From the Journal:
The Canadian House of Bishops has approved a resolution recommending that the final text of the proposed Anglican Communion Covenant be presented for consideration to the General Synod meeting in June.
It stopped short, however, of recommending the adoption of the Covenant, after some members expressed the view that it was up to General Synod to make that determination.
Provinces of the Anglican Communion are being asked to consider adopting the Covenant, which has been recommended as a way of healing divisions triggered by debates over the issue of sexuality.
Distribution of the final text was delayed after the Anglican Consultative Council decided that a controversial section dealing with dispute resolution and which entities can sign on to the Covenant needed further review and revision. The Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion released the final draft last December.
The final draft now makes it “absolutely clear” that it is the “family of national churches and provinces, not dioceses” that can sign on to the Covenant, said the diocesan bishop of Ontario, George Bruce. Bishop Bruce chairs the Anglican Communion Working Group of the Anglican Church of Canada. Earlier there were concerns that the Covenant’s Section 4 was too ambiguous on the nature of church that it could include entities other than those who are members of the Anglican Communion.
In a short video posted on YouTube after the final draft’s release, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams said the Covenant is not a constitution “and it’s certainly not going to be a penal code for punishing people who don’t comply.”
Bishop Bruce also noted that the Canadian Anglican church’s concern over the tone of the Covenant has been addressed and it is now more “pastoral and relational.”The diocesan bishop of Niagara, Michael Bird, reiterated his diocese’s concern that the Covenant’s “central focus is the creation of a shared mind around particular issues.” He asked, “When has that been the central focus of the Anglican Church? What would this have meant for the ordination of women? Would we be celebrating the ordination of women if this Covenant was in place?”
Bishop Linda Nicholls, suffragan bishop of Toronto (Trent-Durham), asked whether the House of Bishops had the right to recommend the Covenant’s adoption. “We have no juridical authority. We will be prejudging what General Synod may want,” she said.
Archbishop Fred Hiltz, primate of the Anglican Church of Canada agreed, saying, “There’s no question we’re committed to consideration of the covenant. I do hear anxiety when people move to language of adoption… I plead we don’t rush this process. This is as far as we should go at this point.”
it is now more “pastoral and relational.”
This is code for “wishy washy” and, I fear, may be true.
“The final draft now makes it “absolutely clear” that it is the “family of national churches and provinces, not dioceses” that can sign on”
When it suits me “we are all in it together - no diocesan independence.”
Bp Michael Bird: “creation of a shared mind around particular issues.” He asked, “When has that been the central focus of the Anglican Church?”
When it doesn’t suit me, “we can all make up our own minds - dioceses are independent.”
Bish Bird has finally hit the hammer on the head with the nail.
“central focus is the creation of a shared mind around particular issues.” He asked, “When has that been the central focus of the Anglican Church? What would this have meant for the ordination of women? Would we be celebrating the ordination of women if this Covenant was in place?”
I just 5 minutes ago after considerable research I quoted scripture in an earlier stream. I do so again - with gleeful joy.
“For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope. Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus”
In fact now that I have calmed down abit I think the Bish is telling the truth. Whether or not we would today have WO is an unknown but What I do know, with or without WO had the decision been made with likemindedness we would not have had the schism we experienced. Going forward, with likemindedness we certainly would not be acknowledging and supporting sinners sins. And looking back it is my fervent contention, again with likemindedness, we would have NEVER experienced any schism and that includes the big one of 1056. What does all this mean?
NOTE TO OUR NEW DEAN, AND ALL THE ANGLICAN HOUSES OF BISHOPS, THE ABC AND ALL CLERGY WHO CALL THEMSELVES ANGLICAN. (Yes you to Brother Kieth)
Proposed: The body of Christ is not a democracy. Member Institutions are not Democratic.
Resolved? All motions, Edicts, Contracts, Ecclesiastical direction, Orders, Bulls, (oops) Articles, and Canons MUST be unanimous.
OK lets be fair, Rome wasn’t built in a day. - Italy was, but that’s another story. Lets soften my proposed resolution, to Synod motions alone. Can anyone direct me to understanding how to get a motion onto the floor of ANiC’s next (no doubt) wonderful annual Synod in Ottawa. If you are in agreement (likemindedness
) and have greater understanding of these things than I (that shouldn’t be to difficult) perhaps you could help. Wait I have an idea, Dear Blog Masters if YOU are in agreement how about an on Blog petition?
Stuck [#2],
I suspect it would have to go through your ANiC parish’s lay delegates.
I think we would have women’s ordination if the covenant had been in place, because it is possible to defend it biblically.
Am I correct in assuming that if everyone eventually becomes signatories to the Covenant, then the expectation is that we will then all be back in full communion with each other?
The more I understand what the Covent is, and what it is not, the more I am convinced that everyone, on both sides of the “issue”, will be able to sign on and continue along their present course with no substantial ramifications to either side, whatsoever. What a collossal waste of time.
For Stuck
As the Lay Secretary of Synod I can tell you that any member of the Synod is permitted to propose any motion that they wish. Of course it will be considered by the Resolutions Committee to make sure that the motion does not violate the Constitution and is in proper form. Synod members can send in a Notice of Motion at anytime prior to the Synod as long as it is moved and seconded by persons who are members of the Synod and will be present at the meeting. They can be sent to the Secretaries of Synod at registrar@anglicannetwork.ca.
Thank you Brian, any relation to my childhood Priest the Reverend Norman Ellis?
OK Synod Members - any three of you care to discuss this with me, my E-Mail is available from the Blog team. Obviously I’m not a Synod member and my current ANiC church plant hasn’t got one Yet either.
PS in addition to my proposition in #s 1&2 I would suggest that a synod motion have a three year shelf life if it doesn’t pass the first year (Unanimously of course) it goes for a year of prayerfull consideration, and is tabled at the next Synod. Failing that a small committee could be struck the numbers and persons based on and coinciding with the % of the failed vote. Could grapple and attempt a consensus if so they can then present there findings to the third synod. A third vote is taken if passed unanimously OK if Hung like the synod committee its destroyed. (the motion not the committee)
such as it is that’s what I have come up with to answer the scriptural call to likemindedness. God Bless
In #1, Stuck said:
If your proposed motion made it to Synod, but only received 99% approval, can I assume, in the interest of consistency, that you would consider it defeated?
#8 Not, nice try though.