Lichfield becomes the First English Diocese to Adopt Covenant

(Taken from Lesley's Blog)

Today, Lichfield voted on whether to accept the Anglican Covenant. The invited speaker, Bishop Graham Kings, could not attend the synod and so Andrew Goddard, who is also an avid supporter of the Anglican Covenant introduced the debate.

A motion was proposed to adjourn the debate and refer the Anglican Covenant to the deaneries. This was defeated, the voting figures after a re-count being:

For: 47
Against: 60
Abstentions: 2

A debate ensued that was longer than scheduled. Most people were happy with Sections 1-3 but there was concern about Section 4 because the language was of contract rather than covenant. However, the motion on the adoption of the Anglican Covenant was passed comfortably:

BISHOPS: For: 4; Against: 0; Abstain: 0
CLERGY: For: 39; Against: 11; Abstain: 1
LAITY: For: 57; Against: 9; Abstain: 1

Lichfield is the first English Diocese to adopt the Anglican Communion Covenant. To see the official announcement click HERE.

The Bishop of Lichfield, Jonathan Gledhill, is one of the most Conservative and is one of the six bishops who joins with the former Archbishop, George Carey to pronounce English Law to be anti-Christian because of the gay equality laws. Hence, perhaps this result was to be expected.

More News and Views on the English Dioceses

From Lesley's Blog:

I have already reported on what happened in Wakefield when they voted on the Covenant at Diocesan Synod on the 12th March. I hadn't realised that Hereford had been due to vote on the Covenant at Diocesan Synod on the 5th March. In the same way that I could find nothing on the Wakefield website, I can also find nothing on the Hereford website, although they have written an item on "Women Bishops - Join the Debate". Where is the debate about the Covenant? It is strange really, because it is such an important piece of legislation.

Read more HERE

The Simple Massing Priest reports:

With the usual balance and evenhandedness one might expect, the official website of the Diocese of Lichfield boasts that the diocese "could be the first in the Church of England to adopt the Anglican Covenant" when they vote on it tomorrow. 

Of course, the boast was predicated on the incorrect assumption that Lichfield would be the first to have any vote on the proposed Covenant. In fact, they appear to be third. 

But they could still be the first to pass it, because Oxford chose to refer the matter for further discussion at deanery synods, and Wakefield rejected the thing outright. 

Read more HERE

Wakefield diocese commentary

Andrew Brown from the Guardian reports:

The latest crop of side links in the blog have some fascinating things there, to which I don't have time to do justice. Perhaps the most important, or newsy, is the decision by the diocese of Wakefield to reject the proposed Anglican Covenant. If this is repeated across the rest of the Church of England's 44 dioceses, it will mark the final, crushing failure of Rowan Williams' foreign policy. Good riddance, too, say I. Although the general synod voted in favour of this, that was largely out of sympathy for the Archbishop, and to show that they at least take him seriously even if no one else now does. Out in the diocesan synods there is no sympathy vote and the whole absurd and cumbersome structure is considered on its merits.

And from Lesley's Blog:

I am both amazed and delighted that the Anglican Covenant was defeated in Wakefield. Some of us spent time scrabbling to get information about what happened. I didn't even know that the debate was happening. Some dioceses have lots of people who are part of our 'No Anglican Covenant' campaign, but Wakefield is certainly not one of them. I will have to visit the town when I am better to pay tribute, it has now been dubbed 'Wakeful'.

Read the rest HERE.

Wakefield diocese rejects Anglican Covenant

Press Release from Modern Church, Inclusive Church and the No Anglican Covenant Coalition


First English diocesan vote rejects Anglican Covenant

Modern Church, Inclusive Church and the No Anglican Covenant Coalition are pleased with the result of the first diocesan vote on the proposed Anglican Covenant.

Both clergy and laity (the latter overwhelmingly) rejected the Covenant at the Wakefield Diocesan Synod meeting on Saturday 12th March.

While recognising the need to avoid the bitter controversies of recent years, we are glad that this Synod does not believe the Covenant is the way to do it.

We believe we should retain the traditional Anglican openness in which provinces govern themselves and disagreements are resolved by openly debating the issues free from threats of sanctions or schism.

The proposed Anglican Covenant offers instead a process for suppressing disagreements by establishing a central authority, with power to pass judgements and penalise dissident provinces by excluding them from international structures.

We trust that other Church of England Dioceses will have the courage to follow Wakefield’s example.

Further information:
Rev Giles Goddard, 07762 373674, www.inclusivechurch2.net
Rev Jonathan Clatworthy, 0151 7276291, www.modernchurch.org.uk
Rev Lesley Fellows, 01844 239268, www.noanglicancovenant.org

A Liberal Makes the Conservative Case Against the Covenant

A debate of sorts was held at St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Sunday afternoon (13 March 2011). The Revd. Nathan A. Rugh, curate at nearby Calvary Episcopal Church, presented arguments against adoption of the Anglican Covenant. (I have discussed the event on my own blog.)

Rugh, an avowed liberal priest, told the audience that we was presenting a conservative case against the Covenant. His argument was that adoption of the Covenant would forever change the nature of Anglicanism. In particular, it would change our polity, our relationships, and our approach to theology.

Here are some excerpts from Rugh’s address:

The centralization of power in the Standing Committee created by the Covenant will make the Communion more strictly hierarchical. It will invest power mainly in bishops, who make up most of the Standing Committee’s members, and in the hand of bureaucrats in the Anglican Communion Office. There would be no one to appeal to beyond the Standing Committee, and its decision would become law. Our church’s democratic polity would be threatened as a result, as power is taken from the hands of laypeople and rank-and-file clergy, and moved into the hands of bishops.
…
Moreover, the Covenant could weaken the bonds of affection internally within the member churches themselves. Inevitably, local disagreements will be easily internationalized and harder to resolve. Forces within a member church will ultimately appeal to the Communion level for resolution, and thus appeal to a political process more than to mutual care and regard. The Covenant grew out of such an appeal following the Episcopal Church’s decision to consecrate the Rev. Gene Robinson. The Covenant has the potential to make such appeals a regular and disruptive feature of our common life.
…
As a result, Anglican theology is often messy. We disagree a lot and we always have. We don’t have ready-made answers or assurances beyond our reliance on Scripture and the Creeds, the Tradition, and our God-given minds. And all of these things need to be interpreted. There is no system or final arbiter for a right answer. This side of the eschaton, “we look through a glass darkly.” And yet, we have survived and thrived because of this fact. We should be astounded by the resiliency of Anglicanism. Its comprehensiveness and its ability to deal with profound disagreement are nothing short of a miracle. Our theological heritage has enabled us to hold on to our ways, or to return to our ways when we have fallen astray, while at the same time, allowing us to respond to new ways and new contexts. We should be looking to export it, not dismiss it.

You can find a link to Rugh’s whole talk here on the No Anglican Covenant Web site.

A Conservative Thumbs-down

David Phillips, general secretary of Church Society, has written a very negative essay about the Anglican Covenant, calling it “a waste of time.” Many readers of this blog will find Phillips’ opinions irritating, but he is honest about his views and forthright in his analysis. He finds the doctrinal statements of the Covenant weak—he would prefer something along the lines of the Jerusalem Declaration—and he is clear in his opposition to the centralization of authority that an active Covenant would bring about. He declares that “we do not want an Anglican Papacy or Inquisition.”

You can access Phillips’ unimaginatively named essay “The Anglican Covenant” on the No Anglican Covenant Web site here.

New Documents from Modern Church

The Modern Church Web site has had a good collection of material opposed to the adoption of the Anglican Covenant. It has now added a section of resources for use by Covenant opponents within the Church of England. Especially notable among the new materials is an 8-page essay by Jonathan Clatworthy titled “The case against the Anglican Covenant.” Besides giving yet another Covenant history, Clatworthy places the Covenant in the context of competing philosophies, which is helpful for understanding what is at stake in the Covenant debate, not only within the Church of England, but in other Anglican churches as well.

The new Modern Church documents have been added to the Resources page on the No Anglican Covenant Web site beginning here.