Christian Today Takes The Low Road

In his article in Christianity Today, John Martin uses the vote dishonestly. He writes, "With the vote at well over two-thirds in favour and near unanimous support by the Bishops (all voted for with one abstention) the odds of the Covenant faltering now seem remote." In fact the vote was not on an approval of the Covenant but on a motion to send it to the diocese.

There can be any number of reasons a delegate voted yes on the motion. The comments before the vote and many after, make it cleat that some voted yes merely to express loyalty to the archbishops, others for the covenant, still others because they believe the diocese should have an opportunity to discuss and vote.

Martin rather arrogantly ignores the vote of the GafCon primates which was on a resolution that says they won't attend the next Primates meeting and do not approve of the proposed covenant. At the moment, were the proposed covenant approved by the Church of England, it would mean full fellowship with Mexico and no one else. In fact I think fellowship with Mexico is important. But to suggest it will make the Church of England credible in Roman Catholic eyes is not a stretch, it is a fantasy.

Martin falls into three errors: he simply assumes the English diocese do not matter; he ignores the content of the motion and he (arrogantly) assumes all the national churches will follow the English bishops. In fact as both liberal and conservative churches have already demonstrated not a lot of other member churches are going to blindly follow.

The manifold benefits Martin claims will come from the synod vote are ethereal.


FWIW
jimB