You may find the live audio link here.
It is working fine for me at present. Elaine Storkey is speaking on the BBC motion right now.
You may find the live audio link here.
It is working fine for me at present. Elaine Storkey is speaking on the BBC motion right now.
Procedural motion to abandon debate on the Ashworth motion has just “clearly lost.”
Speaker, whose name I didn’t catch, attests to the atmosphere of spiritual renewal that he experienced at the Bedford convention. He notes that the Anglo Catholics present were evangelists and church planters and the Evangelicals were liturgically minded – all “classical Anglicans.” He felt that “this is the kind of Anglican I want to be.”
Bishop of Bristol says that he’s afraid the unamended motion will commit the Church of England to “too much too soon.” Argues that the Communion Partners are between a rock and a hard place and the motion will make their life harder. Says ACNA’s constitution is acceptable to him (except on the ministry of women) but it is provisional. It may end up being a “loose coalition of autonomous bodies.” Anglicans around the world are watching the discussion.
Bishop of Bristol opposes attempt to combine the two motions.
Lorna Ashworth expresses willingness to support such a combined motion.
Bishop of Chichester speaks after discussion in HoB Theological Group. Adversarial nature of debate in Synod is not best way to share joys and sorrows of others that constitutes communion. Offers cautious support to a combined motion, noting 1998 Lambeth resolution to reach out to members of the Continuum.
Bishop of Oxford opposes combined motion on the grounds that it interrupts the Covenant process. Need to keep “open space” available and keep “matters fluid” in a complex landscape.
The electronic voting system has failed 🙂
Division of Synod on combined motion by “physical separation” and loses by 223 votes to 166 with 2 abstentions.
Procedural motion to adjourn opposed by the Bishop of Bristol and Lorna Ashworth: “We’ve got this far and it is important for Synod to express their mind. Let’s finish it.” Motion lost.
[url=http://anglicanprayer.wordpress.com/2010/02/08/coe-general-synod/]Prayer[/url].
Jeremy, can you please write a brief note about exactly what is being considered and any sense you might have of the tenor of the meeting? Much of your notes are in a sort of shorthand. Thanks for considering this..
Speaker supportive of the Bishop of Bristol’s motion notes that whether the Anglican Reformation split could be viewed as schismatic. The CoE can be institutionally cautious towards ACNA, while still welcoming their clergy under the overseas clergy measure as a charitable gesture.
Adam 12,
Put simply, because I don’t have all the texts before me. The Ashworth amendment is the explicit statement of the desire of the Church of England to acknowledge ACNA as a legitimate expression of Anglicanism (Pageantmaster has explored some of this in earlier threads). The Bishop of Bristol’s amendment basically waters down the Ashworth language to insist that relations with ACNA – even informal ones – should wait until the Covenant process has worked itself out. Attempts to combine the language of the two failed. Now we’re back to the Bristol amendment (which is a substitute) and then the vote on the main motion if that fails. Anyone else feel free to jump in.
Ashworth now emphasizing that her motion does nothing to relations with TEC and ACoC. Says she’s asking for expression of the desire to be in fellowship. She’s agnostic about the Bristol amendment because it misses the heart of the motion. We’re talking not about those who’ve left the fold “but those who are still there and haven’t left.”
The original resolution of Lorna Ashworth reads: “That this Synod express the desire that the Church of England be in communion with the Anglican Church in North America”.
The Bishop of Bristol (the Rt Revd Mike Hill) is currently moving this amendment:
[blockquote]Leave out everything after “That this Synod” and insert:
“(a) recognise and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family;
(b) acknowledge that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and
(c) invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011”. [/blockquote]
Bristol amendment passes and Ashworth supports the motion as amended, noting that the issue will have to be revisited next year when the archbishops report. She will be waiting.
Division of Synod voting electronically. Amended motion passes by 309 votes to 69, with 17 abstentions. What the final text is I’m not quite sure, as there were several successful amendments to the Bristol amendment.
Thank you Pageantmaster.
Thanks to you both!
Jeremy Bonner – Thank you for the commentary.
Like you, I missed the amendments. The text should be linked here shortly:
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/gensynod/agendas/feb2010/index.html
Thanks to both of you, too!
The text is here: http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/blog_post.asp?id=89124 Hat tip to Cedric at Stand Firm.
So, the result of all this hubbub is a motion that says, (1) this synod recognizes ACNA’s desire to be in communion with the COE and the AC; (2) this desire raises all sorts of issues; and (3) perhaps the Archbishop can report back on these issues in 2011.
This is what people were flying back and forth across the Atlantic about?
Looks like a pretty watered down, tepid response. Basically, “we understand your desire to be Anglican, but will not speak to it until or unless the proper authorities give you the green light… and btw, let’s kick the can on this further down the road for at least another year.”
Not exactly a ringing endorsement of ACNA, and from a strategic point, the motion was probably something not worth pushing as I believe Sarah has pointed out, even if the original language had carried it would not have changed the official status of ACNA and the Anglican Communion.
I think one could argue that the final language puts the ACNA in even further doubt about its Anglican authenticity than had previously been the case with statements from the ++ABC, where he seemed to state that members of the ACNA were in the Anglican Communion but in an irregular manner.
It’s very sad.
Many thanks Billqs – Cof E site now gives the final amended text and audio of the session:
[blockquote]Following debate, Mrs Lorna Ashworth moved the following amended motion, which was carried by the Synod:
‘That this Synod
(a) aware of the distress caused by recent divisions within the Anglican churches of the United States of America and Canada;
(b) recognise and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family;
(c) acknowledge that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and
(d) invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011.’
Audio of session:
http://audio.cofemedia.org.uk/synod/feb2010/Feb1013.wax
[/blockquote]
I see that StandFirm is divided on whether this should be considered a win for ACNA or not. Personally, it strikes me as pretty tepid; if I were in ACNA, I would not be impressed.