Updated Monday
A following motion is being proposed in a number of diocesan synods where the Anglican Covenant is being debated. The latest wording of this is as follows:
A following motion to the Article 8 reference of the Anglican Covenant
Version five:
‘This Diocesan Synod, following the reference from the General Synod of the draft Act of Synod adopting the Anglican Communion Covenant, requests the General Synod to debate the following motion:
“That this Synod:
(a) rejoice in the fellowship of the world-wide Anglican Communion, which is rooted in our shared worship and held together by bonds of affection and our common appeal to Scripture, tradition and reason;
(b) thank the Archbishop of Canterbury for his tireless efforts throughout the Communion to sustain and strengthen unity in difficult times; and
(c) call on the House of Bishops:
(i) to find ways to maintain and reinforce strong links across the world-wide Anglican Communion and to deepen the Church of England’s involvement with the existing Communion ministries and networks (especially the continuing Indaba process);
(ii) to publicise and promote this work within the dioceses of the Church of England in order to broaden understanding of, and enthusiasm for, the Anglican Communion; and
(iii) to encourage a wide understanding of, and support for, the next Lambeth Conference.” ’
Update
So far this motion has been passed in Bath & Wells, Chelmsford, Worcester, and with some amendments, also in Southwark.
It is scheduled for debate in St Albans, Chester, Oxford, Guildford, Exeter, and London.
I find this attempt to influence this debate a rather sneaky back door approach to forcing something down our throats. This is not a transparent process is it?
Brilliant idea, clearly allowing one to affirm that the Covenant is far from “the only way forward.”
Version six:
…all of the above; and
iv) vote against the Anglican Communion Covenant as being unnecessary in the light of all of the above.
I can support this following motion!
As long as it is going to be “Scriptures, Tradition and Reason” it should be okay. I object to “Scriptures Only” because it produces a bunch of people who can’t think.
Is this a recognition of a vote lost already, or something so Machiavellian it relies on double bluffs. Whatever, the voting is entirely unpredictable until each is in. There is no consensus, rather chaos (in the mathematical tipping point sense).
At last! An intentional motion for solidarity with Communion Provinces that want to be together in the outreach of the Gospel – with no strings attached.
Much, Much better than the Covenant Proposal!
Is it possible that we could forbid all of our TEC bishops from attending Lambeth, until this “covenant” is defeated, or the AC spun into a meaningless RC-lite? We only give credence to the spurious and self-aggrandizing claims of Canterbury and Co. by attending. Treat it as it is: a tea party that no one loses by missing. Remind Rowan, and his successor, that he is nothing beyond “just another bishop.” Frankly, the more I’ve seen of the CofE, the more uneasy I am being associated with an institution so lacking in lay-direction, especially when it such a network of… Read more »