Church Times questions wisdom of bishops' decision on Covenant
Last week the Church of England House of Bishops issued a "Summary of Decisions" in which in was revealed it wants quick and easy approval of the Anglican Covenant by the General Synod. (See our story, English bishops want quick action on Anglican Covenant.) Friday's Church Times lead editorial had this to say of the HoB proposal:
The records of the recent House of Bishops meeting, released this week, show that the House agreed not to propose special majorities when it comes to the vote in the General Synod. The decision is surprising, given the impact that the Covenant might have on the Church of England. Although the text contains no mechanical means whereby one province can influence the deliberations of another, it will obviously change matters to know that a decision might result in some form of severance from the Communion mainstream. This might not be a bad thing — greater responsiveness to each other is, after all, the object of the Covenant — but it will be a different thing.As matters now stand, the implications if a province decides not to endorse the Covenant are unknown. The Covenant Working Group concluded that, in such an eventuality, “there should be the flexibility for the Instruments of Communion to determine an appropriate response in the evolving situation.” In other words, the Anglican Consultative Council, the Primates’ Meeting, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and, if time drags on, the Lambeth Conference would have to make something up. The C of E is not any old province, however, and were it to reject the Covenant, it is hard to see the project surviving. At the very least, the Archbishop of Canterbury would find it hard to support the Covenant without the backing of his Church. As so much rests on the vote, a two-thirds majority in the Synod would provide a clearer endorsement.
It is interesting to note that the "controversial" resolutions of the 2009 GC were passed by with a 2/3's or more majority in the HoD without it being a requirement. It is also worthy of note that the HoB generated the final forms of these resolutions.
And yet we are excoriated for somehow foisting our position on the world.
Should the Synod not require a super majority for the Covenant, then it will forever be tainted as lacking more than minimal support. Should they not require it and still get more than 2/3 that would be a statement.
It is sad that the more than 2/3 support for the controversial resolutions at 2009 is hardly noted. At the time there was a lot of discussion about how it was achieved. Some believed that more progressives had just been elected to deputations (itself a telling conclusion), but others including me concluded that it was the middle making a statement to the conservatives after three years of conservative verbal abuse following the 2006 effort to lean into the Communion's purported posture.
What we should hope for now is that the relentless conservative tantrum will help form a progressive majority among clergy and laity in the Synod to reject any quick approval of the Covenant. The best of all worlds would be that they defeat it outright or deflect it for perpetual study. The Brits are good at this, just look at the process required for getting women accepted as bishops!
Posted by Michael Russell![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
July 6, 2010 2:54 PM
You make quite an interesting point, Michael: mandates are most impressive when they are not required, as in the landslide election victories where the victor has a clearly articulated platform and majority is all that is necessary to win.
In the case at hand, I've been complaining implicitly that the English HoB is advocating simple majority because it wasn't to have the best odds of the covenant winning. But there could be different motives at work. It could be that they sense that the covenant has 2/3rds support anyway and want the added boost to the covenant's chance in the communion would get from not requiring a supermajority, but getting it nonetheless.
My sense, though, is that the covenant would not win if 2/3rds was required, but it very well might win if only a majority is required. My reason for advocating 2/3rds is different from the once that the Church Times expresses.
Posted by John B. Chilton![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
July 6, 2010 3:07 PM