![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
One of the items (only one of them) that seems to be dividing Anglicans nowadays is the proposed Anglican Covenant. The website of the No Anglican Covenant organisation has all the resources you will need were you to be interested in this subject. If you do a search on "no anglican covenant", however, the first item that comes up is an ad (obviously paid for by someone) directing you to a website which sums up the arguments in favour of it. I wonder who paid for it.
In any case, the history behind the proposal of the covenant begins with the election and consecration of the Rt Rev'd Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire in 2003, Various segments of the worldwide group of churches taking their heritage from the Church of England were upset that an openly-gay man should have been consecrated a Bishop of the Church of God, and threatened to leave that group, which is called the Anglican Communion.
In addition, the Diocese of New Westminster, in British Columbia, Canada, voted to permit the church blessing of same-sex unions. This just added to the upset among more conservative churches.
In 2008, Bishop Gene Robinson, uniquely among the world's active Anglican bishops, was not invited to the decennial Lambeth Conference, held in Canterbury by the Archbishop of Canterbury. He came to England anyway, and hovered around the edges of the conference, blogging about his experiences. Not inviting Bishop Gene generated more publicity than he would have gotten had he been formally invited to attend. Many of the more conservative provinces and bishops refused to attend anyway.
In 2004, the Archbishop of Canterbury set up a panel to create a document to which all the Anglican Communion churches would be invited to assent. The first three sections of this four-sectioned document were relatively uncontroversial, detailing a peculiarly Anglican version of Christianity, how the various churches are bound together, and defining the Communion. However, the fourth section asserts that Anglicans must take into account the views of fellow Anglicans in other provinces before making innovations or changes in their own method of governance or doctrines. This would have prevented openly lesbian and gay clergy from being ordained or consecrated in the United States, and it would have prevented women from being ordained or consecrated in any of the provinces which now allow this. It is aimed at keeping the Communion together, but a more conservative group of churches has already separated itself from the Communion and refused to sign up. In the Episcopal Church in the United States, the committee that runs the church in between the triennial meetings of its legislative body, General Convention, has recommended that the Covenant not be adopted. The synods (church legislatures) of the church in New Zealand/Aotearoa have voted against it and their national synod is apt to follow suit.
So there is a very mixed picture, although six churches have indeed voted for it so far, they range from the Church of the Southern Cone (of South America) to the Anglican province of Mexico.
Currently, the Covenant is being voted on by the dioceses of the Church of England. There are 44 of these, and at least 23 must vote for it in order for it to continue to the next stage, adoption by General Synod.
The Covenant is in trouble here, however. So far, 17 dioceses have voted against adoption, 10 have voted in favour, and 17 are yet to vote. The Archbishop of Canterbury has put up a YouTube video of himself telling people why they should vote in favour, titling it "Why the Covenant Matters.
I am a member of Southwark Diocesan Synod, and we voted on the Covenant last Saturday. To no one's surprise, we voted against it by majorities among the clergy and laity, while the two bishops split, our Diocesan Bishop in favour and the suffragan Bishop of Kingston abstaining.
Now, why does this matter? What the Archbishop has done is made a rod for his own back by pushing the Covenant. It may be that he could not conceive of a situation where the Church of England would turn against him. Identifying himself with the Covenant has ensured that if 5 more dioceses vote against in the next two months, not only will the Covenant be dead for the next 5 years or so, but his own position will be fatally weakened.
Several newspapers have published rumours that the Archbishop would resign this year in order to return to academe, where his heart truly lies. He will be 62 this spring, and will have several years (perhaps 5) in which to occupy a chair at a university before he'll retire for good. My question is this: if the Covenant is rejected in the dioceses, will that make him loth to resign this year, as it will look like we are pushing him out? Or will he then soldier on for a few more years?
The appointment of the Archbishops of Canterbury revolves around the decennial Lambeth Conferences, normally held in years ending in "8". Each Archbishop needs a few years (up to 5) to prepare for the conference, and then a few years to decompress afterwards and establish his legacy. If the Archbishop were to go for 8 more years, as he is legally entitled to, he will be an exhausted, whipped Archbishop in the run-up to the Lambeth Conference of 2018, leaving his successor a longer-than-usual period before his own Lambeth Conference. A younger Archbishop will have to be chosen, then, in order to ensure that he will last through 2028.
This schedule also ensures that Archbishop of York John Sentamu, who is almost exactly a year older than Archbishop Williams, will not be able to succeed him comfortably. He will be 69 at the date of the next Lambeth Conference, and will be a bit too old to be effective at it.
The other consequence of a possible rejection is that the Church of England's Primate, Archbishop Williams, will not bring his own province into the Covenant and thus he will be outside of it while exercising authority within it. That's absurd.
So we await each successive Saturday; there are 5 dioceses scheduled to vote next week: Norwich, Liverpool, St Albans, Chester, and Ely. The 24th of March will see 6 dioceses voting: Lincoln, Oxford, Blackburn, Exeter, Guildford, and Peterborough. London votes on the 29th, Manchester on the 31st, and Southwell & Nottingham, Chichester, Newcastle, and finally York vote in April. There will be a lot of lobbying during this period. However, if 5 vote no, we will be in uncharted territory, and the Archbishop of Canterbury will be weakened in his office, which is not desirable. It's his own fault, though.
In any case, the history behind the proposal of the covenant begins with the election and consecration of the Rt Rev'd Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire in 2003, Various segments of the worldwide group of churches taking their heritage from the Church of England were upset that an openly-gay man should have been consecrated a Bishop of the Church of God, and threatened to leave that group, which is called the Anglican Communion.
In addition, the Diocese of New Westminster, in British Columbia, Canada, voted to permit the church blessing of same-sex unions. This just added to the upset among more conservative churches.
In 2008, Bishop Gene Robinson, uniquely among the world's active Anglican bishops, was not invited to the decennial Lambeth Conference, held in Canterbury by the Archbishop of Canterbury. He came to England anyway, and hovered around the edges of the conference, blogging about his experiences. Not inviting Bishop Gene generated more publicity than he would have gotten had he been formally invited to attend. Many of the more conservative provinces and bishops refused to attend anyway.
In 2004, the Archbishop of Canterbury set up a panel to create a document to which all the Anglican Communion churches would be invited to assent. The first three sections of this four-sectioned document were relatively uncontroversial, detailing a peculiarly Anglican version of Christianity, how the various churches are bound together, and defining the Communion. However, the fourth section asserts that Anglicans must take into account the views of fellow Anglicans in other provinces before making innovations or changes in their own method of governance or doctrines. This would have prevented openly lesbian and gay clergy from being ordained or consecrated in the United States, and it would have prevented women from being ordained or consecrated in any of the provinces which now allow this. It is aimed at keeping the Communion together, but a more conservative group of churches has already separated itself from the Communion and refused to sign up. In the Episcopal Church in the United States, the committee that runs the church in between the triennial meetings of its legislative body, General Convention, has recommended that the Covenant not be adopted. The synods (church legislatures) of the church in New Zealand/Aotearoa have voted against it and their national synod is apt to follow suit.
So there is a very mixed picture, although six churches have indeed voted for it so far, they range from the Church of the Southern Cone (of South America) to the Anglican province of Mexico.
Currently, the Covenant is being voted on by the dioceses of the Church of England. There are 44 of these, and at least 23 must vote for it in order for it to continue to the next stage, adoption by General Synod.
The Covenant is in trouble here, however. So far, 17 dioceses have voted against adoption, 10 have voted in favour, and 17 are yet to vote. The Archbishop of Canterbury has put up a YouTube video of himself telling people why they should vote in favour, titling it "Why the Covenant Matters.
I am a member of Southwark Diocesan Synod, and we voted on the Covenant last Saturday. To no one's surprise, we voted against it by majorities among the clergy and laity, while the two bishops split, our Diocesan Bishop in favour and the suffragan Bishop of Kingston abstaining.
Now, why does this matter? What the Archbishop has done is made a rod for his own back by pushing the Covenant. It may be that he could not conceive of a situation where the Church of England would turn against him. Identifying himself with the Covenant has ensured that if 5 more dioceses vote against in the next two months, not only will the Covenant be dead for the next 5 years or so, but his own position will be fatally weakened.
Several newspapers have published rumours that the Archbishop would resign this year in order to return to academe, where his heart truly lies. He will be 62 this spring, and will have several years (perhaps 5) in which to occupy a chair at a university before he'll retire for good. My question is this: if the Covenant is rejected in the dioceses, will that make him loth to resign this year, as it will look like we are pushing him out? Or will he then soldier on for a few more years?
The appointment of the Archbishops of Canterbury revolves around the decennial Lambeth Conferences, normally held in years ending in "8". Each Archbishop needs a few years (up to 5) to prepare for the conference, and then a few years to decompress afterwards and establish his legacy. If the Archbishop were to go for 8 more years, as he is legally entitled to, he will be an exhausted, whipped Archbishop in the run-up to the Lambeth Conference of 2018, leaving his successor a longer-than-usual period before his own Lambeth Conference. A younger Archbishop will have to be chosen, then, in order to ensure that he will last through 2028.
This schedule also ensures that Archbishop of York John Sentamu, who is almost exactly a year older than Archbishop Williams, will not be able to succeed him comfortably. He will be 69 at the date of the next Lambeth Conference, and will be a bit too old to be effective at it.
The other consequence of a possible rejection is that the Church of England's Primate, Archbishop Williams, will not bring his own province into the Covenant and thus he will be outside of it while exercising authority within it. That's absurd.
So we await each successive Saturday; there are 5 dioceses scheduled to vote next week: Norwich, Liverpool, St Albans, Chester, and Ely. The 24th of March will see 6 dioceses voting: Lincoln, Oxford, Blackburn, Exeter, Guildford, and Peterborough. London votes on the 29th, Manchester on the 31st, and Southwell & Nottingham, Chichester, Newcastle, and finally York vote in April. There will be a lot of lobbying during this period. However, if 5 vote no, we will be in uncharted territory, and the Archbishop of Canterbury will be weakened in his office, which is not desirable. It's his own fault, though.
