. If God got it wrong with some people, by other people’s standards, go fight with God. I personally feel that it is just too easy for the majority to gang up on a small portion of the people.

I also realize that a couple of Timothy and Paul’s epistles talk against gays, but they certainly were not proofread by Jesus since he was dead. Those epistles were selected from many by people 2,000 years ago and who knows what their agenda was.

Very simply, if you want to call yourself a Christian, follow the teachings of Jesus.

Read it all.

======

UPDATE:
Matt Kennedy has written an excellent article in response for his parish newsletter (the paper where the op-ed appears is their local paper). MUST READING!

I speak to you as the Primate of a separate and autonomous Province of the Anglican Communion; it is one which takes great pride in its distinctiveness, and yet also in being part of the Catholic Church, finding its particular expression through the Anglican inheritance which it received from the Church of England. So I speak to you as someone who both sees and upholds a proper independence for my Province, but one which is rooted also in connectedness; which could not survive in isolation, and which would never wish to do so.

There can be little doubt that I am speaking to you at a time of great tension within the Anglican Communion. The “bonds of affection” which once held our fellowship together are strained; indeed some would say broken. A state which has been described as “broken or impaired” already is declared between some of our Provinces. Suspicion is rife, as well as accusations of heresy, bad faith and of theological and ecclesiological innovation. Rumours abound that there are plots to carry forward in some provinces a bold agenda on gay marriage, and to require toleration of it across the Communion. Other rumours inform us that the primates are plotting to impose a “collective papacy” on the Anglican Communion. Bishops and archbishops are taking over the care of churches outside their own provinces; new jurisdictions are being erected and bishops are being consecrated and set up in a spirit of competition. People are taking up more and more extreme positions and then defending them; no matter how well founded or sincere the objections.

In the three years since the Windsor Report was published, positions across the Communion have, if anything, polarised and there is less trust now between different parties and between different provinces that there has been for a long time. Everyone claims to be the defender of the true spirit of Anglicanism, and to describe that spirit as orthodox, mainstream, comprehensive or inclusive. The language has become more strident, and quite frankly, scaremongering is commonplace.

In a situation which is becoming increasingly overheated, we need to hear a voice of calm. We need to identify the fundamentals that we share in common, and to state the common basis on which our mutual trust can be rebuilt.

This is essentially all that the covenant proposal is ”“ no more and no less. It is not intended to define some sort of new Anglicanism, or to invent some new model of authority, nor to peddle a narrow or exclusive view of what Anglicanism is. It is intended to state concisely and clearly the faith that we have all inherited together, so that there can be a new confidence that we are about the same mission.

The initial draft covenant text which has been prepared by the Design Group which I chair represents a first attempt to describe Anglicanism in a way which we intend to be true to the best and highest of all the Church of England and the other 37 provinces of the Anglican Communion, wish, under God, to be. But this first draft is the beginning of a process, and not its end: the text which exists now is only at the beginning of a long period of analysis and testing.

The draft which has been developed by the Covenant Design Group looks like this. In spite of some idiosyncratic numbering the draft falls into three main sections: first, a description of the common Anglican inheritance ( numbered section 2); second, a description of our common Anglican Mission ( numbered section 4); and third, a description of our Communion life ( numbered section 5). In each of these three sections the Design Group has sought to draft an affirmation of what is already inherited and agreed in the life of our Communion.

So Section 2 states the historic basis of Anglicanism, and draws largely for its words on either the Lambeth Quadrilateral or the Declaration of Assent used here in the Church of England.

Section 4 describes our Anglican vocation, using the Five Marks of Mission developed in the Communion by an Anglican commission on evangelism and mission building on the work of the Anglican Consultative Council and widely recognised across all Provinces.

Section 5 offers a description of the instruments of Communion which have developed over time in our common life, and sets out straightforwardly the way in which they function to support the life of the Communion.

In the Design Group, we hoped that we had done this task of description accurately and clearly. We believe that all Anglicans reading these affirmations should be able to recognise a statement in these sections of the Anglicanism which they have already been practising and living out in our 38 provinces.

From the basis of these affirmations, however, the text goes on to articulate three sets of commitments, which flow from the affirmations. These say basically:

Ӣ If this is the faith we have inherited, then we as Anglican churches commit ourselves to living out this faith together in a particular context of mutual respect and shared exploration (Section 3)
Ӣ If this is the mission with which we are charged, then this is the way we will engage in mission together (Section 4b)
Ӣ If these are the instruments of our common life, then this is the way we will use them in developing the Anglican Communion, and for each church to live up to its commitment of interdependence with the others.

I personally stand by the draft we have developed. But I already know from discussions at Dar-Es-Salaam in the Joint Standing Committee and amongst the primates themselves that there are points where we will be asked to look at our work again. Reservations centre largely on section 6 of the current draft, where the Design Group seeks to articulate the sort of commitments which arise out of an affirmation of the instruments of Communion.

The feeling amongst the primates for example, was that the role of the primates in this draft has been overemphasised and the voice of the laity under-represented. The Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and of the Primates felt similarly. It is a section that will clearly have to be revisited in detail.

And the intention is to take a very critical look at the draft in the light of comments received from the process of reflection and debate going on around the Communion. The task of the Design Group shall be to produce at least two more drafts in a process which is designed to listen to all the points made and which will finally meet the criteria that I set out earlier: that is to describe the Anglicanism that we already hold in common, as a basis for greater trust and less suspicion in the future. It is fundamentally based upon a vision where all 38 provinces of the Anglican Communion can meet as autonomous but independent equals, offering mutual accountability to our Anglican sisters and brothers on the clearly articulated basis of common expectations.

The need for such a common basis is pressing. I have no doubt that it would be lovely to go back to a day when we relied on no more than the affection generated by our mutual inheritance and care. But I’m afraid that those days have gone: at present, Anglican leaders are seriously wondering whether they can recognise in each other the faithfulness to Christ that is the cornerstone of our common life and co-operation. While some feel that there will be inevitable separation, others are trying to deny that there is a crisis at all. This is hardly a meeting of minds. Unless we can make a fresh statement clearly and basically of what holds us together, we are destined to grow apart. Do we Anglicans have a clear and shared identity? It is a question that our ecumenical partners are increasingly asking of us?

For decades, Anglicans have been wondering whether increasing diversity might force the Provinces apart, and asked what holds us together. The days of undefined affection are sadly over, yet this is also not a time when proposals which are brand new would win a broad consensus across the Communion. I believe that the Covenant can only succeed if it can accurately describe a sufficient basis to hold us together, and for us to want to stay together, based upon what we already hold and believe. This stresses the importance of getting the text of the covenant right.

I dismiss the idea that this represents somehow an attempt to chain any Province into submission before a powerful centralisation as a chimera: every Province I know, every Primate I know, values autonomy. But there is a real question as articulated by Archbishop Rowan: Can we recognise sufficient of our Anglican inheritance in each other to lead us to want to renew our commitment to live as a world communion?

Now I have also heard the opinion expressed that the idea of a covenant is alien to Anglicanism. I would not accept that charge.

First of all, we are a Covenant people. In his first letter to the Corinthians in chapter 11, Paul wrote: “ For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me. In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it in remembrance of me.” In so many ways, these words at the centre of our faith not only speak to us of the sacrifice of our Lord, and the celebration of the Eucharist which stands at the heart of every Christian community, but they also speak to us of God’s covenant with us.

That covenant is an unbreakable covenant, founded in God’s gracious attitude towards us. It is God who has called us to him: it is God who has made us his people. As it is written in the first epistle of Saint Peter: “Once you were no people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.” When we talk about covenant in the Anglican Communion today, some people speak of it as if the concept is strange to our life. But I have to say that if we are Christians, Christian life is born in covenant, is nurtured in covenant, and finds its destiny in God’s covenant that he will bring us to eternal life. We are a covenant people.

We celebrate covenants in many contexts of our Christian life already ”“ in Holy Communion, in the baptismal covenant, and the covenant whenever two persons are joined in Holy Matrimony. We live and breathe as Christians in the context of covenant. In all these cases, covenant is the joyful embracing of a common life ”“ as members of the Church, as man and wife, as participants in the Body of Christ. Are we as Anglicans not able to be joyful any more about our interdependence in Christ?

Many Anglican churches have already covenanted with their ecumenical partners. The Church of England- Methodist covenant will be the subject of debate at this synod. If we can covenant with our ecumenical partners, and find enough in common to recognise a shared faith with them, it seems to me to be a pretty pass indeed if we Anglicans decide we cannot covenant with each other. (It may be said here that a clear statement of our Anglican identity would reassure our ecumenical partners that we know ourselves what our identity is!)

And if truth be told, there is some sense that we have been living by an implicit covenant together already; loosely based upon the Lambeth Quadrilateral. But these limits have never been quite so agreed and recognised. Even so, it was said in the 1920 Lambeth Conference:

“The Churches represented (in the Communion) are indeed independent, but independent within the Christian freedom which recognises the restraints of truth and love. They are not free to deny the truth. They are not free to ignore the fellowship.”

Today we are not being asked to commit the Church of England to any specific clauses of a covenant, nor to mortgage yourselves to any particular aspects that may appear in the current draft. We are still a long way from a definitive text, in a process which will need the sustained wisdom and feedback of all the Provinces and all the Instruments of Communion before it is mature. What I understand you are on this occasion to consider is this: Are you willing to engage in principle with a process which seeks to find a common basis for the Provinces of the Anglican Communion to move forward together?

I said at the beginning of this address that in the West Indies we are proud of our autonomy lived in communion. This is as it should be. It is true of every Province of the Anglican Communion, even if some of those Provinces struggle with poverty, illness and injustice. But we also value our relationship with you, our first Province, the Church of England. I very much hope that you will be able to express your care for us, and your valuing of us by saying that we have a future together; by affirming “Yes, let us explore what holds us together. Yes ”“ let us covenant to walk in a shared faith and shared hope ”“ in Communion, as surely God intends us to be.” After all, did not the Apostle Paul write that no-one can say of another member of the body: “I have no need of you”? (cf 1 Corinthians 12.21-23).

(From Anglican Mainstream)

It all started in a storefront tea lounge. Watch it all.

I know Kendall already posted the link to this speech in his post on the passage of the Covenant resolution (2 entries below), but now having read Bp. Michael Nazir-Ali’s speech, I wanted to post it in full to ensure wide readership. The text is from Anglican Mainstream:

Bishop Michael Nazir Ali’s (Rochester) speech to synod on the Anglican Covenant.

I speak as the Chair of the House of Bishops Theological Group which has the task of preparing the response to the Draft Covenant sent out by the Primates.

I shall vote for this motion when the time comes. It seems to have some rules for living together and if a Covenant is to embody them, then so be it, even if the nature and extent of it have still to be determined. But a Covenant “imposed from above” will not answer every question we have about our Church and Communion.

The Church becomes ”˜church’ by the working out of the Faith ”˜once and for all delivered to the saints’ (Jude 3). Our common mindedness has to do with having the mind of Christ (Phil 2:5) and the Spirit, leading us into all truth, continually reminds us of the words and things of Jesus and glorifies him (John 15.26, 16: 12-15). The ministry of truth and unity is grounded squarely on the word of God (”˜Consecrate them in the truth, your word is truth’ John 17.17) said Jesus and such a ministry makes sure that the Apostolic Teaching is passed on from person to person, community to community and down the ages.

The self-organising power of the Gospel produces a truly evangelical church. Those who are called to preaching and teaching have the positive task of bringing the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27) to their people. But they also have a negative task which is to maintain the Church in its indefectibility, so that the gates of hell do not prevail against it (Matt. 16:18). They must make sure that the Church does not lose the core of the Gospel.

We have to ask, whether this ”˜self-organising power of the Gospel’ has ever been allowed full expression in the Anglican tradition. Philip Turner and Ephraim Radner, two American theologians, have said that Anglicans have always been compromised by ”˜unsanctified council’. Their Erastian tendencies have allowed the State and the culture to constrain the freedom of the Gospel in forming the Church. The tendency to capitulate to culture has been exported to other parts of the world. Both here and elsewhere the idea of the national Church has obscured the primacy of the local and the universal. But the logic of catholicity has also been retained and the question is now whether it will be allowed full expression in its own integrity.

Will the instruments of Communion be effective and united in their gathering and working? Will decisions made by the Primates be upheld or repudiated immediately afterwards? If the Lambeth Conference is not a council or synod of Bishops, what is it and why should anyone come to it? What kind of authority does it have? We are looking here not so much for juridical or legislative authority but for spiritual, doctrinal and moral. We should want our leaders to lead and for spiritual leaders to lead spiritually.

It may be that Anglicanism is not a confessional body but it certainly should be a confessing one: upholding, proclaiming and living the Apostolic Faith. Its weaknesses need to be recognised and it should be strengthened in its vocation. We are looking then for a covenant which will express the Apostolic Faith, enable us to come a common mind which is that of Christ, and free us to proclaim the good news of salvation to the world. The Covenant may be the first step in recovering our integrity, but it cannot be the last word.

The Church Society website has this report on today’s debate on the Anglican Covenant at the Church of England General Synod:

Sunday 8 July 2007

First business was the proposed Anglican Covenant. This presented some particular problems in that the Covenant could potentially mark a significant change in the nature of the Church of England and many people are concerned about where decisions are being taken. In addition there is a distrust of the process with many believing that conservative Primates will hijack the process and use it to exclude others. Matters were complicated by the presence of a draft covenant whilst people were saying that it is the process not the draft that is important.

Drexel Gomez, Primate of the West Indies and chairman of the Covenant Design Group introduced the Draft and the process. He spent some time explaining the draft whilst stating that it would go through at least two more drafts.

Gomez described the covenant as being based on historical principles – in particular the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral and the Church of England Declaration of Assent. However, both these things have proved entirely ineffective in preventing the present problems and he offered no suggestion as to how they would prove more effective in the future.

The Bishop of Chichester introduced the motion and debate. He highlighted that the covenant is not a confession, that it is going to take some time to put it in place. He characterised the Covenant being a way of saying we don’t have to agree on everything but we will commit ourselves to one another.

Tim Cox moved an amendment which highlighted the danger of the prolonged structural approach envisaged by the Covenant. He called for decisive action now and the use of a clear affirmation of the Scriptures and the historic formularies. A number of Synod members were apparently in agreement with this sentiment but felt it was better to support the Covenant and seek to have it strengthened elsewhere.

Two other amendments also failed. One was intended to ensure the Covenant was not as effective as it could be, the other to give the Synod the chance to consider the response to be drafted by the two Archbishops before it is made.

The Synod voted in favour of the motion but with wildly differing views as to what the purpose of the Covenant was going to be.

[source: http://www.churchsociety.org/issues_new/synod/iss_synod_latest.asp]

================

John Owen’s report at Thinking Anglicans gives further details of all three failed amendments:

Three amendments were moved. Mr Tim Cox (a council member of Church Society) moved:

Leave out everything after “That this Synod” and insert:

(a) note the unanimous recommendation of the Primates in February 2007;

(b) believe that the Covenant process will prove inadequate to address the problems presently dividing the Communion; and

(c) urge all the Provinces of the Anglican Communion to declare themselves in communion only with those Provinces, dioceses and congregations that:
(i) assert whole-heartedly that the Scriptures are the Word of God;
(ii) uphold the historic Anglican formularies (the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, 1662 Book of Common Prayer and Ordinal); and
(iii) on the current presenting cause of division, uphold the Biblical teaching that sexual intercourse belongs solely within the lifelong commitment of a man and woman in marriage.

Mr Justin Brett (Oxford) moved:

In paragraph (a) leave out the words “affirm its willingness to engage positively with” and insert “note”.

The Revd Jonathan Clark (London) moved:

In paragraph (c) leave out all the words after “the Archbishops’ Council” and insert “to bring back to the next group of sessions of Synod for approval a considered response to the draft from the Covenant Design Group for submission to the Anglican Communion Office”.

Each of the three amendments was defeated on a show of hands. Finally the Bishop of Chichester’s unamended motion was put to the vote and carried on a show of hands.

==================

We’ll keep an eye out for Abp. Drexel Gomez’ speech (either text or audio) and post any further news we find later.

The Bishop of Rochester’s Speech is here.

Update: Simon Sarmiento has the text of the carried motion:

‘That this Synod:

(a) affirm its willingness to engage positively with the unanimous recommendation of the Primates in February 2007 for a process designed to produce a covenant for the Anglican Communion;

(b) note that such a process will only be concluded when any definitive text has been duly considered through the synodical processes of the provinces of the Communion; and

(c) invite the Presidents, having consulted the House of Bishops and the Archbishops’ Council, to agree the terms of a considered response to the draft from the Covenant Design Group for submission to the Anglican Communion Office by the end of the year.’