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.
Lichfield may be in a position to shift the momentum back in favour of the Covenanters. If they pass the necessary enabling resolution, theirs would be the first of the 23 approvals required - and supercede Wakefield's rejection as the "latest news."
It appears that the powers to be in Lichfield are determined to see a particular outcome. The only material provided by the diocese has been the unbalanced, pro-Covenant puff piece from Church House. The debate and vote will be proceded by an address by a prominent pro-Covenant evangelical, Bishop Graham Kings.
A total of one hour has been allotted to the Covenant debate - which includes Bishop Kings's address from the bully pulpit.
In other words, it has all the fairness of an election in [insert tin-pot dictatorship here].
Given the saintly first bishop of Lichfield and another recent example of unfair process, one is tempted to make a joke about hanging Chads.
I have blogged before about the structural unfairness of the Covenant debate to date, particularly in the Church of England. The No Anglican Covenant Coalition has issued a statement on the issue.
Wakefield has shown us what can happen when people are allowed a free, fair and open debate on the Covenant. All the more reason that I expect the Covenanters will continue to manipulate the process in a desperate attempt to prevent a real and honest discussion.
______________________________
.
It turns out that yet another diocese has already rebelled to the manipulative behaviour of the Covenanters.
.
Lesley's excellent blog has learned that the Bishop of Hereford tried to force through the Covenant without a proper debate or information.
.
It seems that Bishop Anthony Priddis tried to ram the Covenant through the diocesan synod there on March 5th - only to have synod members adjourn the debate until they can hear from more than just the Lambeth echo chamber perspective.
.
So that's three synods so far (Oxford, Hereford and Wakefield), and three failures by the Covenanters to sneak it through on a nod and a wink.
______________________________
.
Not surprisingly, the Covenant passed by a wide margin in Lichfield. The process was a complete joke.
.
Covenanter Andrew Goddard was given fully 20 minutes to make his case in favour of the Covenant. He did briefly reference some of the arguments against, but only to explain why he disagreed with them. Then another pro-Covenant speaker made a further presentation. That's 25 minutes of the 60 alloted already taken up before a single Covenant critic was allowed to speak - for only five minutes.
.
Afterwards, one or our English NACC colleagues received a frankly vicious email railing about her "interfering."
.
______________________________
.
Some clarification about Oxford. Apparently it wasn't a vote of the Oxford Synod, but of the Bishop's Council which rejected the idea of an immediate vote on the Covenant and instead insisted on a reference to the deanery synods for further discussion. I still count this as a winning skirmish - but in a different venue than I had been led to believe. Wouldn't it be nice if information were shared transparently?
.
Of course, this reflects the Machiavellian "transparency" of the Covenanters. When they win (as in Lichfield), there will be news releases and announcements on diocesan websites. When they lose (as in Wakefield, and to a lesser extend Hereford and Oxford) there will be official silence.
.
If Lesley Fellows beat Rowan Williams in a footrace, Lambeth Palace would say that Rowan came second and Lesley came second last.
No comments:
Post a Comment