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.’
Well the mother Church really couldn’t refuse it – or could they?
This is a clear vote for the hierarchy and the Bishop’s desire to hold things together no matter what the cost. In my view it will simply lead to further fudge and delay in the CofE and the end result will not provide the desired unity because there is no longer any gospel unity in the CofE. Those who hold to the authority of Scripture and the 39 Articles and the Creeds will continue to do so. And those who deny them, partially or wholly, will continue to deny them. And the division between them amongst the episcopate and the clergy will continue to grow.
The CofE needs to be rescued from the same fate as ECUSA.
Certainly it would has been disastrous if the CofE had refused. Thankfully common sense prevailed by a large majority. This is rather more encouraging than the previous commentator understands. The disproportionate growth of evangelical churches in the CofE means that as time passes the agenda should move in the direction of those ith a traditional understanding of hermeneutics. The same is true for the Communion unless the Africans leave the field prematurely, which some are threatening to do at present to the delight of revisionist commentators.
# 2: ‘The disproportionate growth of evangelical churches in the CofE means that as time passes the agenda should move in the direction of those ith a traditional understanding of hermeneutics.’
But only if ‘evangelical’ continues to mean something. The history of 20th century Protestantism is pretty much about groups that were formally (and often actually) evangelical moving away from that stance to embrace one form or other of liberalism, while splits and new groups were formed. I think this happened in England in the student world (SCM and the IVF), as well as in the background to the formation of Westminster Theological Seminary in the US (the ‘fundamentalist’ controversy). Nowadays the word ‘evangelical’ can denote more a cultural feel than a theological conviction. Didn’t the English group ‘Fulcrum’ take sides with a liberal bishop against an evangelical vicar and church planter in London?
Personally, I hope the Africans will continue to flex their spiritual muscle. The continued efforts to mollify the rich apostates of North America does nothing to help the work of the African churches, and often complicates it enormously via a vis Islam.