Synod went to Holy Communion at 10:30 this morning in Westminster Abbey, joined by HM the Queen and HRH Prince Philip.
Then the Queen and the two Archbishops went next door to Church House where she opened General Synod after an introduction from the ABC and her speech was followed by thanks from the ABY. HM gave an opening speech which is available on an audio podcast here which is worth listening to for the tactful guidance given: http://www.cofe.anglican.org/news/gsnov231110pm1.html
Speech over – now onto discussion on Business Committee report – links on papers page linked in main thread link.
For the remainder of the afternoon business will be discussed followed by a debate on “The Big Society” on the shape of society, and the engagement of the church in society.
After that there will be ‘Questions’. This is always disconcerting for listeners who are not at Synod, because the answers are given without the questions being given, or the written questions provided which are presumably available to Synod members. Now you might think that this is something that is incompetant and second-rate, but you would be wrong. Providing ‘Answers’ without questions means that information in the questions which could be of use to the enemy, is not broadcast, until several months after the Synod, by which time that sensitive information will be out of date and less damaging to national security. Think of this like the removal of road signs during war time and part of the Church’s contributions to national security. Remember ‘talk costs lives’.
Those loyal listeners who are experienced members of the church may however be able to make an educated guess as to the question being answered from the answer and any supplemental question, as well has providing occupation and entertainment for those listeners.
As far as the Covenant debate is concerned, the full debate starts tomorrow [Wednesday 24th November] at 9:30 am London time [4:30am EST]
The item is listed as follows – to be moved by Mike Hill, Bishop of Bristol:
504 “That the draft Act of Synod adopting the Anglican Communion Covenant be considered.”
It transpires from [listening to] the business debate that the decision by Synod managers to include a resolution on the Covenant at this new session of Synod was in response to a request from the CofE House of Bishops. Apparently it is invisaged that there will be further opportunities to discuss it in future synods as well.
The report of this afternoon’s business at General Synod together with audio files is now available here: http://www.cofe.anglican.org/news/gsnov231110pm2.html
It covers:
1. The opening remarks and business;
2. The Presidential Address by the ABC;
3. The report of the Business Committee;
4. The debate on the Big Society; and
5. Answers.
Andrew Goddard has another last minute response ‘The Anglican Covenant: Why a ‘Yes’ Vote is Significant’, encouraging a yes vote for the Covenant from General Synod here: http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=569
The audio feed from General Synod starts again tomorrow, Wednesday 24th November at 9:30 am London Time [4:30 am EST] when the debate on the Covenant commences here: http://www.premier.org.uk/streaming/synod.asx
Yes, great thanks, Pageantmaster! You’ve made it possible to follow along admirably. Wish we could know the questions that are so sensitive they are “not broadcast”!
Good Morning, The covenant debate is about to start. Audio should be available on http://www.premier.org.uk/streaming/synod.asx
Tweets from Synod and others available by going to: http://twitter.com/
and entering into the search box:
#synod
It has started. Draft Act of Synod will be considered under preliminary motion procedure – motion 504. If it passes, 505 and 506 will be considered; not if it doesn’t.
Bishop of Bristol speaking – 12 minutes to propose.
+Mike Hill, Bristol
Dealing with why House of Bishops have brought Act of Synod to this synod. Contrasting what happened with TEC promotion of Gene Robinson, with the way women priests has been dealt with by the Communion. Suggestions that CofE will be limted in decision- making wrong; just agreeing to commit to one another.
Why now? HOB recommended bring forward and now starting process. If endorse Covenant or think worth discussing vote for; if not vote against.
Objection that ‘un-Anglican’ about idea of Covenant. We should be careful of defining things as un-Anglican, we have had developments and this is just one.
Covenants entered into freely by people who want to make commitements to one another.
If vote against – limits Covenant and ties hands of ABC.
If for goes to dioceses for approval, if they agree by majority, can leave open until next ACC meeting in 2012.
He urges Synod to make a decision based on report. He voting for because has read the Covenant and does not find anything to disagree with; more he is positive about the commitment to one another it embodies.
Other speakers starting [audio will be available on podcast later]
Next speaker did not catch name] prefers a bottom up rather than top down approach – not decided yet. Main reservation: those provinces which don’t sign leads to irrecovable division.
Deborah McIsaac, Salisbury [new member, Canadian accent]. Reading Covenant fresh, honest attempt. What will matter in 10 years time is what precedents set, how those in Covenant behave to one another. Truth if interested in relationships. We being called to adult relationship looking beyond own priorities. Removing echoes of empire. Think about consequences if don’t pass. Believes ACoC, waiting to see what we do. Big impact on other decisions if we pass it.
Miranda Threlfall Holmes, Universities: as ABC says open to us not to deepen our relationships in this in this way. Doesn’t think so:
Context: We have different theologies and this affects how we talk about God, and God talks to us. Technology exacerbates clash of contexts. Doesn’t like 3.2.4 and Sect 4 which override local contexts.
Family – talk of family contrasts with sect 4.2. Family restrictions on love and relationship are damaging. Synod should reject defining family around world in negative and legalistic Terms.
ABC: not covering same ground as yesterday’s speech.
Taking up +Mike Hill’s point. Drift in Communion is growing instruments and agreements. Local exchange in Communion is sharing in mission and mutual sharing – look at Covenant in that context.
Replies to Miranda last speaker. Want to talk to one another and idealistic to think that good will will carry us through. Covenant is about consent, not discipline. Structure for consent what we should be focussing on in this discussion.
Consensual catholicism – mutual submission rather than central authority. No creation of ecclesiastical authority in mid air.
Adult relationship – helpful way of looking at things. Context in Communion is global rather than just local. Need to take account of it, not just local context.
Mr Roy, London, maiden speech: Sections 1-3 of Covenant have footnotes; not in section 4 which is greyer – condemnation not what Jesus would want.
If don’t agree, go back to 2003 and impaired relationship, but only game in town? Loyalty grows when seek God; seek out those disagree with and ‘work till it hurts’
Simon Cawdell, Hereford: In his diocese celebrate Communion relationships. City of God bounded by walls with gates which are never shut, just like Covenant. Covenant seeks to provide way disputes can be resolved in love. There are times have to act when ordinary procedures do not work.
Critical of lobbying he has been subject to in chamber: ‘ACC hath no jurisdiction here’ – a mistake to think of Covenant in this way. Jonathan Sacks believes Covenant is an act of grace.
Vote for without strings and can debate in dioceses and parishes, opportunity to debate position in Communion. Deserves study.
A vote against signals to others that they mean less to us. He will vote for.
Paul Finnis, ecumenical representative. Member of another church, Baptist, but shares covenant as a way of working together. Covenant held together not by law, but by mutual covenant, seeking mind of Christ.
Anglican Communion taking concept of covenant further. Interested in how Holy Spirit will lead Anglican Communion with this, and they will watch. Affirm directly that Christ calls us into covenant with each other and the triune God – up and sideways relationship. Covenant needs to recognise Christ is summoning onto covenant and is Christ calling us into Covenant? Discernment is yours.
Julie de Ziegal, Oxford. Compares with Northern Ireland in troubles in 1970’s – consequences of our disputes as great and greater, as splits in Communion limit mission. Thinks clause 4.2 splits further. What needed is discussion, as happened in Northern Ireland. If relationship in trouble, trip to marriage guidance rather than a walk up the aisle. Vote against.
Peter Price,Bishop of Bath and Wells: Chief Rabbi quoted. Price chairs AC committee. He and +Liverpool visited TEC. Found engaged theology and considering difference in a mature way. TEC would engage with covenant. Difference not from election of Gene Robinson. Procedures from Virginia Report. Windsor Report thrust was governance. Covenant was a hurried document, Section 4 revised and clearly states cannot over ride internal governance of provinces. Issues of governance will not go away. If stay with process, not committed. Vote in favour of continuation of process [make of that what you will]
Jackie Humphries, Bristol: Troubled by Covenant. Canon lawyer, need to be aware of impact in own church as well as across Communion. Haven’t really explored this with internal canons etc. Looked at text and concerns remains:
4.1.3 – says nothing ‘of itself’ alters internal governance. ‘Must’ be maintained – rules and law. Determination by standing committee of ACC – obliges discipline? Need guidance on this.
4.2.4 – Standing Committee stands in judgment – judicial decision, a determination. Toned down from prior drafts, but still there.
Point 2: Standing Committee of ACC – not suited to or resourced. Also conservatives already resigned from it. She skeptical
Gary Jenkins, Southwark: supports Covenant as squaring circle – not overriding canonical autonomy, but asks churches to exercise autonomy and consider relational consequences on other churches in the Communion. Recognises we belong to one another. No church an island. Actions impact one another. Autonomy, do what you like; communion respect one another.
Respect autonomy but exercise concern for others – the Covenant is very Anglican.
Ann Stevens, Southwark: concerned with 3.2.5. Trouble is that the calling of a prophet is to stir it up and provoke controversy. Church which silences prophets not doing job and limiting reform. Need prophets from all parts of theological spectrum. Listing prophets and what they did. Conversation opens up possibility.
She is not against Covenant in principle, but concerned sections 3 and 4 closes down. She undecided on Covenant, but hopes CofE keeps conversation going in Communion in ways everyone can join in.
Elizabeth Paver, Sheffield. ACC rep and 2009 Vice chairman of ACC. Can assure Jackie Humphries they representative of whole Communion. Impressed by love of others for CofE and look to us in times of difficulty. Covenant not a perfect document, but one we can work with. She grateful to Faith and Order Commission for report which can help those considering Covenant.
Since idea of Covenant proposed in Windsor Report to current text, 5 years of hard work – Synod has considered principle of covenant, HOB have commended document to Synod – endorse their leadership. It is important to see Covenant as a positive means of handling diversity. Preserving breadth of Anglicanism with measure of coherance. Vote for Covenant.
John Saxby, Bishop of Lincoln: His final speech to Synod. Supports Covenant process, provided it never ends. Does not need covenant as Anglican Communion is a covenant. Not a substitute to grace and goodwill. Cure can have unintended consequences can have negative consequences. Elevating TEC actions as game changers is not necessary. Complaining about those in COmmunion tyrranical to gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. Sending sincere and faithful Anglicans into corner until repent. Woman found in adultery. Quoted ditty. Loves Communion, but not if it is no longer Anglican. Thinks Covenant probably wrong. Wants process to continue. Hesitate before signing up to a covenant.
Simon Killiwick, Manchester: His church has congregation from all over the Communion. International aspect essential to Anglicanism. Christ unites all people in himself. Messy church he believes in, however at a point untidyness becomes such a total mess and strains relationships. Urges consideration of Covenant – Anglican sort of covenant – more like marriage than a legal contract; framework in which member churches of Anglican Communion can work through differences, autonomy with accountability. Essentially international church, cannot be insular. Covenant is a prophetic gesture taking Communion into future, please support.
Vasanthi Gnanados, Southwark: speaking in favour of Covenant – as someone with roots in other parts of Communion. Despite origins of AC in empire, evolution of structures responding to changes in Communion and world. Introduction of covenant may restrict developments in some parts of the Communion, but necessary as actions in one part affect others. For
+Blackburn: Quotes +Sherborne last week. Anglican Communion needs a solution to decide which of our differences might need to divide us, and which don’t. Other churches have such a mechanism. We have no Petrine ministry etc. What do we have – Instruments, all of which are consultative. Doing nothing not an option. Recent history, we need something further, not something which will change nature of Anglican Communion. If don’t have parts of Communion will regroup into a looser federation. Eames: an agenda for relationships, not a judgment on sexual relationships; want something based on prayer generosity and good will.
Support rather than do nothing. Found elegant middle way [like declaration of assent in 195] of moving forward. Support.
RIchard Franklin, Salisbury: problems with ecclesiology of Covenant. Scripture – God’s relationship in scriptural covenant based on grace. But political covenant different history. Communion of church given by God. Covenant doc at 2.1.1 acknowledges communion but denies it later – made by man, not God. Communion cannot be forced by human means. Severe doubts.
Also concerned that more centralised vision of churches life – universal at expense of local. Wholeness, quotes John Zizioulas – wholeness in local community, when local church part of whole; but local should be catholic. Imposition of uniformity on local.
He flagging up difficulties.
Sally Muggerage, Canterbury: new, impressed with speeches, she has international background, bringing people across world to build.
Need to think about leadership of Anglican Communion, and internationally everyone individual part, but part of of whole.
Need to consider wording – 4.2.5-7 ‘relational consequences’ – gives her concern – think again.
Mark Russell, Archbishops’ Council [Church Army]: – tribute to +Rowan – he trusts him. Love and trust him. Don’t know all he knows. Remember Northern Ireland – passionate views on all sides, a nightmare. Hates Good Friday Agreement, but needed it to sort relationships. If no to Covenant consequences for Communion and ABC serious. He backing ABC and motion – give ABC support he deserves.
Bishop of Gloucester: Voting for motion, with reluctance, as Covenant may be used against fellow Anglicans. Wants to support ABC, and motion continues process. Hopes at end of process and Indaba may decide that do not need it, problems solved. His indaba experiences positive. Moments of grace. His triangular relationship basis for 6 across Communion. Hopes will provide pattern for other dioceses. Hopes not to late. Confidence in Indaba and Covenant for which voting.
John Perumbaleth, Rochester: How appropriate to use Covenant, given section 4. Closer to a contract – new and strange relationships created. He has roots in 2 other provinces and has worked in Church of North India. Thought moving to moving to an open and inclusive Communion – Covenant can be divisive. Sect 4 makes unAnglican and theologically bankrupt. Vote against.
Prudence Daly, Oxford: This Covenant did not come from nowhere, recognise circumstances changed and status quo not an option. ABC trying to keep things together – recognise he knows more about process and dynamics than us. What alternative? Carry on or for some people to just go away. Has friends in Anglican Church of Canada, hoping we and they affirm Covenant. Support motion.
Motion to adjourn from floor.
Mary Johnston, London – proposing adjournment to some time next year – to July.
Chair: procedural motion to adjourn to July 2011. She and Bishop of Bristol to respond.
Johnston: huge implications for CofE and Communion – new members 1/3 in Synod and first day of busines – huge job for them, and aware of responsibility to CofE and need time for the rest of us to catch up with where the Bishops are. Maybe February report on proposals and indaba about it.
+Mike Hill: resist procedural motion – vote on process sending to dioceses, so not final decision. Last synod voted on 4 times, and no reason new synod cannot deal with – start not end of process. Not good to send a lukewarm message today.
ABY: proceed with motion: Duty to be both legislative and deliberative – reciting history of matter in Synod. Been at it, do not move forward? Go for it, and other amendments should fall by wayside.
Simon Butler, Southwark: was going to vote against today, now for – but taken not of Mary Johnston and wonders if adjournment allows reflection to look at problems identified today. Not nod through at first group of session.
+Mike Hill summing up. Commenting on prior contributions from other speakers. Re: Cawdell – we can’t amend Covenant; adopt or not. Can’t muzzle prophets.
If back off today, what is alternative. Hope Synod backs motion 504 in my name.
The first of two amendments to the Act of Synod has been heard: Justin Brett amendment motion to pull the teeth of Section 4 by excising it – sounding very much like the liberal efforts at ACC in Jamaica has been voted on. Debate was closed and there were insufficient standing to meet the 25 minimum for a vote by houses. Result on a vote by show of hands: motion lost.
It is difficult to follow these amending motions as they do not appear on the agenda or timetable and do not appear to have been posted online on the CofE website. However I have found copies and just attach the report on these motions on Thinking Anglicans:
[blockquote]Mr Justin Brett (Chichester) moved as an amendment [to the draft Act of Synod]:
505 In recital (1) after “the Anglican Covenant†insert —
“, subject to the exception referred to below,â€; and
After “GS Misc 966†in paragraph 1, insert —
“, with the exception of section 4.2,â€; and
Before “solemnly covenants†insert —
“subject to that exceptionâ€.
Item 505 was defeated on a show of hands.
Dr Brian Walker (Winchester) moved as an amendment [to the draft Act of Synod]:
506 Insert as new recital (3) —
“The Church of England understands the Anglican Communion Covenant as a means for maintaining continuous inclusive relationships between all covenanting Churches.â€; and
At the beginning of paragraph 1, insert —
“Subject to paragraph 2.â€; and
After paragraph 1. insert
“2. The Church of England will not participate in or support any limitations or suspensions of the kind provided for in Section 4.2.5 or sanctions effected under Section 4.2.7.â€.
Now there is an attempt to delay so that the women bishops legislation comes first and there is more time for debate. ABY is speaking against this delay. If passed of course it would mean there was no decision before the next ACC meeting in 2012.
Motion being put and has been defeated – report on TA is here:
[blockquote]The Revd Canon Robert Cotton (Guildford) moved a following motion.
507 That this Synod, recognising and affirming the difficult issues addressed by the Anglican Communion Covenant:
(a) request that the date determined by the Presidents for the reference of the draft Act of Synod to the dioceses under Article 8 should be no earlier than November 2011;
(b) direct the Business Committee to ensure that the documents circulated to diocesan synods for the purposes of the Article 8 reference include a range of briefing material, properly reflecting the diversity of views on the Covenant within the Church of England; and
(c) invite the House of Bishops to encourage in the dioceses a process of widespread education about, and engagement with, the substance and text of the Covenant.
The motion 507 was defeated on a show of hands.[/blockquote]
Lunch now, time has run our for further debate on the covenant. Other scheduled business will continue after lunch.
So, General Synod has backed the Anglican Covenant being sent out to dioceses and resisted all attempts at amendment. The matter is now remitted to dioceses to consider, and on its return to Synod, there will be a final vote on adoption of the Act of Synod to join the Covenant.
#33 Prof Seitz – I think that the very interesting point to come out of this morning’s CofE vote on the Covenant is that for all the barrage of shock and awe articles coming out of the ‘No Covenant’ers and Thinking Anglicans [usually the same small group and the odd bishop here and there all agreeing with each other], it had absolutely no impact whatever on the votes of Synod. If anything, it may have been counter-productive. So yes, the liberal influence can be rolled back may well be the lesson for today. It has been an interesting morning here in London.
Again, thanks, Pageantmaster! You’re doing a great job! It’s striking that this positive result is on the same day that Gafcon announces its decision against signing the Covenant. Did anybody at Synod question the new committee that is supposed to have oversight, I wonder (section IV)? Surely this is about the most objectionable thing in the present draft: the questionable character of that oversight must seem a full-stop deal-breaker to many. Is it likely now that there could be major revisions to that section?
Synod went to Holy Communion at 10:30 this morning in Westminster Abbey, joined by HM the Queen and HRH Prince Philip.
Then the Queen and the two Archbishops went next door to Church House where she opened General Synod after an introduction from the ABC and her speech was followed by thanks from the ABY. HM gave an opening speech which is available on an audio podcast here which is worth listening to for the tactful guidance given:
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/news/gsnov231110pm1.html
The ABC will shortly be giving a Presidential address in this afternoon’s session which will be available on the live feed here:
http://www.premier.org.uk/streaming/synod.asx
The Archbishop is giving his presidential address, talking about the catholic spirit in the church and its implications – quotes Wesley.
The Archbishop is giving his presidential address, talking about the catholic spirit in the church and its implications – quotes Wesley.
The Archbishop’s address can be read at the same time on his website:
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/3056
Speaking about the Covenant – indaba is the way, apparently. Talking about mutual impact of decisions.
Speech over – now onto discussion on Business Committee report – links on papers page linked in main thread link.
For the remainder of the afternoon business will be discussed followed by a debate on “The Big Society” on the shape of society, and the engagement of the church in society.
After that there will be ‘Questions’. This is always disconcerting for listeners who are not at Synod, because the answers are given without the questions being given, or the written questions provided which are presumably available to Synod members. Now you might think that this is something that is incompetant and second-rate, but you would be wrong. Providing ‘Answers’ without questions means that information in the questions which could be of use to the enemy, is not broadcast, until several months after the Synod, by which time that sensitive information will be out of date and less damaging to national security. Think of this like the removal of road signs during war time and part of the Church’s contributions to national security. Remember ‘talk costs lives’.
Those loyal listeners who are experienced members of the church may however be able to make an educated guess as to the question being answered from the answer and any supplemental question, as well has providing occupation and entertainment for those listeners.
As far as the Covenant debate is concerned, the full debate starts tomorrow [Wednesday 24th November] at 9:30 am London time [4:30am EST]
The item is listed as follows – to be moved by Mike Hill, Bishop of Bristol:
504 “That the draft Act of Synod adopting the Anglican Communion Covenant be considered.”
The draft Act of Synod [GS 1809 ‘DRAFT ACT OF SYNOD ADOPTING THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION COVENANT’] can be found here:
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/gensynod/agendas/nov2010/gs1809.pdf
and the report of the CofE House of Bishops [GS MISC 966 ‘The Faith and Order Commission: The Anglican Covenant: a briefing paper’] is here:
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/gensynod/agendas/nov2010/gsmisc966.pdf
It transpires from [listening to] the business debate that the decision by Synod managers to include a resolution on the Covenant at this new session of Synod was in response to a request from the CofE House of Bishops. Apparently it is invisaged that there will be further opportunities to discuss it in future synods as well.
The text of the ABY’s speech thanking HM mentioned at #1 above is available here on his site:
http://www.archbishopofyork.org.uk/3071
The report of this afternoon’s business at General Synod together with audio files is now available here:
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/news/gsnov231110pm2.html
It covers:
1. The opening remarks and business;
2. The Presidential Address by the ABC;
3. The report of the Business Committee;
4. The debate on the Big Society; and
5. Answers.
Andrew Goddard has another last minute response ‘The Anglican Covenant: Why a ‘Yes’ Vote is Significant’, encouraging a yes vote for the Covenant from General Synod here:
http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=569
The audio feed from General Synod starts again tomorrow, Wednesday 24th November at 9:30 am London Time [4:30 am EST] when the debate on the Covenant commences here:
http://www.premier.org.uk/streaming/synod.asx
Pageantmaster, thank you for your “flying fingers” and all this info/hard work. 🙂
Yes, great thanks, Pageantmaster! You’ve made it possible to follow along admirably. Wish we could know the questions that are so sensitive they are “not broadcast”!
Good Morning, The covenant debate is about to start. Audio should be available on
http://www.premier.org.uk/streaming/synod.asx
Tweets from Synod and others available by going to:
http://twitter.com/
and entering into the search box:
#synod
It has started. Draft Act of Synod will be considered under preliminary motion procedure – motion 504. If it passes, 505 and 506 will be considered; not if it doesn’t.
Bishop of Bristol speaking – 12 minutes to propose.
[thankyou #10 and #11]
+Mike Hill, Bristol
Dealing with why House of Bishops have brought Act of Synod to this synod. Contrasting what happened with TEC promotion of Gene Robinson, with the way women priests has been dealt with by the Communion. Suggestions that CofE will be limted in decision- making wrong; just agreeing to commit to one another.
Why now? HOB recommended bring forward and now starting process. If endorse Covenant or think worth discussing vote for; if not vote against.
Objection that ‘un-Anglican’ about idea of Covenant. We should be careful of defining things as un-Anglican, we have had developments and this is just one.
Covenants entered into freely by people who want to make commitements to one another.
If vote against – limits Covenant and ties hands of ABC.
If for goes to dioceses for approval, if they agree by majority, can leave open until next ACC meeting in 2012.
He urges Synod to make a decision based on report. He voting for because has read the Covenant and does not find anything to disagree with; more he is positive about the commitment to one another it embodies.
Other speakers starting [audio will be available on podcast later]
Next speaker did not catch name] prefers a bottom up rather than top down approach – not decided yet. Main reservation: those provinces which don’t sign leads to irrecovable division.
Deborah McIsaac, Salisbury [new member, Canadian accent]. Reading Covenant fresh, honest attempt. What will matter in 10 years time is what precedents set, how those in Covenant behave to one another. Truth if interested in relationships. We being called to adult relationship looking beyond own priorities. Removing echoes of empire. Think about consequences if don’t pass. Believes ACoC, waiting to see what we do. Big impact on other decisions if we pass it.
Miranda Threlfall Holmes, Universities: as ABC says open to us not to deepen our relationships in this in this way. Doesn’t think so:
Context: We have different theologies and this affects how we talk about God, and God talks to us. Technology exacerbates clash of contexts. Doesn’t like 3.2.4 and Sect 4 which override local contexts.
Family – talk of family contrasts with sect 4.2. Family restrictions on love and relationship are damaging. Synod should reject defining family around world in negative and legalistic Terms.
ABC: not covering same ground as yesterday’s speech.
Taking up +Mike Hill’s point. Drift in Communion is growing instruments and agreements. Local exchange in Communion is sharing in mission and mutual sharing – look at Covenant in that context.
Replies to Miranda last speaker. Want to talk to one another and idealistic to think that good will will carry us through. Covenant is about consent, not discipline. Structure for consent what we should be focussing on in this discussion.
Consensual catholicism – mutual submission rather than central authority. No creation of ecclesiastical authority in mid air.
Adult relationship – helpful way of looking at things. Context in Communion is global rather than just local. Need to take account of it, not just local context.
Mr Roy, London, maiden speech: Sections 1-3 of Covenant have footnotes; not in section 4 which is greyer – condemnation not what Jesus would want.
If don’t agree, go back to 2003 and impaired relationship, but only game in town? Loyalty grows when seek God; seek out those disagree with and ‘work till it hurts’
Simon Cawdell, Hereford: In his diocese celebrate Communion relationships. City of God bounded by walls with gates which are never shut, just like Covenant. Covenant seeks to provide way disputes can be resolved in love. There are times have to act when ordinary procedures do not work.
Critical of lobbying he has been subject to in chamber: ‘ACC hath no jurisdiction here’ – a mistake to think of Covenant in this way. Jonathan Sacks believes Covenant is an act of grace.
Vote for without strings and can debate in dioceses and parishes, opportunity to debate position in Communion. Deserves study.
A vote against signals to others that they mean less to us. He will vote for.
Paul Finnis, ecumenical representative. Member of another church, Baptist, but shares covenant as a way of working together. Covenant held together not by law, but by mutual covenant, seeking mind of Christ.
Anglican Communion taking concept of covenant further. Interested in how Holy Spirit will lead Anglican Communion with this, and they will watch. Affirm directly that Christ calls us into covenant with each other and the triune God – up and sideways relationship. Covenant needs to recognise Christ is summoning onto covenant and is Christ calling us into Covenant? Discernment is yours.
Julie de Ziegal, Oxford. Compares with Northern Ireland in troubles in 1970’s – consequences of our disputes as great and greater, as splits in Communion limit mission. Thinks clause 4.2 splits further. What needed is discussion, as happened in Northern Ireland. If relationship in trouble, trip to marriage guidance rather than a walk up the aisle. Vote against.
Peter Price,Bishop of Bath and Wells: Chief Rabbi quoted. Price chairs AC committee. He and +Liverpool visited TEC. Found engaged theology and considering difference in a mature way. TEC would engage with covenant. Difference not from election of Gene Robinson. Procedures from Virginia Report. Windsor Report thrust was governance. Covenant was a hurried document, Section 4 revised and clearly states cannot over ride internal governance of provinces. Issues of governance will not go away. If stay with process, not committed. Vote in favour of continuation of process [make of that what you will]
Jackie Humphries, Bristol: Troubled by Covenant. Canon lawyer, need to be aware of impact in own church as well as across Communion. Haven’t really explored this with internal canons etc. Looked at text and concerns remains:
4.1.3 – says nothing ‘of itself’ alters internal governance. ‘Must’ be maintained – rules and law. Determination by standing committee of ACC – obliges discipline? Need guidance on this.
4.2.4 – Standing Committee stands in judgment – judicial decision, a determination. Toned down from prior drafts, but still there.
Point 2: Standing Committee of ACC – not suited to or resourced. Also conservatives already resigned from it. She skeptical
Gary Jenkins, Southwark: supports Covenant as squaring circle – not overriding canonical autonomy, but asks churches to exercise autonomy and consider relational consequences on other churches in the Communion. Recognises we belong to one another. No church an island. Actions impact one another. Autonomy, do what you like; communion respect one another.
Respect autonomy but exercise concern for others – the Covenant is very Anglican.
Ann Stevens, Southwark: concerned with 3.2.5. Trouble is that the calling of a prophet is to stir it up and provoke controversy. Church which silences prophets not doing job and limiting reform. Need prophets from all parts of theological spectrum. Listing prophets and what they did. Conversation opens up possibility.
She is not against Covenant in principle, but concerned sections 3 and 4 closes down. She undecided on Covenant, but hopes CofE keeps conversation going in Communion in ways everyone can join in.
Elizabeth Paver, Sheffield. ACC rep and 2009 Vice chairman of ACC. Can assure Jackie Humphries they representative of whole Communion. Impressed by love of others for CofE and look to us in times of difficulty. Covenant not a perfect document, but one we can work with. She grateful to Faith and Order Commission for report which can help those considering Covenant.
Since idea of Covenant proposed in Windsor Report to current text, 5 years of hard work – Synod has considered principle of covenant, HOB have commended document to Synod – endorse their leadership. It is important to see Covenant as a positive means of handling diversity. Preserving breadth of Anglicanism with measure of coherance. Vote for Covenant.
John Saxby, Bishop of Lincoln: His final speech to Synod. Supports Covenant process, provided it never ends. Does not need covenant as Anglican Communion is a covenant. Not a substitute to grace and goodwill. Cure can have unintended consequences can have negative consequences. Elevating TEC actions as game changers is not necessary. Complaining about those in COmmunion tyrranical to gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. Sending sincere and faithful Anglicans into corner until repent. Woman found in adultery. Quoted ditty. Loves Communion, but not if it is no longer Anglican. Thinks Covenant probably wrong. Wants process to continue. Hesitate before signing up to a covenant.
loud applause for Saxby
Simon Killiwick, Manchester: His church has congregation from all over the Communion. International aspect essential to Anglicanism. Christ unites all people in himself. Messy church he believes in, however at a point untidyness becomes such a total mess and strains relationships. Urges consideration of Covenant – Anglican sort of covenant – more like marriage than a legal contract; framework in which member churches of Anglican Communion can work through differences, autonomy with accountability. Essentially international church, cannot be insular. Covenant is a prophetic gesture taking Communion into future, please support.
Vasanthi Gnanados, Southwark: speaking in favour of Covenant – as someone with roots in other parts of Communion. Despite origins of AC in empire, evolution of structures responding to changes in Communion and world. Introduction of covenant may restrict developments in some parts of the Communion, but necessary as actions in one part affect others. For
+Blackburn: Quotes +Sherborne last week. Anglican Communion needs a solution to decide which of our differences might need to divide us, and which don’t. Other churches have such a mechanism. We have no Petrine ministry etc. What do we have – Instruments, all of which are consultative. Doing nothing not an option. Recent history, we need something further, not something which will change nature of Anglican Communion. If don’t have parts of Communion will regroup into a looser federation. Eames: an agenda for relationships, not a judgment on sexual relationships; want something based on prayer generosity and good will.
Support rather than do nothing. Found elegant middle way [like declaration of assent in 195] of moving forward. Support.
RIchard Franklin, Salisbury: problems with ecclesiology of Covenant. Scripture – God’s relationship in scriptural covenant based on grace. But political covenant different history. Communion of church given by God. Covenant doc at 2.1.1 acknowledges communion but denies it later – made by man, not God. Communion cannot be forced by human means. Severe doubts.
Also concerned that more centralised vision of churches life – universal at expense of local. Wholeness, quotes John Zizioulas – wholeness in local community, when local church part of whole; but local should be catholic. Imposition of uniformity on local.
He flagging up difficulties.
Now move on to 3 minute limits.
Sally Muggerage, Canterbury: new, impressed with speeches, she has international background, bringing people across world to build.
Need to think about leadership of Anglican Communion, and internationally everyone individual part, but part of of whole.
Need to consider wording – 4.2.5-7 ‘relational consequences’ – gives her concern – think again.
Mark Russell, Archbishops’ Council [Church Army]: – tribute to +Rowan – he trusts him. Love and trust him. Don’t know all he knows. Remember Northern Ireland – passionate views on all sides, a nightmare. Hates Good Friday Agreement, but needed it to sort relationships. If no to Covenant consequences for Communion and ABC serious. He backing ABC and motion – give ABC support he deserves.
Bishop of Gloucester: Voting for motion, with reluctance, as Covenant may be used against fellow Anglicans. Wants to support ABC, and motion continues process. Hopes at end of process and Indaba may decide that do not need it, problems solved. His indaba experiences positive. Moments of grace. His triangular relationship basis for 6 across Communion. Hopes will provide pattern for other dioceses. Hopes not to late. Confidence in Indaba and Covenant for which voting.
John Perumbaleth, Rochester: How appropriate to use Covenant, given section 4. Closer to a contract – new and strange relationships created. He has roots in 2 other provinces and has worked in Church of North India. Thought moving to moving to an open and inclusive Communion – Covenant can be divisive. Sect 4 makes unAnglican and theologically bankrupt. Vote against.
Prudence Daly, Oxford: This Covenant did not come from nowhere, recognise circumstances changed and status quo not an option. ABC trying to keep things together – recognise he knows more about process and dynamics than us. What alternative? Carry on or for some people to just go away. Has friends in Anglican Church of Canada, hoping we and they affirm Covenant. Support motion.
Motion to adjourn from floor.
Mary Johnston, London – proposing adjournment to some time next year – to July.
Chair: procedural motion to adjourn to July 2011. She and Bishop of Bristol to respond.
Johnston: huge implications for CofE and Communion – new members 1/3 in Synod and first day of busines – huge job for them, and aware of responsibility to CofE and need time for the rest of us to catch up with where the Bishops are. Maybe February report on proposals and indaba about it.
+Mike Hill: resist procedural motion – vote on process sending to dioceses, so not final decision. Last synod voted on 4 times, and no reason new synod cannot deal with – start not end of process. Not good to send a lukewarm message today.
ABY: proceed with motion: Duty to be both legislative and deliberative – reciting history of matter in Synod. Been at it, do not move forward? Go for it, and other amendments should fall by wayside.
Simon Butler, Southwark: was going to vote against today, now for – but taken not of Mary Johnston and wonders if adjournment allows reflection to look at problems identified today. Not nod through at first group of session.
Chair putting adjournment to vote: adjournment motion lost.
Closure motion: closure carried.
+Mike Hill summing up. Commenting on prior contributions from other speakers. Re: Cawdell – we can’t amend Covenant; adopt or not. Can’t muzzle prophets.
If back off today, what is alternative. Hope Synod backs motion 504 in my name.
Chair: asking all to sit down.
Vote by houses only if 25 members stand. There are 25 members. Orders a division by houses.
Division process starting. Audio has gone silent.
Very fine notes indeed Pageantmaster, many thanks. Good to hear the laughter amidst the discussion.
Voting going on on motion 504
“That the draft Act of Synod adopting the Anglican Communion Covenant be considered.â€
Motion carried
Now moving to ammendments to amend the draft Act of Synod [not sure I have seen these] so won’t be following too closely.
#25 Many thanks Canon Harmon. Just checking the votes by houses.
Results of votes by houses on motion 504:
Bishops: for 39; against 0; abstain 1
Clergy: for 145; against 32; abstain 11
Laity: for 147; against 25; abstain 8
The first of two amendments to the Act of Synod has been heard: Justin Brett amendment motion to pull the teeth of Section 4 by excising it – sounding very much like the liberal efforts at ACC in Jamaica has been voted on. Debate was closed and there were insufficient standing to meet the 25 minimum for a vote by houses. Result on a vote by show of hands: motion lost.
It is difficult to follow these amending motions as they do not appear on the agenda or timetable and do not appear to have been posted online on the CofE website. However I have found copies and just attach the report on these motions on Thinking Anglicans:
[blockquote]Mr Justin Brett (Chichester) moved as an amendment [to the draft Act of Synod]:
505 In recital (1) after “the Anglican Covenant†insert —
“, subject to the exception referred to below,â€; and
After “GS Misc 966†in paragraph 1, insert —
“, with the exception of section 4.2,â€; and
Before “solemnly covenants†insert —
“subject to that exceptionâ€.
Item 505 was defeated on a show of hands.
Dr Brian Walker (Winchester) moved as an amendment [to the draft Act of Synod]:
506 Insert as new recital (3) —
“The Church of England understands the Anglican Communion Covenant as a means for maintaining continuous inclusive relationships between all covenanting Churches.â€; and
At the beginning of paragraph 1, insert —
“Subject to paragraph 2.â€; and
After paragraph 1. insert
“2. The Church of England will not participate in or support any limitations or suspensions of the kind provided for in Section 4.2.5 or sanctions effected under Section 4.2.7.â€.
This amendment lapsed, since fewer than 40 members stood to ask for debate to continue.[/blockquote]
The draft Act of Synod to which these amending motions refer is here:
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/gensynod/agendas/nov2010/gs1809.pdf
Amendments to the draft Act of Synod have failed.
Now there is an attempt to delay so that the women bishops legislation comes first and there is more time for debate. ABY is speaking against this delay. If passed of course it would mean there was no decision before the next ACC meeting in 2012.
Motion being put and has been defeated – report on TA is here:
[blockquote]The Revd Canon Robert Cotton (Guildford) moved a following motion.
507 That this Synod, recognising and affirming the difficult issues addressed by the Anglican Communion Covenant:
(a) request that the date determined by the Presidents for the reference of the draft Act of Synod to the dioceses under Article 8 should be no earlier than November 2011;
(b) direct the Business Committee to ensure that the documents circulated to diocesan synods for the purposes of the Article 8 reference include a range of briefing material, properly reflecting the diversity of views on the Covenant within the Church of England; and
(c) invite the House of Bishops to encourage in the dioceses a process of widespread education about, and engagement with, the substance and text of the Covenant.
The motion 507 was defeated on a show of hands.[/blockquote]
Lunch now, time has run our for further debate on the covenant. Other scheduled business will continue after lunch.
So, General Synod has backed the Anglican Covenant being sent out to dioceses and resisted all attempts at amendment. The matter is now remitted to dioceses to consider, and on its return to Synod, there will be a final vote on adoption of the Act of Synod to join the Covenant.
I wonder what all the opponents will make of such a lopsided vote?
The full audio and a report for this morning’s session above is now available to listen to here:
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/news/gsnov241110am.html
#33 Prof Seitz – I think that the very interesting point to come out of this morning’s CofE vote on the Covenant is that for all the barrage of shock and awe articles coming out of the ‘No Covenant’ers and Thinking Anglicans [usually the same small group and the odd bishop here and there all agreeing with each other], it had absolutely no impact whatever on the votes of Synod. If anything, it may have been counter-productive. So yes, the liberal influence can be rolled back may well be the lesson for today. It has been an interesting morning here in London.
For the sake of good order, here is the report and audio of this afternoon’s session after which Synod was prorogued, as they say:
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/news/gsnov241110pm.html
Again, thanks, Pageantmaster! You’re doing a great job! It’s striking that this positive result is on the same day that Gafcon announces its decision against signing the Covenant. Did anybody at Synod question the new committee that is supposed to have oversight, I wonder (section IV)? Surely this is about the most objectionable thing in the present draft: the questionable character of that oversight must seem a full-stop deal-breaker to many. Is it likely now that there could be major revisions to that section?