tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-51085503035710336002024-03-13T10:04:03.326+00:00Not the same streamAspects of Anglicanism
~ and in favour of direct lay elections to SynodPaul Bagshawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17694279608748668806noreply@blogger.comBlogger638125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5108550303571033600.post-35852782814369497132013-01-27T21:11:00.000+00:002013-01-27T21:14:15.776+00:00Habitual worship and sufficient causeThere are two phrases of deliberate ambiguity in the rules for eligibility to be on the electoral roll: that someone is a 'habitual worshipper', or that they would have been unless prevented by illness of other 'sufficient cause'.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">(I am indebted to <a href="http://cornerstonebarristers.com/barrister/david-lamming/" target="_blank">David Lamming</a> for sending me his discussion of questions around the Electoral Roll in the <i>Ecclesiastical Law Journal, </i>8, 2006. It barely needs saying that I, not he, am responsible for this post and its proposals.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">And it's taken me a while to prepare this post, though I know it's not an important question in itself. It's just a couple more aspects of the wobbliness of the foundations of the whole lay electoral process in the Church.)</span><br />
<br />
<b>The rules</b><br />
For those who wish to be on a church's electoral roll there is no problem if they live in the parish, are 16 or over, and are baptised. Then they just say they're a member of the CofE and all is well. Actual attendance is not required.<br />
<br />
If they don't live in the parish, however, then they can be on the roll if they:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://www.heritagebooks.org/products/A-Habitual-Sight-of-Him%3A-The-Christ%252dCentered-Piety-of-Thomas-Goodwin.html" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://cdn1.bigcommerce.com/server2500/cb550/products/2973/images/3055/habitual_front__18033__88878.1294354106.1280.1280.jpg" width="128" /></a>have habitually attended public worship in the parish during a period of six months prior to enrolment; <a href="http://www.churchofengland.org/about-us/structure/churchlawlegis/church-representation-rules/part-i.aspx#ba0" target="_blank">Church Representation Rules 1(2)(b)</a></blockquote>
And it is possible, even desirable, to remove someone from the roll if he or she<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
is not resident in the parish and has not habitually attended public worship in the parish during the preceding six months, not having been prevented from doing so by illness or other sufficient cause; <a href="http://www.churchofengland.org/about-us/structure/churchlawlegis/church-representation-rules/part-i.aspx#ba0" target="_blank">Church Representation Rules 9(e)</a></blockquote>
<b>In praise of ambiguity</b><br />
Politically, I think such ambiguity is a good thing. Both phrases effectively allow the individual member to decide for themselves whether they think they fit the criteria to be a member.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
That is, <i>I may not live in the parish but I think of myself as a member of St Olaf's because I attend regularly by habit or choice. But I haven't been able to attend for very good reasons. </i><i><br /></i>
Even if this means: <i>Every other year I attend Midnight Mass. And if I've ever missed one of those it's been for the excellent reason that, after an excellent night in the pub, I'd been too drunk to make it.</i><br />
It also strikes me that the fact of having left the parish may mean that it is itself sufficient cause for not attending: <i>I would worship at </i><i>St Olaf's, but now that I've moved away it's too far to travel.</i></blockquote>
<b>How we got to 'habitual' worship</b><br />
A lot of thought went into what the minimum test of entry onto the Church Electoral Roll should be when it was debated in 1968. The options were:<br />
<ul>
<li>Baptised</li>
<li>Confirmed (or 'communicant status')</li>
<li>Habitual worshipper</li>
<li>Actual communicant </li>
</ul>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii278/angelolopez/church_0001.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="220" src="http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii278/angelolopez/church_0001.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 12.499999046325684px; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2008/12/a_year_back_in_church.html" target="_blank">Angelo Lopez</a>; not especially relevant<br />
but I liked it.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
All these were in use for some or other aspect of church life.<br />
<br />
The Clergy were in favour of 'communicant' or 'communicant status' as the test, but neither the Bishops or the Laity agreed. In the end 'habitual worshipper' became the test, probably because it entailed some minimal degree of visible participation in the life of a church while being as broad as possible.<br />
<br />
I guess similar debate surrounded what 'sufficient cause' meant - but I don't recall reading about it.<br />
<br />
<b>But the problem with ambiguity ...</b><br />
Legally, of course, ambiguity is both the bread and butter of a lawyer's work - and an immortal dragon to be slain ceaselessly.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://disambiguation.bandcamp.com/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="185" src="http://f0.bcbits.com/z/18/60/1860921628-1.png" width="200" /></a></div>
If these ambiguous phrases are to be resolved by a legal process then someone other than the person themselves is being asked to determine what 'habitual' might mean, and what would constitute a sufficient cause for not attending, Such determination should apply to everyone affected, equally, and should be clearly understandable by the long lost traveller on the Clapham omnibus. Where there is doubt, judges, not the individual, will decide what the words mean.<br />
<br />
But the root of the ambiguity is intractable. The Church is historically and, in some aspects, legally the church for the whole population unless they actively dissociate themselves. In practice the Church of England is (and has been since 1828) increasingly a membership body. Ambiguity holds the two ideas together - and it will only be resolved by the CofE being disestablished.<br />
<br />
<b>The threat of legal challenge</b><br />
The spectre of legal challenge to is consistently raised when changes to voting processes are mooted. This can only be to try to frighten people off the grass. A) The risk is already present, B) those who foresee such a possibility should be in the forefront of seeking change to reduce the risk, C) there is already an appeal process in place which is either unused or is effective in resolving disputes, and D) what are the odds?<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.ambergristoday.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/page_full/image/election-fraud-belize-rural-south-01.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="134" src="http://www.ambergristoday.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/page_full/image/election-fraud-belize-rural-south-01.jpg" width="200" /></a>I learn from David Lamming's article that the only court case he found was <i>Stuart v Haughley Parochial Church Council</i> in 1935. One case since 1919 is, perhaps, one too many - but it shouldn't strain the insurance too far.<br />
<br />
However the case is no help in resolving our ambiguities. Edmund Stuart and nine others were excluded by the vicar from membership of the electoral roll on no legal basis whatsoever - merely because they did not contribute to or support the church. Stuart was over 16, baptised and resident in the parish. The vicar was obdurate to the point of stupidity and refused to accept what he was told. He lost.<br />
<br />
And, when it comes to challenges, it would be interesting to know how often the Diocesan appeal triumvirates (<a href="http://www.churchofengland.org/about-us/structure/churchlawlegis/church-representation-rules/part-vi.aspx#ba43" target="_blank">Church Representation Rules 43-45</a>) have been invoked and on what issues. My guess would be 'rarely', but you never know.<br />
<br />
<b>Not legal precision, guidelines</b><br />
Now, I'm sure it's not beyond legal wit to reduce the uncertainty of meaning of 'habitual' and 'sufficient cause'. It would also be possible to set a fairly high threshold before legal action was permitted. But I suggest that seeking to tighten the law is probably unhelpful.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRUrstpANRexV0iqgq5rWagllmnJ6y2GBzfW5gns2DiCSct1SFATw" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="184" src="https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRUrstpANRexV0iqgq5rWagllmnJ6y2GBzfW5gns2DiCSct1SFATw" width="200" /></a></div>
For a lot of church life 'guidelines' are preferred to law (or to explicate law). Simply because the ambiguity behind these two phrases reflects a fundamental ambiguity in the identity of the CofE, I propose that guidelines would be the appropriate degree of formality with which to address these uncertainties (and perhaps others). They would also be available to assist Electoral Roll Officers in doing their job conscientiously.<br />
<br />
Guidelines could, for example, suggest possible tests for what 'habitual' worship might be, and what could constitute 'sufficient cause' for not worshipping habitually (without actually defining the terms since that would trample on the legislation). They would not be binding but there would be a presumption that they would be a starting point when considering a disputed case.<br />
<br />
<br />
They could also be supplemented by case guidance (as a lesser version of case law), contributed by the Diocesan appeal committees. In turn, this cumulative body of experience may help the Diocesan appeal committees maintain consistency nationally.<br />
<br />
Such guidelines would probably interest very few people but they might help both Electoral Roll Officers and potential complainants. (And if they already exist, please forgive my ignorance.)<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b><i>Or...</i>.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Or, we could take an altogether new look at what might constitute membership of the CofE. That wouldn't resolve everything but it might open up a whole new set of questions - perhaps in another post.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; font-weight: bold;">One member</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; font-weight: bold;"> : </span><span style="color: red; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; font-weight: bold;">One vote</span></div>
<br />
<div>
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Paul Bagshawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17694279608748668806noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5108550303571033600.post-52147794005195491432013-01-16T22:10:00.003+00:002013-01-16T22:16:28.637+00:00What does it mean to discern the will of God by vote in General Synod?It's not my place to comment of the forthcoming meeting of the House of Laity concerned with the chairmanship of Dr. Phillip Giddens. (I'm ordained, not a member of Synod, and wasn't there.)<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://m.gmgrd.co.uk/sbres/457.$plit/C_67_article_2125432_body_articleblock_0_bodyimage.jpg?10%2F12%2F2012%2008%3A16%3A18%3A888" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://m.gmgrd.co.uk/sbres/457.$plit/C_67_article_2125432_body_articleblock_0_bodyimage.jpg?10%2F12%2F2012%2008%3A16%3A18%3A888" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Dr Phillip Giddings</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
But it has caused a fine brouhaha. See <a href="http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/" target="_blank">Thinking Anglicans</a> (not least the comments): <a href="http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/005789.html" target="_blank">2 Dec,</a> <a href="http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/005807.html" target="_blank">10 Dec</a>, <a href="http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/005838.html" target="_blank">19 Dec</a>, <a href="http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/005864.html" target="_blank">9 Jan</a>, <a href="http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/005866.html" target="_blank">11 Jan</a>, <a href="http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/005873.html" target="_blank">15 Jan</a>.<br />
<br />
I first took note of Dr Giddings' name as I was trawling through the records of General Synod. Now this was some time ago, and I can't remember the context nor the subject matter. But I remember being struck because whatever position Dr Giddings was asserting at the time he backed it by a claim that it was the will of God. I think he was the first, and one of very few, to have done so in Synod's history.<br />
<br />
Dr Giddings knows his mind. He is firm in his views and has been passionately partisan. But to claim to know the will of God - even if spelled out in Gospel words - is inherently destructive of synodical government.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnNm7eF-jMu8rFGlk_A42DB_TzyMJelmGq1lGrlQo9FVYT_XVIklL7gUxpshIndXtFfX41Cy-A_usV7iMN86ZxR8rn8-GV31Y-BwWXDSj04kV4Y-X0uRp1P56u_92Bb_xrxXjGlp34_EhJ/s640/Rock-Paper-Scissors-SettleLikeAdults.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="135" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnNm7eF-jMu8rFGlk_A42DB_TzyMJelmGq1lGrlQo9FVYT_XVIklL7gUxpshIndXtFfX41Cy-A_usV7iMN86ZxR8rn8-GV31Y-BwWXDSj04kV4Y-X0uRp1P56u_92Bb_xrxXjGlp34_EhJ/s200/Rock-Paper-Scissors-SettleLikeAdults.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
Synodical government is government by council and counsel. Its foundation is that devout and faithful Christians seek the will of God collectively. It presupposes that all members are faithful Christians, that they disagree in their collective task, and that any answer to the question in front of them is always provisional. Uncertainty and transience, mutual regard and (party) politics are built into the process from its foundation stones.<br />
<br />
To declare <i>this is the will of the Lord </i>in such a context and process is simply destructive. It is a claim to authority that can only be accepted or dismissed. It to assert that the speaker has privileged access to the mind of God and that anyone who disagrees is faithless or worse. It is the antithesis of taking counsel together.<br />
<br />
<i>Second,</i><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">(Oh dear. My second point appears to have been taken from me between starting this blog and getting to this point. The page on Anglican Mainstream <a href="http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2013/01/16/house-of-laity-meeting-on-friday-january-18-2/" target="_blank">which was here</a> now seems to have been taken down. Nonetheless...)</span><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/wp-content/uploads/Sutcliffe%20Tom.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/wp-content/uploads/Sutcliffe%20Tom.jpg" width="150" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Tom Sutcliffe</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
The missing page quoted Tom Sutcliffe asking<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Do we as a Church really believe that obedience to the majority at any given time is an important part of our faith? </blockquote>
He goes on to cite noble examples of people who stood out against the prevailing consensus - as if that were sufficient to show we should answer 'no way' to his question.<br />
<br />
But I wish to answer 'yes', at least in the terms set out above.<br />
<br />
In practice synodical government is about majority votes. When Synod concludes an issue by such a vote then (any subsequent processes permitting) that decision is the settled view of the Church. Minority and dissenting opinions are permitted and expected. But it is the majority vote which, in effect, declares that <i>x </i>is the belief of the Church - on that particular issue, within the jurisdiction of the Church of England, and until a different majority vote takes place.<br />
<br />
The underlying question is: <i>what does it mean to discern the will of God?</i><br />
<br />
The underlying dissonance is that 'the will of God', 'truth' (and sometimes 'faith') are conceived in absolute terms: <i>x </i>is either the will of God or it isn't - there is no middle ground, no shades of grey, there is no need for debate nor any right to one. Therefore voting (and politics, and all that accompanies it) is seen as grubby, inferior, even wrong in matters of belief. In this perspective church politics is the evidence and symptom of our lack of faith.<br />
<i><br /></i>
But (even accepting these categories) it remains the case that all knowledge of God is mediated through human beings. And, as God is inherently so much more than humanity, such knowledge is always partial, contingent, self-interested, small. None of us can definitively know the mind of God.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://fiveprinciples.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/the-way-forward.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://fiveprinciples.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/the-way-forward.jpg" width="134" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Fill in the blanks, but<br />
use a washable ink.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Alternatively, we could celebrate these characteristics. We are as God made us - knowing his creation, knowing God and God's love and judgement revealed in the life, ministry and teaching of Jesus, and always trapped in our own limitations of knowledge, circumstances, hopes and the inability to see what will happen tomorrow.<br />
<br />
Together - making a virtue of all that divides us - we have some chance that our collective discernment may be better (by any criteria) than the discernment of one individual or party.<br />
<br />
But howsoever good it might be (and I don't know how you would judge in the abstract) any discernment remains characterised by the constraints of the people who took the decision: inevitably local, limited, transient and cast in the presuppositions of its times.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Paul Bagshawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17694279608748668806noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5108550303571033600.post-54650983508913849292013-01-12T21:38:00.001+00:002013-01-12T21:38:36.129+00:00The legitimacy of General SynodIt's a funny thing, legitimacy. Very slippery and hard to pin down.<br />
<br />
At its simplest General Synod is entirely legitimate because the <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukcm/1969/2" target="_blank">Synodical Government Measure</a>, 1969, as amended, says it is.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.reconciliation.org.au/getfile?id=1035&file=5.2+Achieve+accountability.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://www.reconciliation.org.au/getfile?id=1035&file=5.2+Achieve+accountability.JPG" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">From <a href="http://www.reconciliation.org.au/governance/the-business-of-governing-organisations/5-2-accountability--what-kind--for-whom--and-how" target="_blank">Reconciliation Australia</a>,<br />
looking at difficult issues of<br />
governance with majority<br />
and indigenous communities</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
But this isn't enough. legitimacy also requires that people believe in the Synod. It must have credibility - which is an equally difficult thing to encapsulate. Two groups of people in particular need to believe in it - church members and the media.<br />
<br />
When all works well legitimacy, credibility, confidence and authority come together and are mutually reinforcing. When things go badly, the wheels come off and the whole kit and caboodle is scattered to the winds.<br />
<br />
And the fact is that for almost all the time things can't go well because Synod is always dealing with changes, improvements, alterations, repairs - and always in the context of uncertainty and conflict. It is always necessary to work on remaining legitimate, credible.<br />
<br />
Legitimacy is never a given. It is always a process, a relationship constantly being made and re-made by perceptions, actions, consequences. It looks different depending on the perspective of the viewer. It can look different day to day depending, for example, what hits the headlines and how. It inevitably looks different from inside than it does from without.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4RSpwJQfcmh8u7d3KZeM7qBuEAwKh_5KKBoKAHVkJTG1av9q74DIzGr-eDx7ii-WAuVu_TC2S0euyvCXVaajB_5hLLc6tbthq8IRSbyCxdmgneUrGjbHJjDX3liqZcYe4iqH3CcCl8jg9/s1600/divided-church.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4RSpwJQfcmh8u7d3KZeM7qBuEAwKh_5KKBoKAHVkJTG1av9q74DIzGr-eDx7ii-WAuVu_TC2S0euyvCXVaajB_5hLLc6tbthq8IRSbyCxdmgneUrGjbHJjDX3liqZcYe4iqH3CcCl8jg9/s1600/divided-church.jpg" width="161" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">A church divided <br />
against itself cannot stand</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The vote on women bishops was perceived to weaken the legitimacy of the Synod, and in particular of the House of Laity, because:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<ul>
<li>the vote in the House of Laity did not mirror the vote in the dioceses,</li>
<li>this is a contentious and emotional issue where clear leadership is both desired and scarcely possible,</li>
<li>there are background weaknesses in the House of Laity, </li>
<li>the vote played into a pre-existing media narrative that the Church is confused/incompetent/outdated/obsessed with sex <i>(delete, or add, as appropriate)</i>, and</li>
<li>for the great majority of Church members it was the wrong result.</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
This will pass. But the vote will also add a significant weight to the sense of unease with the present arrangements <a href="http://notthesamestream.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/lets-have-review-gs-debate-on.html" target="_blank">articulated in the 2011 debate</a> on changing the voting system for lay members of Synod.<br />
<br />
<b>No quick fixes</b><br />
Faced with this debacle there was an understandable urge to find a quick fix, to short-circuit the rules. Perhaps Parliament, or the House of Bishops, or someone should take the decision anyway. The wrong decision was taken therefore someone else must make the right decision.<br />
<br />
But to do so would be fatal to the legitimacy of Synod. The present vote can be overturned by a later, constitutional, vote. But if ever it is made clear that the process and substance of a vote can be over-ruled by some other body or mechanism, then the credibility of the Synod as an organ of government is immediately undermined. Why bother with Synod if Parliament is the route to get things changed? The votes of Synod are vacuous if Bishops have the capacity to reverse anything they don't like. No-one could trust the process again.<br />
<br />
<b>One member, one vote </b><br />
One member, one vote would not resolve the legitimacy of the House of Laity or General Synod. Nor would it guarantee that General Synod never came to decisions that were out of tune with majority opinion in the pews.<br />
<br />
But I believe that it would add considerable weight to the legitimacy of the House of Laity. Its members would be chosen by and more closely represent the whole lay community of the church. Their standing would be greater in proportion to the greater breadth of the electorate. The basis on which they represent the laity would be clear and easy to explain and understand.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.daad.org.uk/imperia/md/content/london/picsdaadlondonteam/keep_in_touch.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="187" src="http://www.daad.org.uk/imperia/md/content/london/picsdaadlondonteam/keep_in_touch.png" width="200" /></a></div>
<b>More would still be needed</b><br />
But this will not be enough. Representatives would need to be more in touch with their electorate, to inform them of what's going on, to explain the way things are done, and to listen to the opinions and priorities of their electors. Legitimacy (which is not the same as agreement) would be strengthened in the process of mutual learning and education.<br />
<br />
Lay representatives would have much more incentive to listen to views other than their own (on all sides). This would not lead to the end of church parties (and I don't believe it would be an advance if it did) but it should deepen the underlying notion of representativeness. (Perhaps even more so if there were geographic constituencies within a diocese.)<br />
<br />
This widening and deepening relationship would also engage more members in a richer understanding of the Church of England and the issues and challenges it faces.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><span style="color: blue;">One member</span> : <span style="color: red;">One vote</span></b></span></div>
<br />Paul Bagshawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17694279608748668806noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5108550303571033600.post-76843542946227719432013-01-02T22:53:00.004+00:002013-01-27T21:11:27.369+00:00Considering the Electoral RollThe Church Electoral Roll is Part 1, Rule 1 of the 'Rules for the Representation of the Laity' because it is the foundation on which all the rest stands. For that reason we need to get it right.<br />
<br />
The rules (for those who enjoy such things) <a href="http://www.churchofengland.org/about-us/structure/churchlawlegis/church-representation-rules/part-i.aspx#bcp1" target="_blank">are here</a> (and <a href="http://www.churchofengland.org/about-us/structure/churchlawlegis/church-representation-rules/church-representation-rules-online.aspx" target="_blank">downloadable here</a>).<br />
<br />
<b>Legal challenge?</b><br />
The Electoral Roll (ER) should be robust. It is important for its own sake that it be clear and reliable, and it important for all those elected to any role in the church that they stand on sound foundations.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://saintmichaelsbramcote.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/electoral-roll-logo-023.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="http://saintmichaelsbramcote.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/electoral-roll-logo-023.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<br />
Yet the ER is generally thought to be a weak point in the whole process. More than one person (including <a href="http://notthesamestream.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/2011-debate-on-lay-representation_26.html" target="_blank">William Fittall</a>) has raised the question of vulnerability to legal challenge if the ER is less than properly maintained.<br />
<br />
I suspect the degree of risk of a legal challenge is small in reality. I don't know how many losing candidates for diocesan and General synod elections are litigious, nor how many such challenges there have been to date.<br />
<br />
But I accept that one case is too many and that even the threat of a challenge can be expensive.<br />
<br />
However the argument that there is a risk of legal challenge is not an argument for leaving things as they are - it is a compelling argument for making the ER consistently robust. And not for waiting around before dealing with the issue.<br />
<br />
<b>Vulnerabilities</b><br />
The accuracy of the ER is vulnerable because:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.mansfield.gov.uk/media/image/0/7/Register-of-Electors_1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.mansfield.gov.uk/media/image/0/7/Register-of-Electors_1.jpg" /></a></div>
<ul>
<li>Each parish is responsible for its own roll. It is improbable that every roll will be maintained to the highest standard.</li>
<li>Not all parish electoral roll officers are trained for this task. (I phrase it like this out of ignorance. I've never heard of any training being offered to ER officers - but I've led a sheltered life and have perhaps been unlucky. Either way, this adds to the probability that not all rolls are well maintained.)</li>
<li>People may be on more than one Roll. <i>Rule !.4(b)</i> says they must choose one place where they wish to vote or stand for election - but this is not easy to police and relies on the probity of the member. (And there doesn't immediately seem to be a mechanism for, or rules restricting, how such a member may later change their mind.)</li>
<li><i>Rule 1.9</i> (removing people from the ER) is not as easy to apply as might be wished. Death and becoming a member of the clergy (please don't give in to the temptation to equate the two) and written resignation are straightforward. But ceasing to live in the parish (and not attending for 6 months), and (for those who still live in the parish) simply not attending for 6 months (and not because they're sick) - depends greatly on how well the ER officer knows what's going on. In a larger parish, or one where there's high mobility, this may not be so easy. There seems to be no duty on the ER officer to make enquiries.</li>
<li><i>Rule 1.11</i> says an address is desirable, but not necessary. Which can only make the task of keeping the Roll accurate and up to date that much more difficult.</li>
<li><i>Rule 3 </i>says there must be communication between 2 parishes when someone wishes to transfer from one ER to another. Again, I have no idea how often this happens, or doesn't happen. (It evidently hasn't happened in a couple of neighbouring parishes near me.)</li>
</ul>
<div>
Some immediate solutions present themselves:</div>
<div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.profitguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/trainging-small.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="131" src="http://www.profitguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/trainging-small.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<ul>
<li>Train all ER officers.</li>
<li>Place a duty on ER officers to confirm with each person on the roll that their entry is accurate and up to date, and to do so (in writing when necessary) with any member of the roll whenever there is a doubt.</li>
<li>Support the officers effectively.</li>
<li>Facilitate communication between parishes when people move (and are on more than one roll).</li>
<li>Require a physical address as a minimum (and request phone number / email etc. as standard) to enable communication to take place.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<b>Rules of membership</b><br />
It may also be that the basic rules of membership need to be revisited to reduce ambiguity, but I'm not convinced.<br />
<br />
We have a system which encapsulates two models of the Church of England. First, the parochial: membership is open to any resident who declares themselves a member irrespective of actual attendance or other denominational allegiance. Second, gathered membership: open to any worshipper irrespective of where they live.<br />
<br />
On top of this there needs to be the flexibility to cope with a mobile population.<br />
<br />
Given these tensions I believe the rules have to be broad and inclusive.<br />
<br />
If, as I think will be necessary for one member, one vote, there is a national database of members then some of these issues may be eased (giving each member a unique identifier, for example). On the other hand it may just transfer a proportion of the problems from the local to the national officers.<br />
<br />
The greater problems are enforcement, and (to the best of my knowledge) support for local officers.<br />
<br />
<div>
<b>One member, one vote</b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-wQjObnDyU9zA27ggZ0Wb9yRE_67xm6yB5pKoBu_UfqcrTpPF1MaTOt54FW3Ubdqbx-JpG6x84tEbAYNqs0r2EoH0gvEXWB3euGCKkVmgJ12jJvWzZLhWVhVKp0pbF6qCGmjy8D4Njvo/s1600/yes2omov.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-wQjObnDyU9zA27ggZ0Wb9yRE_67xm6yB5pKoBu_UfqcrTpPF1MaTOt54FW3Ubdqbx-JpG6x84tEbAYNqs0r2EoH0gvEXWB3euGCKkVmgJ12jJvWzZLhWVhVKp0pbF6qCGmjy8D4Njvo/s1600/yes2omov.jpg" /></a></div>
<div>
But (and I'm really tempted to use capital letters) not one bit of this is an argument against changing the franchise. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
These are known weaknesses in the system that we have now. Therefore we ought to deal with them now.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
To place the electoral roll as the foundation of synodical government, and then do no more than wring our hands over the cracks in that foundation is simply irresponsible.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If the law officers believe that there is a risk of legal challenge to the rules then they should initiate steps - now - to minimise that possibility.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
An indirect electoral system may have disguised or limited the potential damage that ER weaknesses might cause, it may have reduced to some degree vulnerability to legal challenge, but that is no reason not to deal with the problems.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><span style="color: blue;">One member</span> : <span style="color: red;">One vote</span></b></span></div>
Paul Bagshawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17694279608748668806noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5108550303571033600.post-67262639732985306132013-01-01T17:24:00.000+00:002013-01-01T17:24:00.389+00:00Let's have a review - the GS debate on representing the laity, 2011I wish to look at the 2011 debate on lay representation through the twins lenses of the actual polity of the Church of England (as a constitutional monarchy, <a href="http://notthesamestream.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/radical.html">set out here</a>) and the ambiguities of legitimate decision making in a church (<a href="http://notthesamestream.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/the-church-is-not-democracy.html">explored here</a>). The full text is <a href="http://www.churchofengland.org/media/1334084/july%202011%20consolidated%20with%20index.pdf">here </a>(pdf - debate starts page 237).<br />
<br />
There was an attempt to close down the whole discussion, which failed. Arguments against were that there was too much naval-gazing, it's not the right time, would be too expensive, there isn't really a problem, and that the motion was too London-centric.<br />
<br />
One curiosity was that the motion for debate focused on whether 'the electorate' to the House of Laity should be 'some body of persons other than the lay members of deanery synods.’ The <a href="http://notthesamestream.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/2011-debate-on-lay-representation.html">role and function of deanery synods</a>, ostensibly the occasion for this debate, were not mentioned after the opening speech.<br />
<br />
<b>Politics</b><br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://inclusive-church.org.uk/sites/default/files/images/Robert%20Key_large.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://inclusive-church.org.uk/sites/default/files/images/Robert%20Key_large.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Robert Key</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Only one person, Robert Key (Salisbury) addressed the politics of the issue directly, if briefly. Mr Key was previously a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Key_(politician)">Conservative MP and Minister</a>. He asserted "The Church of England is not a representative democracy, nor should it be. It is episcopally led." He cited the Bridge committee's use of 'gulf' as descriptive of the relationship between Synod and the parishes. he pointed out that the laity keep giving and working to keep the church going and get precious little back for it.<br />
<br />
Key implicitly asked for a change in the relationship between leaders and led. But he had no time, even if he had the inclination, to explore the implications of what episcopal leadership might look like if his vision of a fully engaged and enthused laity were to transpire. He did point out that all licensed clergy had a vote though he didn't spell out the inference that they thereby already enjoyed representative democracy.<br />
<br />
<b>Legitimacy</b><br />
An overt anxiety about their own legitimacy ran through the words of several speakers. 'How', asked Clive Scowen, 'is the Church collectively to discern the will of her Lord?' He then conflated this question with the question of representation:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
London Diocese wants to suggest that the time has come to consider whether this [the present arrangement] is the most representative electorate we could devise, and whether the democratic authority of this Synod could be enhanced by creating an electorate which was more truly representative of the rich diversity of the laity of the Church of England.</blockquote>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.livingchurch.org/sites/default/files/u39/Dailey.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://www.livingchurch.org/sites/default/files/u39/Dailey.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Prudence Dailey</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Prudence Dailey (Oxford) spelled it out: General Synod lay members were legitimated by their electorate but electors are basically self-appointed and usually for reasons unrelated to elections. Most laity, she and others said, have no understanding of the system. The implication of what she said was that the legitimacy of lay General Synod members was unacceptably thin.<br />
<br />
The general view was that the House of Laity should be as democratic and representative as possible. As a consequence the laity would be empowered, engaged, united, feel involved and included, and the consequence would be a tonic for the whole church.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<i>Representativeness</i><br />
During the debate an amendment to the original motion was successfully moved. If implemented it would ensure "that the diverse membership of the Church of England is fully reflected and represented." in General Synod. It made explicit what was implicit in the original motion.<br />
<br />
This proposal no doubt came from the best of motives. The small number of General Synod lay members who are young or black or from minority ethnic groups was felt to undermine its legitimacy.<br />
<br />
(In the late 1980s, having earlier agreed the principle, the House of Laity declined to give approval to a proposal to have a minimum number of black representatives. Michael Hodge in <i><a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00344899138438949">Representation</a>.)</i><br />
<br />
But, first, implementation would effectively locate the legitimacy of each lay general synod member in the degree to which they mirror their electorate, and the legitimacy of the House of Laity in the degree to which they embody the diversity of the whole church. This may leave synod all the more vulnerable to criticism if such higher and difficult aspirations were not met.<br />
<br />
Second, implementation would necessitate an accurate (and continuously up to date) picture of the diversity of the church. In the debate ethnicity and age were mentioned. Gender and disability would also seem relevant, and maybe other factors too, not least socio-economic class. It's not clear that enough people would be willing to share this information as a condition of being a voter in the church.<br />
<br />
If they did, however, it would generate a wonderful picture of the Church of England. It would also be relatively easy to compare against census data. It would be a mirror that the Church may not want to look at - or, if it did, to cope with the implications.<br />
<br />
<b>The vote</b><br />
The vote in 2011 showed, in a smaller synod, a marked shift of opinion compared to that of 1997. (the motions and context were not the same so this is, at best, merely indicative of changing opinion.)<br />
<br />
There was almost no change amongst the bishops who continue to show a strong preference for the proposal. The clergy had moved more strongly in favour whilst the laity showed both the biggest swing in opinion and the lowest percentage in favour.<br />
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cols="11" frame="VOID" rules="NONE">
<colgroup><col width="64"></col><col width="63"></col><col width="58"></col><col width="68"></col><col width="63"></col><col width="44"></col><col width="70"></col><col width="86"></col><col width="86"></col><col width="86"></col><col width="86"></col></colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17" width="64"><br /></td>
<td align="LEFT" width="63"><br /></td>
<td align="LEFT" width="58"><br /></td>
<td align="LEFT" width="68"><br /></td>
<td align="LEFT" width="63"><br /></td>
<td align="LEFT" width="44"><br /></td>
<td align="LEFT" width="70"><br /></td>
<td align="LEFT" width="86"><br /></td>
<td align="LEFT" width="86"><br /></td>
<td align="LEFT" width="86"><br /></td>
<td align="LEFT" width="86"><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><br /></td>
<td align="LEFT"><b><br /></b></td>
<td align="CENTER"><b><br /></b></td>
<td align="CENTER" sdnum="2057;" sdval="2011"><b>2011</b></td>
<td align="CENTER"><b><br /></b></td>
<td align="CENTER"><b><br /></b></td>
<td align="CENTER"><b><br /></b></td>
<td align="LEFT" style="border-left: 1px solid #000000; border-top: 1px solid #000000;"><b><br /></b></td>
<td align="CENTER" sdnum="2057;" sdval="1997" style="border-top: 1px solid #000000;"><b>1997</b></td>
<td align="CENTER" style="border-top: 1px solid #000000;"><b><br /></b></td>
<td align="CENTER" style="border-right: 1px solid #000000; border-top: 1px solid #000000;"><b><br /></b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><br /></td>
<td align="CENTER"><b>For</b></td>
<td align="CENTER"><b><span style="color: #ff3333;">%</span></b></td>
<td align="CENTER"><b><span style="color: purple;">% change</span></b></td>
<td align="CENTER"><b>Against</b></td>
<td align="CENTER"><b><span style="color: #ff3333;">%</span></b></td>
<td align="CENTER"><b><span style="color: purple;">% change</span></b></td>
<td align="CENTER" style="border-left: 1px solid #000000;"><b>For</b></td>
<td align="CENTER"><b><span style="color: #ff3333;">%</span></b></td>
<td align="CENTER"><b>Against</b></td>
<td align="CENTER" style="border-right: 1px solid #000000;"><b><span style="color: #ff3333;">%</span></b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="RIGHT" bgcolor="#83CAFF" height="17">Bishops</td>
<td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#83CAFF" sdnum="2057;" sdval="17"><b>17</b></td>
<td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#83CAFF" sdnum="2057;" sdval="85"><span style="color: #ff3333;">85</span></td>
<td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#83CAFF"><span style="color: purple;">+3</span></td>
<td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#83CAFF" sdnum="2057;" sdval="3"><b>3</b></td>
<td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#83CAFF" sdnum="2057;" sdval="15"><span style="color: #ff3333;">15</span></td>
<td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#83CAFF" sdnum="2057;" sdval="-4"><span style="color: purple;">-4</span></td>
<td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#83CAFF" sdnum="2057;" sdval="17" style="border-left: 1px solid #000000;"><b>17</b></td>
<td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#83CAFF" sdnum="2057;" sdval="81"><span style="color: #ff3333;">81</span></td>
<td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#83CAFF" sdnum="2057;" sdval="4"><b>4</b></td>
<td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#83CAFF" sdnum="2057;" sdval="19" style="border-right: 1px solid #000000;"><span style="color: #ff3333;">19</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="RIGHT" bgcolor="#00DCFF" height="17">Clergy</td>
<td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#00DCFF" sdnum="2057;" sdval="88"><b>88</b></td>
<td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#00DCFF" sdnum="2057;" sdval="79"><span style="color: #ff3333;">79</span></td>
<td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#00DCFF"><span style="color: purple;">+15</span></td>
<td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#00DCFF" sdnum="2057;" sdval="24"><b>24</b></td>
<td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#00DCFF" sdnum="2057;" sdval="21"><span style="color: #ff3333;">21</span></td>
<td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#00DCFF" sdnum="2057;" sdval="-12"><span style="color: purple;">-12</span></td>
<td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#00DCFF" sdnum="2057;" sdval="107" style="border-left: 1px solid #000000;"><b>107</b></td>
<td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#00DCFF" sdnum="2057;" sdval="64"><span style="color: #ff3333;">64</span></td>
<td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#00DCFF" sdnum="2057;" sdval="60"><b>60</b></td>
<td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#00DCFF" sdnum="2057;" sdval="36" style="border-right: 1px solid #000000;"><span style="color: #ff3333;">36</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="RIGHT" bgcolor="#00B8FF" height="17">Laity</td>
<td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#00B8FF" sdnum="2057;" sdval="92"><b>92</b></td>
<td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#00B8FF" sdnum="2057;" sdval="58"><span style="color: #ff3333;">58</span></td>
<td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#00B8FF"><span style="color: purple;">+21</span></td>
<td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#00B8FF" sdnum="2057;" sdval="66"><b>66</b></td>
<td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#00B8FF" sdnum="2057;" sdval="42"><span style="color: #ff3333;">42</span></td>
<td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#00B8FF" sdnum="2057;" sdval="-19"><span style="color: purple;">-19</span></td>
<td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#00B8FF" sdnum="2057;" sdval="75" style="border-bottom: 1px solid #000000; border-left: 1px solid #000000;"><b>75</b></td>
<td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#00B8FF" sdnum="2057;" sdval="37" style="border-bottom: 1px solid #000000;"><span style="color: #ff3333;">37</span></td>
<td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#00B8FF" sdnum="2057;" sdval="129" style="border-bottom: 1px solid #000000;"><b>129</b></td>
<td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#00B8FF" sdnum="2057;" sdval="63" style="border-bottom: 1px solid #000000; border-right: 1px solid #000000;"><span style="color: #ff3333;">63</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><br /></td>
<td align="LEFT"><br /></td>
<td align="LEFT"><br /></td>
<td align="LEFT"><br /></td>
<td align="LEFT"><br /></td>
<td align="LEFT"><br /></td>
<td align="LEFT"><br /></td>
<td align="LEFT"><br /></td>
<td align="LEFT"><br /></td>
<td align="LEFT"><br /></td>
<td align="LEFT"><br /></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br />
<b>Warning voices</b><br />
Of course, engagement and legitimation are unlikely to be effected so easily. Universal lay franchise may not deliver the reformation its most ardent enthusiasts foresee. Two people pointed out that it may still be very difficult to get people to vote. Nor will direct voting for General Synod members automatically lead to more accurate representativeness or greater diversity amongst the House of Laity.<br />
<br />
But it will be a start. And other related measures (education and training, information, accountability, bursaries, positive action) may help.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><span style="color: blue;">One member </span>: <span style="color: red;">One vote</span></b></span></div>
<br />
<br />
<i><br /></i>Paul Bagshawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17694279608748668806noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5108550303571033600.post-1820390691479400562012-12-31T11:59:00.000+00:002013-01-02T11:15:24.932+00:00The Church is not a democracy ....In any debate about the government of the Church sooner or later someone will say 'The Church is not a democracy ....'.<br />
<br />
Mr Clive Scowen's opening words of the debate on the election of the laity in 2011 were "The Church of God is not a democracy, and rightly so." (<a href="http://www.churchofengland.org/media/1334084/july%202011%20consolidated%20with%20index.pdf">here</a>, page 237, big pdf).<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.knysnakeep.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Democracy-another-form-of-Dictatorship.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="134" src="http://www.knysnakeep.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Democracy-another-form-of-Dictatorship.gif" width="200" /></a></div>
<br />
I don't know if Mr Scowen is aware of how often that phrase has been used in the past. It has been a way of trying to stop reform and, in particular, any reform which would widen the franchise.<br />
<br />
To argue for change it is <i>de rigueu</i><i>r </i>to say: 'The Church is not a democracy, but ....' Thus reformers are always on the back foot. Mr Scowen's version was "The Church may not be a democracy, but our polity involves a large democratic element."<br />
<br />
(I might question just how large the element of democracy is, but I'll leave that for another day.)<br />
<br />
But no-one asks, <i>'if the Church is not a democracy, then what is it?'</i><br />
<br />
I suggest there are two answers. First, that the Church is a constitutional monarchy - with the emphasis on the monarchical rather than the constitutional (as <a href="http://notthesamestream.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/radical.html">in my previous post</a>).<br />
<br />
<b>Democracy and/or truth?</b><br />
The second answer is more complicated. It concerns the manner in which we discern God's truth and the way in which the Church legitimates the decisions it makes.<br />
<br />
In effect a false opposition is set up: on the one hand there is divine truth, and the church is its guardian.<br />
<br />
The attributes of divine truth are unchallengeable rectitude, purity, abstraction, timelessness, compassion, universality.<br />
<br />
Conversely, every human decision is challengeable and changeable. People are limited in their knowledge and imagination, self-interested, vulnerable to the winds of political and social flux and, whatever wisdom we can bring to bear on an issue, none of us know the future.<br />
<br />
Yet a church must embody and effect divine truth if it is to be (and be recognised as being) legitimate: a real church. On the other hand all decisions are actually made by fallible humans.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Essence and action are fused in church governance. A church must hold divine and human, sacred and secular, together in a single process. For self-confidence it must have sufficient assurance that the outcome is of God and sufficient humility to know that the outcome of any moment is always transitory and insufficient.<br />
<br />
This is difficult enough for an individual, or even a group of people who know each other well. It is all but impossible in a larger body.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.atheistmemebase.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/085-Truth-is-not-a-democracy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="172" src="http://www.atheistmemebase.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/085-Truth-is-not-a-democracy.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">and yet, in the absence of theory and shared human<br />
understanding, truth is not knowable</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
In practice General Synod inevitably makes decisions very largely pragmatically - but usually with just enough theological or biblical seasoning to make it palatable. And tastes change. At one point historical argument was highly persuasive, now it's almost irrelevant.<br />
<br />
(It's interesting the neither background paper for the debate on lay voting had any theological content. Both were entirely practical.)<br />
<br />
And in formulating its polity and its culture of decision making in negative terms '<i>not a democracy' </i>it offers no guidance as to how decisions are properly made under God, how its legitimacy as a Christian church may be affirmed or challenged.<br />
<br />
<b>Monarchy and divine truth</b><br />
But I suspect the most pernicious aspect of <i>'The Church is not a democracy ....'</i> lies in the combination of the two silences.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.mainlesson.com/display.php?author=belloc&book=cautionary&story=jim" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="186" src="http://www.mainlesson.com/books/belloc/cautionary/zpage012.gif" width="320" /></a>At the heart of church decision making - who may determine the will of God and how - there is silence. Silence about the structures of power, its expression in ordinary church life, and silence about the ambiguities and tests of legitimation.<br />
<br />
<i>'The Church is not a democracy'</i> has become an occasional negating refrain, a way in which Synod members tell one another to Keep Off the Grass. (Or, perhaps, to <a href="http://www.mainlesson.com/display.php?author=belloc&book=cautionary&story=jim">always keep a-hold of nurse</a> ...)<br />
<br />
These are difficult and ultimately irresolvable issues, and I'm not sure that continually re-visiting them will help very much.<br />
<br />
On the other hand I think they should be up for examination on occasions. In particular they should be looked at carefully and honestly when issues of reform of church structures come up for debate. At present shared silence has helped keep most lay people at the margins of the Church.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><span style="color: blue;">One member</span> : <span style="color: red;">one vote</span></b></span></div>
<br />
<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b><br /></b>Paul Bagshawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17694279608748668806noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5108550303571033600.post-85501474579898518142012-12-27T15:02:00.000+00:002013-01-02T11:21:10.901+00:00Radical? Perhaps, in a <a href="http://notthesamestream.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/2011-debate-on-lay-representation.html">previous post</a>, I was too quick to be scathing about how one member, one vote could possibly be considered 'radical' in today's world.<br />
<br />
I forgot. The Church of England is not like other institutions. It does things differently.<br />
<br />
Specifically the it has a very low opinion of democracy. The reasons are seldom articulated in public.<br />
<div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.archbishopofyork.org/york/data/images/Bishopthorpe_Gardens/smallIMG_1501.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://www.archbishopofyork.org/york/data/images/Bishopthorpe_Gardens/smallIMG_1501.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.archbishopofyork.org/pages/about-bishopthorpe-palace-.html">Bishopthorpe Palace</a>, York</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div>
Politically the church is a constitutional monarchy. This describes the British state too, and the CofE is the State Church. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In the State, however, the emphasis is firmly on the constitutional end of that oxymoron whilst the church clings hard to the emphasis on the monarchical.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Bishops are princes in their own domains. (A couple still live in palaces.) And it's just been announced that Archbishop Williams will now be a life peer and <a href="http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/peerage-for-the-lord-archbishop-of-canterbury/">Baron</a>.<br />
<br />
When synodical government was created a great deal of thought was given to the relationship of bishop to diocesan synod:<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.southwark.anglican.org/images/who/mervyn.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://www.southwark.anglican.org/images/who/mervyn.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mervyn_Stockwood">Bishop Mervyn Stockwood</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<ul>
<li>Synods were carefully structured so that they could not outvote their bishop. </li>
<li>The most explicit blurring of the monarchical and the constitutional is in the merging of the Diocesan Synod's Standing Committee with the Bishop's Council. Advising the bishop and formal responsibility for maintaining local government were conflated. Consequently the representation of the laity and inferior clergy [technical term] was subsumed into the Prince's court. </li>
<div style="text-align: right;">
</div>
<li>Bishops remain judges in their own diocesan courts. This role is normally delegated to the Chancellor of each diocese. However Bishop Mervyn Stockwood <span style="font-size: x-small;">(<i>corrected, thanks to Frank Cranmer for pointing out my earlier mistake)</i></span>, Kingston-upon-Thames, fell out with his Chancellor, Garth Moore. Afterwards the bishop simply sidelined his officer and made most legal judgements himself. (Moore remained Chancellor but the two never spoke to each other again.) </li>
</ul>
The Bishop is a prince in his court (in the sense of his personal council) - and is thus surrounded by courtiers. Subsidiary power in a diocese comes from access to the bishop and therefore there is every incentive to protect such access. Consequently sharing information horizontally can be foolish thing to do - even though (or, perhaps, because) it might be best for the organization as a whole.<br />
<br />
Autocracy (however tempered) evokes sycophancy (however disguised). It is not good for human or spiritual flourishing, nor for objective or accountable decision making. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This is a description of the polity of the CofE. It is not about 'good' and 'bad' bishops. It is the <i>capacity </i>for arbitrary decision making which is destructive, whether or not it's exercised, whether or not it's effective or the bishop loved. (And what is done by the Prince is echoed in each lesser fiefdom: parish priests may act arbitrarily because their bosses can.)</div>
<div>
<br />
So this is the main reason why one member, one vote might be considered 'radical'. It suggests that the CofE might possibly step a little closer to being a membership church, maybe. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://stevenfielding.com/the-great-reform-act-of-1832-cleggs-unfortunate-parallel/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="http://stevenfielding.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/punchbowl.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<div>
One member, one vote is radical in the sense that the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_1832">1832 Reform Act</a> was radical. It allowed a much wider section of the community to vote for their governing representatives. It did not bring chaos or instigate government by the working classes. The ruling class simply accommodated and adapted - and so will the Church.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><span style="color: blue;">One member</span> : <span style="color: red;">One vote</span></b></span></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">
<blockquote style="border: none; font-size: 12.727272033691406px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
</span></blockquote>
</div>
</div>
Paul Bagshawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17694279608748668806noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5108550303571033600.post-14996433530988395452012-12-26T13:59:00.001+00:002012-12-26T13:59:22.048+00:002011 debate on lay representation - background paper 2<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://changingattitude.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/William-Fittall.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://changingattitude.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/William-Fittall.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; color: #222222; font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; line-height: 18px; text-align: left;">William Fittall, </span><br />
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; color: #222222; font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; line-height: 18px; text-align: left;">General Synod's S</span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; color: #222222; font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; line-height: 18px; text-align: left;">ecretary General</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
William Fittall contributed a background note on the legal and procedural background to the debate on voting for the House of Laity of the General Synod.<br />
<br />
<b>Looking back</b><br />
He cites the conclusions of the Bridge Report of 1997 (I've not been able to locate a copy on my shelves, which is annoying).<br />
<br />
These were:<br />
<ol>
<li>That deanery synods should no longer be part of the electoral process. Therefore</li>
<li>A new electorate will need to be created, "(a) to enable parishes to have a direct involvement in the electoral process and so to feel confidence in its outcome and (b) to establish an electorate who would act responsibly to ensure, so far as possible, that the wishes of the parishes were accurately reflected." He recommended:</li>
<li>"synodical electors". I.e. people elected simply to elect diocesan and General synod members. In about the same numbers as the current Deanery Synod membership.</li>
</ol>
<div>
It considered and rejected one member, one vote one grounds of cost, practicalities and the difficulty of keeping the list free from irregularities (which might then lead to legal challenges).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It also rejected the suggestion that members of the Diocesan Synod should be the electorate.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Looking forwards</b></div>
<div>
Fittall reinforces my belief that <a href="http://notthesamestream.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/one-member-one-vote-simple.html">change would be simple</a> by stating that it would not need a Measure.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
On the other had it would need a two-thirds majority by houses and that may be far from easy.<br />
<br />
He then raises a series of questions:<br />
<ul>
<li>what impact the use of the electorate concerned would be likely to have, respectively, on the roles of deanery synods, diocesan synods and the General Synod in the life of the Church; </li>
<li>whether the electorates for the House of Laity of the General Synod and houses of laity of diocesan synods should in principle be the same; </li>
<li>whether the use of the electorate concerned would mean that the lay membership of the General Synod and of diocesan synods would better reflect the views and concerns of the laity of the Church of England; </li>
<li>what impact the use of the electorate concerned would have upon the ability of those elected to fulfil their responsibilities as, respectively, members of the General Synod or a diocesan synod; </li>
<li>the cost of operating any new system; </li>
<li>any other practical issues to which the use of the electorate concerned would give rise, including from the point of view of identifying its membership (a) in sufficient time to enable elections to proceed at the prescribed point and (b) with sufficient clarity to avoid legal challenge to their result; and </li>
<li>the extent to which the use of technology might alleviate difficulties of either kind. </li>
</ul>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://politix.topix.com/img/H22UB39SDN539BBO-rszw514" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://politix.topix.com/img/H22UB39SDN539BBO-rszw514" height="150" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Can technology help?</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
I sometimes wonder whether Mr Fittall has a thoroughly dry sense of humour. That, by way of just seeing what will happen or if anyone will notice, he can slip in a little something without changing the tone of the text. Misspelling his own name (as fit-all) was no doubt just a typographical slip. But where (bullet point 2 above) did the question of separating the electorates for diocesan and General synods come from?<br />
<br />
<b>Amongst what's missing:</b><br />
<ul>
<li>How on earth can the Church of England justify an indirect electorate?</li>
<li>What is the proper place of the laity in the government of the Church of England?</li>
<li>Are lay people 'members' to the extend that an account should be given to them of the activity and achievements of those who govern?</li>
</ul>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><span style="color: blue;">One member </span>: <span style="color: red;">One vote</span></b></span></div>
<br /></div>
<div>
</div>
Paul Bagshawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17694279608748668806noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5108550303571033600.post-19764722658616670252012-12-18T17:48:00.001+00:002012-12-19T12:33:10.398+00:002011 debate on lay representation - background paper 1In 2011 General Synod returned to the issue of the lay franchise in the government of the Church of England.<br />
<br />
Two background papers were published. This post summarises the first,<a href="http://www.churchofengland.org/media/1285528/gs%201843a.pdf" target="_blank"> GS 1843A,</a> by Mr Clive Scowen for the Diocese of London. The second, <a href="http://www.churchofengland.org/media/1285428/gs%201843b.pdf" target="_blank">GS 1843B</a>, is by William Fittall, Secretary General of General Synod, and will be considered in a separate post. <i>(Links are to .pdfs)</i><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://communications.london.anglican.org/ministrymatters/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Diocese-of-London-logo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="91" src="http://communications.london.anglican.org/ministrymatters/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Diocese-of-London-logo.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<br />
The motion said:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
'That this Synod request the Business Committee to commission a thorough review of how the House of Laity of this Synod and the houses of laity of diocesan synods are elected, particular consideration being given to whether the electorate should be some body of persons other than the lay members of deanery synods.'</blockquote>
The background paper sets out the argument. It is a novel in the debate on lay representation in that it is grounded on a structural difficulty in deanery synods, rather than on voting <i>per se. </i><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
The core argument is that:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(1) It impossible to adopt a scale of representation which enables fair representation of larger parishes on General Synod and diocesan synods without at the same swamping the PCCs of those parishes with deanery synod members and risking the domination of deanery synods by a few large parishes.<br />
(2) It is highly questionable how representative deanery synod members are of their parishes or their electoral rolls.</blockquote>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkpnsvoX0f_iYO_JutLzJ3Wdwl59aqX9tzrB9hUfnPbZ0ID7DrQvKuSWnqW6MPHE6JmCk1WQ0IfC-hMRNhQpwjsNNdOu9capR_jCFnYPxy5LBSQHt51lhJfeVFGMxHwGdcf_WuxUuKL5uG/s400/Untitled-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="207" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkpnsvoX0f_iYO_JutLzJ3Wdwl59aqX9tzrB9hUfnPbZ0ID7DrQvKuSWnqW6MPHE6JmCk1WQ0IfC-hMRNhQpwjsNNdOu9capR_jCFnYPxy5LBSQHt51lhJfeVFGMxHwGdcf_WuxUuKL5uG/s320/Untitled-1.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://revjph.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/fisticuffs-at-london-diocesan-synod.html" target="_blank">With thanks to Mad Priest</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
(This latter point has been made often and extensively. It is inevitably true when the body is statutorily necessary and functionally hobbled).<br />
<br />
Thus, the paper asserts, if we removed from deanery synods the function of electing diocesan and general synod members, the deaneries could reshape themselves in ways that would greatly enhance their efficacy.<br />
<br />
This is not proven. Deanery synods will still have the same, optimistic and largely vacuous and discretionary functions as set out in law. But if substantive functions were legally specified and separated from diocesan synod purview as appropriate to the scale of the deanery (subsidiarity) it may well prove a valuable element in the running of any diocese. Despite all the weaknesses and shortcomings deanery synods have proved resilient and even popular.<br />
<br />
Which, of course, leaves the question of the electorate for diocesan and General synod members.<br />
<br />
The paper suggests two possible options:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
1) A new electoral college for each deanery</blockquote>
In effect, more or less recreating the current electoral system, but separating it from deanery synods.<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.florida-arts.org/programs/fellowship/samples/marais_anja/pusillanimousI.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="224" src="http://www.florida-arts.org/programs/fellowship/samples/marais_anja/pusillanimousI.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption">Pusillanimous (1) by<a href="http://www.florida-arts.org/programs/fellowship/displayfellow.cfm?id=418" target="_blank"> Anja Marais</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Or </i>2) One person, one vote.</blockquote>
Only in the Church of England could this option be described as 'radical'.<br />
<br />
Universal suffrage was achieved in 1928 in the UK. (Women could vote for their representatives in the Church in 1919.) Is it really radical in 2011 to suggest that the Church adopt a system we take for granted in almost all other setting?<br />
<br />
And the paper then set out the problems and difficulties<a href="http://notthesamestream.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/general-synod-votes-for-direct-election.html" target="_blank"> as explored in 1993</a>. Pusillanimous!<br />
<br />
But at least the issue has been put back on the table.<br />
<br />
<br />Paul Bagshawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17694279608748668806noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5108550303571033600.post-66819335840048237352012-12-16T22:19:00.002+00:002012-12-17T08:42:09.944+00:00General Synod votes for direct election of lay representatives (almost)OK, it was 1993. And even then, they didn't.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://leblow.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/1993_sonia.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="214" src="http://leblow.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/1993_sonia.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">It was 1993, and the UK came<br />
2nd in the Eurovision song contest</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Mr Jim White moved a Private Members' Motion asking that<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
... the principle of direct suffrage (as with clergy and bishops) should be applied to the election of lay members of General Synod as a foundation stone of, and not simply one of the options in, the impending review of the synodical system. </blockquote>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[The review eventually emerged as the Bridge Commission Review, 1997]</span><br />
<br />
Jim White said,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The proposition itself is very brief and simple: that the House of Laity should be elected directly by all Church members. It is a principle that is laid before you. You could say it was one member, one vote, if you wanted to choose that language. The reason for adopting the principle is the trust, fellowship and equality, one with another, that our Church institutions should demonstrate. </blockquote>
Speakers against the proposal said,<br />
<ol>
<li>It would be less fair because (a) most candidates would be unknown to electors, and (b) because most would vote for someone they know this proposed system would give unfair advantage to candidates from large congregations.</li>
<li>It would increase factionalism.</li>
<li>Allowing non-Anglicans on electoral rolls to vote would be absurd.</li>
<li>Deanery Synods should be taken more seriously, not sidelined</li>
<li>It would cost too much</li>
<li>Clergy would determine the lay vote</li>
<li>The church is not a democracy <i>(If I had an old shilling for every time I've read this ....)</i></li>
<li>All representative systems are flawed</li>
<li>"The House of Laity is not there to represent the interests of the laity, but to bring a lay interest to the representation of the Church as a whole and as a unity.". i.e. "to assist discernment" (Tom Sutcliffe)</li>
<li>It disadvantages candidates who are less able to use the media, and aids the already famous</li>
<li>There would be too much discrepancy between the value of a vote for a lay representative compared to the value of a vote for a clerical representative</li>
<li>Church elections are totally different from secular elections</li>
<li>There would be a possibility of a legal challenge if all the administration did not work fairly</li>
<li>People won't inform themselves about the issues</li>
<li>Voting on manifestos alone leaves you vulnerable to misrepresentation</li>
<li>The young will be discriminated against because they move dioceses more often</li>
</ol>
<div>
Those in favour added</div>
<div>
<ol>
<li>You can trust the people</li>
<li>The representativeness and legitimacy of the House of Laity under the present electoral system is questioned.</li>
<li>Deanery Synods are 'the weakest link in synodical government', and too weak to legitimate General Synod.</li>
</ol>
</div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.downanddromore.org/cmsfiles/moved/images/c/Canon-Dr-Christina-Baxter3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="196" src="http://www.downanddromore.org/cmsfiles/moved/images/c/Canon-Dr-Christina-Baxter3.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Dr Christina Baxter</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
The motion was amended, a move instigated by the Synod's Standing Committee and led by Dr Christina Baxter. The amendment excised the substance of the proposal and shunted discussion into the forthcoming review of synodical government as just one option.<br />
<br />
The final motion read:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
... the principle of direct suffrage <span style="color: purple;">for lay members of General Synod (as with clergy and bishops) should be considered as one of the main elements in the impending review of synodical government. </span></blockquote>
But the Chairman of that debate pulled a fast one. In order to demand a vote by houses 25 members had to request it. When asked, only 22 members stood to make the request. He decided to order a vote by houses anyway.<br />
<div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The result was:<br />
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Bishops: 17 for, 4 against<br />
Clergy 107 for, 60 against<br />
Laity 75 for, 129 against</blockquote>
<div>
In a vote of the whole Synod, therefore, the motion would have passed. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
It's hard to interpret the vote in relation to the debate. Most speakers were against the motion, and were evidently outvoted. It's probable that those of the House of Laity who voted against the proposal were content with the arrangements that had put them there. Some may have objected to the watering down of the motion - though Jim White recommended acceptance, though with a heavy heart.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It's also probable that the fact the vote was lost in the House of Laity meant that the Bridge Commission need give the direct suffrage of the laity very little consideration.</div>
<div>
<br />
This was good news for opponents of the idea, given that most (not all) of their arguments were very weak and that many relied on disparaging the electorate.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
And I think I'm right - and open to correction - that this was the last time the issue of direct lay election was debated in General Synod until 2011.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-large;"><span style="color: blue;">One member</span> : <span style="color: red;">One vote</span></b></div>
</div>
Paul Bagshawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17694279608748668806noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5108550303571033600.post-79677024208664434782012-12-07T08:34:00.000+00:002012-12-19T12:59:38.225+00:00One member : One vote - simple!It would be remarkably easy for the Church of England to change to one member, one vote for electing Diocesan and General Synod members.<br />
<br />
It needs one practical change and a couple of substantive legal changes.<br />
<br />
<b>1) The practicality: a national database of members</b><br />
<br />
This already exists for clergy (in fact, there's more than one) so there can be no objection in principle.<br />
<br />
There would need to be a Code of Practice governing (amongst other things):<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>the duty to maintain the database and keep it up to date</li>
<li>data protection, permissions given by those on the list as to the use of their data, and levels of access to the records, physical and electronic security</li>
<li>the use of the data (in particular, contact details) by people who are already members (e.g. bishops, elected members of Synods)</li>
<li>the use of the data by people who are not members (e.g. commercial firms), and for purposes other than church governance (e.g. by lobby groups).</li>
</ul>
<br />
Electoral roll officers already have a duty to keep the roll up to date. They would, in addition, simply have to pass on any changes to whoever manages the database.<br />
<br />
These are important matters and will need careful consideration. But they are practical and organizational details that are well within the existing competence of the Church.<br />
<br />
<b>2) Changes to the <a href="http://www.churchofengland.org/about-us/structure/churchlawlegis/church-representation-rules/church-representation-rules-online.aspx" target="_blank">Church Representation Rules</a></b><br />
<br />
<i>To elect members of Diocesan Synod</i><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
To change rule 30(5)(b) to read:<br />
members elected by<strike> the houses of laity of the deanery synods</strike> [<i>insert</i>] <u>electors whose names are entered on the electoral roll of the parishes</u> in the diocese in accordance with the next following rule</blockquote>
Deaneries would probably be regarded as constituencies (though it's not essential) and wording to make this explicit would also be needed.<br />
<br />
The equivalent change would need to be made in the rule governing election to General Synod:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
35(1)(a) the members elected by <strike>the diocesan electors</strike> [<i>insert</i>] <u>electors </u><u>whose names are entered on the electoral roll of the parishes</u> of each diocese as hereinafter provided</blockquote>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNxXz_hWxF7xAmaIz1KMK7cq9I0EvegmUikGadG52hhDSnLPuT3P24fCXm7FzKmvu1p5v_OYwFkzesmgfaWn8EMjLAxVMqvt0Wc8bdFiTmPU8AVy5G1hkxofwyKBlewi4te83_olV1tC8/s400/simples.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="221" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNxXz_hWxF7xAmaIz1KMK7cq9I0EvegmUikGadG52hhDSnLPuT3P24fCXm7FzKmvu1p5v_OYwFkzesmgfaWn8EMjLAxVMqvt0Wc8bdFiTmPU8AVy5G1hkxofwyKBlewi4te83_olV1tC8/s320/simples.png" width="320" /></a>There would, of course, be a number of alterations to other parts of the Church Representation Rules which will follow from these changes - but they would be relatively straight forward once the principle change was agreed.<br />
<br />
<br />
OK, I'm not a lawyer or a parliamentary draughtsman, but the principle's clear.<br />
<br />
Once General Synod decides in favour of 'One member : One vote' implementation will be entirely straightforward.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><span style="color: blue;">One member</span> : <span style="color: red;">One vote</span></b></span></div>
Paul Bagshawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17694279608748668806noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5108550303571033600.post-48194130513612965382012-12-05T20:11:00.002+00:002012-12-07T00:07:18.330+00:00How we got here (briefly)The Church of England didn't create its current, wrong headed, voting arrangements for the laity by accident. It took a lot of negotiating, compromising and conniving to arrive at such an unnecessarily complicated and inappropriate arrangement.<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/07/Dioceses_of_Church_of_England.svg/250px-Dioceses_of_Church_of_England.svg.png" width="161" /></a></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England" target="_blank">The Provinces of theChurch of England</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
The process of formally associating the laity with the clergy in the government of the Church of England can be traced back to the 1830s. The first phase led, through several recognized but informal meetings of laity with the clergy, to the creation of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Synod_of_the_Church_of_England#Church_Assembly:_1919_to_1970" target="_blank">Church Assembly</a>. The (all clerical) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convocation_of_the_English_Clergy" target="_blank">Convocations of York and Canterbury</a> met, usually separately, twice a year. By the <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/9-10/76/contents" target="_blank">Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act </a>, 1919, Parliament enabled the Synods to meet together, and with a house of laity, to comprise the Church Assembly.<br />
<br />
Pressure to reform Church Assembly came after the second world war. In the course of the reform of Canon Law (much underrated, in my opinion, in the modernization of the Church) two things became obvious. First, that the mechanism of formal consultation between the separate parts of the Church Assembly was cumbersome, inefficient and an utter waste of time. Second, that the Church's ultimate goal of acquiring powers over it own doctrine, worship and clerical discipline would only be possible if the laity had a bigger say in the decision making of the Church.<br />
<br />
Since the repeal of the <a href="http://www.historyhome.co.uk/c-eight/l-pool/testacts.htm" target="_blank">Test and Corporation Acts</a> the Church of England has been separating itself from the state, though at the <a href="http://hypertextbook.com/facts/ZhenHuang.shtml" target="_blank">speed of continental drift</a>. One thread of this separation has been to move away from the idea that the House of Commons was, in theory and practice, the effective voice of the laity in Church affairs. Some MPs, in particular those most engaged with Church affairs, remained reluctant to let this go. But if they were to relinquish the role it would not be to an assembly wholly dominated by the clergy.<br />
<br />
In 1952 the Convocation of York discussed the idea of a General Synod but no action followed. In the Spring session of the Church Assembly of 1953, Mr George Goyder proposed,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
'That the Assembly respectfully requests the Archbishops to appoint a Commission (including representatives of the Convocations) to consider how the Clergy and Laity can best be joined together in the synodical government of the Church, and to report' <i>Church Assembly Report of Proceedings,</i> 1953, p. 89.</blockquote>
The motion was passed by a large majority and was 'gladly accepted' by the Archbishops. Seventeen years then passed before General Synod met.<br />
<br />
George Goyder is, in my view, the hero of this story. He was a businessman, a leader of the Evangelicals in the House of Laity, and he stuck to his vision through forests of committees and commissions. He was included to make dramatic claims and to see lay participation as the solution to an all-out assault on the Christian heritage of the country. He was convinced that the Holy Spirit worked through the whole church, not merely through the clergy. He knew the challenges he faced. After four years as a member of the Synodical Government Commission he stated that he<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
became convinced that [outright synodical government] was impractical because of people [clergy] who would resist and resent any attempt to interfere with a body [Convocation] in which they exercised considerable prerogatives which they valued, and rightly so.' <i>Church Assembly Report of Proceedings, </i>1958, p. 338.</blockquote>
At that point it looked as though all was lost. But the mood changed and there were more committees, commissions, reports, compromises, debates, and votes. Defenders of clerical privilege began to feel on the back foot.<br />
<br />
In the end a mishmash of competing principles were squashed together into one scheme set out by the Hodson Commission report (<i>government by synod, Synodical Government in the Church of England</i>. (C.A. 1600) 1966))<br />
<br />
It was this commission which insisted on indirect elections. The report stating that members were<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
firmly convinced that direct parochial election must be sacrificed at diocesan level in order to introduce effective synodical government ...' p. 50.</blockquote>
The rationales offered included:<br />
<ul>
<li>That when the <a href="http://www.anglican-methodist.org.uk/history.htm" target="_blank">Anglican-Methodist unity proposals</a> had been referred to the parishes there had been evident confusion</li>
<li>That parishes were too varied to meet the desire for reasonable uniformity in the lowest level of the electorate</li>
<li>That consultation with parishes all too often meant receiving the views of the incumbent</li>
</ul>
The central challenge to this proposal was that as a consequence<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
'... any kind of representation in the affairs or consultation of the main body of the Church by the parishes and congregations disappeared.' Valerie Pitt, <i>Church Assembly Report of Proceedings, </i>1966, p. 594</blockquote>
The challenge was never answered.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.brysons.net/miltonweb/churchgoverment.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://www.brysons.net/miltonweb/churchgoverment.jpg" width="195" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>This topic is going<br />to be tough to illustrate</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
There was one more step which has had a lasting detrimental effect. The Hodson Report had wanted to make ruri-decanal conferences (now Deanery Synods) an effective part of the structure of local government of the Church. It proposed that the business of the Diocesan Synods should be considered beforehand by the Deanery Synods. This would have given the opportunity for significant and sustained contributions to debate. But - with no announcement, explanation or discussion - the word 'beforehand' was dropped from the Measure. As a result Deanery Synods were emasculated. They were left with just one substantive statutory role: to elect the members of Diocesan and General Synod.<br />
<br />
At some point a bureaucrat, bishop or church lawyer took it upon themselves to quietly and arbitrarily shift the balance of power in local church government and no-one noticed, or no-one spoke up. Shame on them.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Paul Bagshawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17694279608748668806noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5108550303571033600.post-38781570516884921932012-12-04T08:08:00.000+00:002012-12-06T08:42:03.344+00:00One member, One vote - now!<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-wQjObnDyU9zA27ggZ0Wb9yRE_67xm6yB5pKoBu_UfqcrTpPF1MaTOt54FW3Ubdqbx-JpG6x84tEbAYNqs0r2EoH0gvEXWB3euGCKkVmgJ12jJvWzZLhWVhVKp0pbF6qCGmjy8D4Njvo/s1600/yes2omov.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-wQjObnDyU9zA27ggZ0Wb9yRE_67xm6yB5pKoBu_UfqcrTpPF1MaTOt54FW3Ubdqbx-JpG6x84tEbAYNqs0r2EoH0gvEXWB3euGCKkVmgJ12jJvWzZLhWVhVKp0pbF6qCGmjy8D4Njvo/s1600/yes2omov.jpg" /></a></div>
It's time this blog either packed up its briefcase and went home for tea, or took a different tack.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
With the Covenant (almost) dead, that focus has gone. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But I came to oppose the Covenant through earlier studies which strongly suggested that attempts to determine doctrinal difference through (semi-) legal processes were both doomed and destructive of the Church. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Related studies had long ago brought me to the view that every member of the Church of England should have a vote for its representatives in Church government.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
When General Synod defeated the proposal for women bishops despite 42 of 44 dioceses voting for it, some people raised their voices in favour of reform of Synod, and not least of the method of electing lay members. I would like to see that voice grow louder and for longer. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>The present system</b></div>
<div>
At the moment those on the electoral roll of a church vote for Deanery Synod members. These people then vote for Diocesan and General Synod members. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This system of indirect voting means that there is no accountability from governing bodies to the people in the pews - the people who very largely pay for the Church. Where there is no accountability, the people don't count.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>The consequences of change</b></div>
<div>
It isn't possible simply to change the voting system as though it was a technical matter with no other implications.</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>The marginalization of the laity is a cornerstone of our present synodical system.</li>
<li>To change the franchise would be to change the whole set of relationships which currently structure the church - clergy:laity, diocese:parish, General Synod:parish.</li>
<li>Inevitably too the present kingpins in this structure - bishops and parish clergy - would also have to modify the ways they work and their relationships with the people around them.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
The fundamental change will be to treat each enrolled member as a fully adult member of the Church. I think such change will be beneficial - and equally that it will be resisted. </div>
<div>
<br />
From first debate in Church Assembly to the instigation of General Synod took some 15 years. I don't doubt that change now will take something like as long. So there's no reason to delay.</div>
Paul Bagshawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17694279608748668806noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5108550303571033600.post-25572927400228771422012-09-04T08:38:00.000+01:002012-09-04T08:38:03.720+01:00Where we stand now on the CovenantOn the <a href="http://www.modernchurch.org.uk/index.htm" target="_blank">Modern Church</a> site Jean Mayland has summarised <a href="http://www.modernchurch.org.uk/resources/mayland/2012-1.htm" target="_blank">where matters are now with the Covenant</a>.<br />
<br />
In essence, those who haven't yet declared are likely to wait till after the ACC meeting in November in New Zealand.<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhh6_t6jF57z7LtI6i2UV11xaOj-AZkC_mbQkJTc_FeAplMrsHsz7olaZqWXZDsVEsyYLSyelX6kxfI2x2r5RnUnXnmWBl4srreoEqfIwatepHOtuSatZifTjIeDUjXIqfUWlKOXiTig6w/s320/CNV00023.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhh6_t6jF57z7LtI6i2UV11xaOj-AZkC_mbQkJTc_FeAplMrsHsz7olaZqWXZDsVEsyYLSyelX6kxfI2x2r5RnUnXnmWBl4srreoEqfIwatepHOtuSatZifTjIeDUjXIqfUWlKOXiTig6w/s320/CNV00023.JPG" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Jean Mayland staffing the MCU stall at<br />the last Lambeth Conference</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
It's unlikely but just possible that a province or two might make an announcement just before the meeting to try to influence the discussion.<br />
<br />
On past experience the press conferences, releases and information that will emerge from the meeting will tell us very little. We'll need the usual combination of leaks and Kremlinology to guess at the content of what is said, never mind its implications.<br />
<br />
This is no way to govern a membership organization; but perhaps that's the flaw in my logic.<br />
<br />Paul Bagshawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17694279608748668806noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5108550303571033600.post-30276842376946710072012-08-28T21:07:00.003+01:002012-08-28T21:07:57.431+01:00The violence continues in Zimbabwe<br />
<div id="article_blurb" style="background-color: white; padding-bottom: 10px; padding-top: 15px;">
<a href="http://www.newsday.co.zw/article/2012-08-28-anglican-bishops-appeal-to-mugabe/" target="_blank">Direct from NewsDay, 28 August</a><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
MASVINGO — Embattled Anglican Church leader Chad Gandiya’s subordinates last week appealed for President Robert Mugabe’s intervention over the alleged continued harassment of their followers by members of a faction led by excommunicated church leader Nobert Kunonga.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
The church leaders lamented their continued eviction from Anglican Church buildings in most parts of the country by Kunonga’s followers even though the matter was still before the courts.</blockquote>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://masvingo.anglican.org/images/bishophome.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://masvingo.anglican.org/images/bishophome.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption"><div style="text-align: center;">
The Bishop of Masvingo </div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Godfrey Tawonezvi</div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<blockquote>
Part of the letter reads: “We are, therefore, appealing to President of the Republic of Zimbabwe, His Excellency President RG Mugabe, members of the Government of National Unity, Home Affairs co-ministers and the Police Commissioner-General to intervene in this matter where innocent and peace-loving worshippers are being driven out of their church buildings for no legitimate reason. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
"As Anglican Bishops in Zimbabwe in the Church of the Province of Central, we wish to express our dismay at the continued harassment of the faithful in the Diocese of Masvingo. What happened to freedom of worship in Zimbabwe?”</blockquote>
<blockquote>
The letter was co-signed by Anglican bishops Cleophas Lunga (Matabeleland), Julius Makoni (Manicaland), Godfrey Tawonezvi (<a href="http://masvingo.anglican.org/index.html" target="_blank">Masvingo</a>) and Ishmael Mukuwanda of the Diocese of Central Africa and Anglican Church worshippers at Daramombe Mission in Chivhu.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
The bishops said despite a court judgment clearly indicating that the Chivhu church was not within Kunonga’s jurisdiction since September 1, 2001, the latter, with the assistance of the police, had continued to evict members belonging to the Gandiya faction from the building. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
“What Kunonga is using to hoodwink the police are title deeds which he illegally refused to surrender to the Diocese of Masvingo at its formation. We are also disturbed that the police have taken sides. They are the ones who are in the forefront when our members are evicted from their church buildings." </blockquote>
<blockquote>
However, police spokesperson Assistant Commissioner Wayne Bvudzijena said he was not aware of the alleged disturbances in Chivhu. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
“For now I am unable to comment,” Bvudzijena said.</blockquote>
</div>
<div id="article_content" style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
He may be unable to comment, but he can scarcely by unaware of the issue.</div>
<div id="article_content" style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
<br /></div>
<div id="article_content" style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
<a href="http://masvingo.anglican.org/news.html" target="_blank">More Kanunga invasions</a></div>
<div id="article_content" style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
<br /></div>
Paul Bagshawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17694279608748668806noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5108550303571033600.post-85308754810849977802012-06-26T22:27:00.001+01:002012-06-29T10:23:14.776+01:00Squaring the circle<div class="tr_bq">
I've been mulling over one paragraph of <a href="http://geoconger.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/england-allowed-to-discuss-anglican-covenant-the-church-of-england-newspaper-june-17-2012-p-2/" target="_blank">a post by George Conger</a>, first published in the Church of England Newspaper of June 17. It <span style="background-color: white;">comments on the ACNS press release after the last meeting of the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion which I</span><span style="background-color: white;"> </span><a href="http://notthesamestream.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/something-strange-in-woodshed.html" target="_blank">noted here</a><span style="background-color: white;"> earlier.</span></div>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiR8PGwpIN4yqPxVzK8X2nXv04M4P_dGDJ6nfUIFSJxSmnK2BwaXuf9wydZTnshDv2qdthV3Wci1bCHNuiabzaGZj8rHkeyydLCYh07guljAjZapWNqFdaBCGvZYkewk-QFK0UGS-3vqlQ/s1600/Button+on+Shirt.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiR8PGwpIN4yqPxVzK8X2nXv04M4P_dGDJ6nfUIFSJxSmnK2BwaXuf9wydZTnshDv2qdthV3Wci1bCHNuiabzaGZj8rHkeyydLCYh07guljAjZapWNqFdaBCGvZYkewk-QFK0UGS-3vqlQ/s200/Button+on+Shirt.jpg" width="195" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The <a href="http://blog.noanglicancovenant.org/2012/05/must-have-button-for-gc-2012.html" target="_blank">must-have button</a> for General Convention </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
You can set aside the headline <i>'England allowed to discuss Anglican Covenant'</i>: it says nothing and is wholly unrelated to the text. It probably merely indicates the prejudices of some headline writer.<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white;">Conger says,</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Under the terms of the Anglican Covenant, provinces that do not ratify the agreement would not be able to participate in decision-making about the covenant. While the Church of England cannot reconsider the covenant until 2015, the Standing Committee carved out an exception to this rule to allow the Archbishop of Canterbury and Mrs. Paver, the Church of England’s lay representative to the ACC to remain part of the process – though not as a representatives of the Church of England.</blockquote>
The rule referred to is:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;">(4.2.8) Participation in the decision making of the Standing Committee or of the Instruments of Communion in respect to section 4.2 shall be limited to those members of the Instruments of Communion who are representatives of those churches who have adopted the Covenant, or who are still in the process of adoption. (<a href="http://www.anglicancommunion.org/commission/covenant/final/text.cfm/" target="_blank">The Anglican Covenant</a>)</span></blockquote>
<i style="background-color: white;">First</i><span style="background-color: white;">, English representatives would currently have no problem with this clause because they may be regarded as '</span><span style="background-color: white;">still in the process of adoption'. So too will every Province which does not actually reject the Covenant (which is the Philippines and Scotland to date - and that's assuming they've informed the ACO officially).</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><i>Second</i>, </span><span style="background-color: white;">the SCAC determined that those who are members of the committee <i>ex-officio </i>are not present as representatives. Unfortunately for them this merely confirms that they <i>cannot, </i>under the rule, participate 'in the decision making ... in respect to section 4.2' [of the Covenant]. </span><span style="background-color: white;">Bishop James Tengatenga, as chair of the ACC, and </span><span style="background-color: white;">Mrs. Paver, as vice-chair, cannot participate in discussion of Covenant issues precisely b</span>ecause <span style="background-color: white;">they are not 'representatives'</span><span style="background-color: white;">. </span><br />
<br />
<a href="http://comerecommended.com/files/2011/08/rules-300x300.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://comerecommended.com/files/2011/08/rules-300x300.gif" width="200" /></a>This might also pose a question for those Primates who are members of the SCAC. Para. 6 of the Schedule to the <a href="http://www.anglicancommunion.org/communion/acc/resources/downloads/The%20Constitution%20of%20the%20Anglican%20Consultative%20Council%2024-07-2010.pdf" target="_blank">Constitution </a>(pdf) of the Anglican Consultative Council, and <span style="background-color: white;">§</span><span style="background-color: white;">8.5,</span><span style="background-color: white;"> describes them as </span><i style="background-color: white;">Ex-officio </i><span style="background-color: white;">members of the ACC, their membership lasting only so long as they are members of the Standing Committee. </span><span style="background-color: white;">While they self-evidently represent their respective Churches they are not members of the Standing Committee in a representative </span><span style="background-color: white;">capacity</span><span style="background-color: white;">.</span><br />
<br />
The Archbishop of Canterbury is an Instrument of Communion in his own right and can presumably participate in that capacity, but not, by section 4.2.8, as a member of the SCAC. Presumably also <span style="background-color: white;">Bishop James Tengatenga and </span><span style="background-color: white;">Mrs. Paver can be involved in such Covenant decisions only when the matters are under consideration by the Anglican Consultative Council itself because there they are representatives. </span><br />
<br />
And, I would suppose, their absence from decision making will have to be explicitly recorded and the records subject to disclosure should any disgrumtled Church consider legal action.<br />
<br />
<i>Third</i>, and almost incidentally really, the Covenant does not give the Standing Committee <span style="background-color: white;">power to have</span><span style="background-color: white;"> '</span><span style="background-color: white;">carved out an exception to this rule', or any other. </span><br />
<br />
However,<br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><i>Fourth, </i>critically, I suggest that this section of the Covenant will, if put into practice, lead to actions which are not in accord with </span><span style="background-color: white;">English charity law.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;">Members of the SCAC are trustees of the ACC. The Charity Commissioners'</span><span style="background-color: white;"> </span><a href="http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Publications/cc3.aspx#d1" style="background-color: white;" target="_blank">Essential Trustee </a><span style="background-color: white;">(a summary, not the law itself) says:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(D) Trustees and their responsibilities<br />
Charity trustees are the people who serve on the governing body of a charity. They may be known as trustees, directors, board members, governors or committee members. The principles and main duties are the same in all cases.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(1) Trustees <b><i>have and must accept ultimate responsibility for directing the affairs of a charity</i></b>, and ensuring that it is solvent, well-run, and delivering the charitable outcomes for the benefit of the public for which it has been set up. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;">... </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(E7) Trustees can generally delegate certain powers to agents or employees, but <i><b>will and must always retain the ultimate responsibility</b></i> for running the charity. <span style="background-color: white;">(</span><i>Emphases added.)</i></blockquote>
The Constitution of the charity (the Anglican Consultative Council) is the primary document for the charity and trustees must conform to it: neither the Covenant nor the trustees themselves can override it.
<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white;">The Constitution, as usual, grants the Standing Committee the power to order its own procedures, the Archbishop of Canterbury having a veto)</span> (§2<span style="background-color: white;">7.1:2). It is this power, I suspect, which enabled the Standing Committee to try to sort out the mess this bit of the Covenant is already starting to create.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><br />
<a href="http://pmtips.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/conflict-of-interest-300x160.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://pmtips.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/conflict-of-interest-300x160.gif" /></a><span style="background-color: white;">The Constitution, so far as I could see, makes </span><span style="background-color: white;">no provision to exclude trustees from decision making except where there is a conflict of interest or loyalty</span><span style="background-color: white;"> </span><span style="background-color: white;">(</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">§</span><span style="background-color: white;">10)). </span><span style="background-color: white;">The Charity Commissioners say,</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Trustees appointed by another organisation, such as by a local authority, (sometimes referred to as nominative or representative trustees) have exactly the same duties and responsibilities as other trustees. They must act independently of the organisation which appointed them and act only in the best interests of the charity. There may well be occasions where such trustees will have to act in a way which conflicts with the interests of the organisation appointing them. In such circumstances the best interests of the charity must come first; this duty overrides all other considerations. (<span style="background-color: white;"><a href="http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity_requirements_guidance/charity_governance/good_governance/conflicts.aspx#8" target="_blank">A guide to conflicts of interest for charity trustees</a>.) </span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white;">A</span><span style="background-color: white;">s I understand it, trustees may not recuse themselves from whole areas of the charity's decision making </span><span style="background-color: white;">by policy</span><span style="background-color: white;">. Covenant or no Covenant. There is no such power in the Constitution and to do so would be to cease to exercise their trusteeship.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;">I suggest that </span><span style="background-color: white;">section 4.2.8 of the Covenant, if implemented, would almost inevitably be in conflict with English charity law and the application of it would certainly give lawyers grounds for an action against the SCAC if a Church felt it had been unfairly penalised or disadvantaged.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;">Therefore something must give. It will be the Covenant.</span><br />
<br />
=========<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Disclaimer: </i>I'm not a lawyer, canonical nor secular. But I do work for a charity and need at least a rudimentary grasp of the principles. However, if you can point me to any misrepresentation or case law or anything authoritative at variance with my argument I will make whatever changes are necessary to this post and apologise</span><span style="background-color: white; font-size: x-small;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; font-size: x-small;">at the earliest opportunity</span><span style="background-color: white; font-size: x-small;">.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">And, if you can do that, you might also be able to answer another, related, question. What's the legal standing of 'alternate' trustees? I can't see a reference in the Constitution to this practice of naming deputies, and I can't see how they can be trustees unless they're full members. The <a href="http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/ContactAndTrustees.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1137273&SubsidiaryNumber=0" target="_blank">Charity Commission</a> doesn't list them as trustees. I suppose they could merely have observer status. Either way, I think this is an example of the SCAC being too casual about trusteeship - and, as always, opaque. </span><br />
<br />Paul Bagshawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17694279608748668806noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5108550303571033600.post-37676546037598136612012-06-25T08:14:00.001+01:002012-06-26T14:18:10.759+01:00Brisbane defers the Covenant<i>Culled from an <a href="http://www.catholica.com.au/forum/index.php?id=106189" target="_blank">Australian Catholic discussion board</a>:</i><br />
<br />
<div style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 0.82em; line-height: 1.45em; max-width: 50.2em; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 0.82em; line-height: 1.45em; max-width: 50.2em; text-align: left;">
Just came from the Brisbane synod vote [Saturday 23/June] on approving the Anglican Covenant. Rather than approve or reject it, they took the 'Welsh Option' and instead passed the following motion which acknowledges that the process has been somewhat overtaken by events.</div>
<div style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 0.82em; line-height: 1.45em; max-width: 50.2em; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="citation1" style="background-image: url(http://www.catholica.com.au/forum/templates/Catholica1/images/quote2.jpg); background-position: 0px 3px; background-repeat: no-repeat repeat; color: #006600; font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 0.82em; line-height: 1.45em; margin-bottom: 9px; margin-left: 20px; max-width: 50.2em; padding: 0px 35px 2px; text-align: left;">
That this Synod recommends to the General Synod that it:</div>
<div style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 0.82em; line-height: 1.45em; max-width: 50.2em; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 0.82em; line-height: 1.45em; max-width: 50.2em; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="citation1" style="background-image: url(http://www.catholica.com.au/forum/templates/Catholica1/images/quote2.jpg); background-position: 0px 3px; background-repeat: no-repeat repeat; color: #006600; font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 0.82em; line-height: 1.45em; margin-bottom: 9px; margin-left: 20px; max-width: 50.2em; padding: 0px 35px 2px; text-align: left;">
Affirm the commitment of the Anglican Church of Australia to the Anglican Communion.</div>
<div style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 0.82em; line-height: 1.45em; max-width: 50.2em; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 0.82em; line-height: 1.45em; max-width: 50.2em; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="citation1" style="background-image: url(http://www.catholica.com.au/forum/templates/Catholica1/images/quote2.jpg); background-position: 0px 3px; background-repeat: no-repeat repeat; color: #006600; font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 0.82em; line-height: 1.45em; margin-bottom: 9px; margin-left: 20px; max-width: 50.2em; padding: 0px 35px 2px; text-align: left;">
Affirm its readiness to engage with any ongoing process of consideration of the Anglican Communion Covenant</div>
<div style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 0.82em; line-height: 1.45em; max-width: 50.2em; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 0.82em; line-height: 1.45em; max-width: 50.2em; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="citation1" style="background-image: url(http://www.catholica.com.au/forum/templates/Catholica1/images/quote2.jpg); background-position: 0px 3px; background-repeat: no-repeat repeat; color: #006600; font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 0.82em; line-height: 1.45em; margin-bottom: 9px; margin-left: 20px; max-width: 50.2em; padding: 0px 35px 2px; text-align: left;">
Request clarification from the 15th meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council as to the status and direction of the Covenant Process in the light of the position of the Church of England.</div>
<div style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 0.82em; line-height: 1.45em; max-width: 50.2em; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 0.82em; line-height: 1.45em; max-width: 50.2em; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="citation1" style="background-image: url(http://www.catholica.com.au/forum/templates/Catholica1/images/quote2.jpg); background-position: 0px 3px; background-repeat: no-repeat repeat; color: #006600; font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 0.82em; line-height: 1.45em; margin-bottom: 9px; margin-left: 20px; max-width: 50.2em; padding: 0px 35px 2px; text-align: left;">
Urge upon the Instruments of Communion a course of action which continues to see reconciliation and the preservation of the Communion as a family of interdependent but autonomous Churches.</div>
<br />
<i><br /></i><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://bne.catholic.net.au/ecum/images/maryboroughx.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="316" src="http://bne.catholic.net.au/ecum/images/maryboroughx.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption"><div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: white;">The Anglican Diocese of Brisbane and the Roman Catholic </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Archdiocese of Brisbane and Diocese of Toowoomba </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><a href="http://bne.catholic.net.au/ecum/covenant.php" target="_blank">signed a Covenant</a> on 29 May 2009</span></div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<i>The author adds:</i><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
There are some real structural problems with the Australian Anglican Church and the covenant. Everyone has to agree otherwise no-one can, and there is absolutely no chance that all diocese will agree so its a moot point.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
All we can do about it from this side of the world is to keep affirming our commitment to communion and ongoing dialogue. The covenant debate was a useful trigger for starting that sort of dialogue for those who actually considered it.</blockquote>
<br />
<i>The Brisbane <a href="http://www.anglicanbrisbane.org.au/www/node/1" target="_blank">Diocesan website</a></i><br />
doesn't seem to have the result yet. It has the <a href="http://www.anglicanbrisbane.org.au/www/node/558" target="_blank">speech to Synod</a> by the Archbishop Phillip Aspinall in favour of the Covenant which concludes,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
So I think Australia should enter into the Covenant. We have further contributions to make as the Covenant evolves. Indeed the unique shape of the Australian Church means we may have a very important contribution to make. We can only do that if we are on board.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I look forward to hearing what emerges from the group discussions this afternoon and to the debate in Synod. You now know what I think, but we Anglicans believe in dispersed authority, so I wait to see what you think!</blockquote>Paul Bagshawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17694279608748668806noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5108550303571033600.post-2097669494081415162012-06-19T22:07:00.001+01:002012-06-19T22:07:36.959+01:00Something strange in the woodshed<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/Anglican_Communion_corrected.gif/800px-Anglican_Communion_corrected.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="140" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/Anglican_Communion_corrected.gif/800px-Anglican_Communion_corrected.gif" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The picture is intriguingly entitled<br />Anglican_Communion_corrected. By whom?</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Some funny things are going on in relation to the Covenant. I guess they reflect divided attitudes amongst those who might regard themselves as 'players' in this particular game.<br />
<br />
<b>1) T</b><span style="background-color: white;"><b>he Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion</b></span><br />
The first was the announcement by the SCAC that there was now "no timeframe" for the adoption of the Covenant:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The Standing Committee received an update on the progress of the Anglican Communion Covenant. It was noted that eight Provinces had endorsed the Covenant to date, in some cases with a degree of qualification. They were the only responses received so far by the Secretary General. The committee also noted that the President, Chair, and Vice-Chair all hold their offices other than as representatives of their Provinces. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
There was general agreement that no timeframe should yet be introduced for the process of adoption of the Covenant by Provinces. The Standing Committee will return to this question following ACC-15. <a href="http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/news.cfm/2012/5/30/ACNS5112" target="_blank">Press Release</a></blockquote>
While it was entirely understandable that the Church of England should not yet have informed the
Secretary General of the result of its deliberations on the issue, has not the Province of the Philippines told him that they have rejected the Covenant, or did he just forget to mention it?<br />
<br />
"No timeframe" and "<span style="background-color: white;">following ACC-15" keep options open. Drexel Gomez' drumbeat of 'urgent, urgent' has clearly been ignored. Instead an open-ended process would allow the Anglican Consultative Council to kill the Covenant if enough members wished to do so. Alternatively it would allow one province after another to sign up till those who had initially declined to do so became overwhelmed by its popularity and conceded.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDtmt2YZUSoGZANbYTRAoTBIg2JDom3Yqu2xvT3cpzbhJRA81ctSPNKqHBSB4hyphenhypheniK5bKJ-Ds4MIfjCvctWdGB_D4u52Elr7jdYP5FKQnID4_ttDN2ynbtTKjfjtaXJxRV1s1nTtHUHAow/s1600/puzzle1.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDtmt2YZUSoGZANbYTRAoTBIg2JDom3Yqu2xvT3cpzbhJRA81ctSPNKqHBSB4hyphenhypheniK5bKJ-Ds4MIfjCvctWdGB_D4u52Elr7jdYP5FKQnID4_ttDN2ynbtTKjfjtaXJxRV1s1nTtHUHAow/s200/puzzle1.gif" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Conditional trusteeship of the Anglican Communion?</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="background-color: white;">The reference to the standing of ex-officio members of the Standing Committee strongly suggests a worried conversation on the lines of 'what is the role of members of the Standing Committee who represent provinces which have not signed the covenant?' (Which could easily be <a href="http://notthesamestream.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/conflicted-standing-committee.html" target="_blank">5 out of 11 elected members</a>.)</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"></span><br /><span style="background-color: white;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;">My understanding of English charity law (which governs the Committee) is that it is pretty straightforward: as trustees they must all act in the best interests of the charity and not of any nominating or electing body; they cannot be excluded from decision making (except in cases of conflict of interest) nor delegate their responsibilities to others. Some could, of course, voluntarily step back from certain questions or decisions. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;">But this would result in the farcical position of overlapping layers of decision making within the governing body of the Communion. Once again, the Covenant would be a source of visible disunity in the Anglican Church.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><b>2) GS1878: report by the Business Committee on the</b></span> <b>reference [of the Covenant] to the dioceses </b><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><a href="http://www.churchofengland.org/media/1477814/gs%201878%20anglican%20communion%20covenant%20report%20by%20the%20business%20committee.pdf" target="_blank">GS1878</a> is a masterclass in hints and insinuation in an objective report. Having noted the defeat of the Covenant under the rules, it says,</span><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;">6) ... </span><span style="background-color: white;">For the record,</span><span style="background-color: white;"> there is nothing in the Synod’s Constitution or Standing Orders that would preclude the </span><span style="background-color: white;">process being started over again, whether in the lifetime of this Synod or subsequently, by </span><span style="background-color: white;">another draft Instrument to the same effect being brought forward for consideration by the </span><span style="background-color: white;">General Synod before being referred to the dioceses under Article 8. The Business C</span><span style="background-color: white;">ommittee is not, however, aware of a proposal to re-start the process in this way.</span></blockquote>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.newcastle.anglican.org/userfiles/image/Newcastle%20Website/News%20and%20Events/Latest%20News/synod%20jpg.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="212" src="http://www.newcastle.anglican.org/userfiles/image/Newcastle%20Website/News%20and%20Events/Latest%20News/synod%20jpg.gif" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">General Synod in session</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="background-color: white;">Now why would you comment on a matter which has not been proposed? </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;">I don't doubt the first sentence is factually correct but I wonder whether this paragraph was included in any earlier report on a defeated Article 8 business. It sounds like a snub to those who confidently stated that that the matter cannot be brought back to Synod before 2015. But even if this is not absolutely and constitutionally correct it </span><span style="background-color: white;">is</span><span style="background-color: white;"> </span><span style="background-color: white;">certainly politically impossible to bring the issue back in this Synod: <i>so t</i></span><i style="background-color: white;">o whom is this hint directed?</i><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;">More worrying is the extended discussion on the votes. While, again, I'm sure it's accurate in every detail it is completely irrelevant. Its sole purpose seems to be to obfuscate the result and imply that the vote is in some way unreliable. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;">Whether by intent or not, the discussion is <a href="http://notthesamestream.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/dissing-synods.html" target="_blank">undermining of synodical government</a>. In the 18 years' debate which led to the creation of General Synod the repeated refrain was: 'the Church is not a democracy'. Voting by houses and dioceses was an expression of the <i>synodical </i>character of the government of the Church of England. It deliberately avoided making individuals the constituent element of church government (as, for instance, did the refusal to give all lay members a vote for their representatives in General Synod).</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;">Thus the CofE's governance does not ask, <i>are a majority of members or their representatives content with a proposal,</i> it asks: <i>are a majority of local synods content? </i>And they were not.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;">Yet now we are told that if a few individuals here or there changed their mind or their diocese the result could have been quite different (paras. 8&9). Correct, I'm sure, but so what? Members voted the way they voted, synods divided accordingly and the motion was lost. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;">The only 'so what?' I can think of which might justify the Business Committee endorsing such a report is that they were thoroughly brassed off with the result. If this isn't an abuse of process it is certainly playing fast and loose with the interpretation of the result.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><br />
<br />Paul Bagshawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17694279608748668806noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5108550303571033600.post-39020505689549132362012-05-13T19:57:00.002+01:002012-05-13T19:57:42.999+01:00The Anglican Church in Zimbabwe sets out on a new course<br />
<table class="contentpaneopen" style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left; width: auto;"><tbody>
<tr><td class="contentheading" style="padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: bottom;" width="100%"><i style="font-size: medium;">From the <a href="http://www.thestandard.co.zw/local/35385-gandiya-faction-constructs-own-anglican-churches-.html" target="_blank">Harare Standard</a></i><br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Gandiya faction constructs own Anglican churches </span></b><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">JENNIFER DUBE, Saturday, 12 May 2012 18:01</span><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/314739_141224305970939_100002501115815_222924_8064295_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="214" src="https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/314739_141224305970939_100002501115815_222924_8064295_n.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption"><div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: 12px;">The Rt Revd Chad Gandiya, Bishop of Harare </span><span style="font-size: 12px;">(Right)</span><span style="font-size: 12px;">, </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: 12px;">CPCA, Anglican Communion</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: 12px;">Photo Credit: Anglican Harare CPCA</span></div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: small;">THE Anglican Church of the Province of Central Africa (CPCA) has started buying land to build new churches as the property wrangle with ex-communicated Bishop Nolbert Kunonga continues.<br /> <br />Reverend Samuel Sifelani of the Marlborough parish said parishioners from his church would soon start building new structures because the Kunonga faction was preventing them from using the building they had shared before their acrimonious split.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: small;">....<br /><span style="text-align: justify;">“We are happy to be able to convene and pray in peace, without being attacked and arrested,” one parishioner said. “But we are not completely at peace because our properties were taken away from us.”</span> </span></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: small;">Land has been acquired in Ruwa where the Mothers’ Union intended to build a training centre and a conference centre. Glenview parish has bought land while Warren Park parish is fundraising. Norton and other parishes have also secured land.<br /><br />Kunonga told the journalist,</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: small;">“Assist them by telling them that they should not build in the name of the Harare diocese and Anglican because they would have built for me as the law gave me custody of the church and all its properties,” he said.<br /><br />“They do not know what they are doing but they have to be wary or else when I arrive at the properties they will start saying the law is unfair yet it is them who would have shown lack of intelligence.<br /><br />He added: “Impress upon them that they should change the name so they do not get disadvantaged. They can come up with a new name and re-register or else their efforts will amount to nothing but a waste of time because the law is clear that they have no church.”</span></blockquote>
<a href="http://www.thestandard.co.zw/local/35385-gandiya-faction-constructs-own-anglican-churches-.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>All here</i> </span></a></td><td align="right" class="buttonheading" width="100%"><br /></td><td align="right" class="buttonheading" width="100%"><br /></td><td align="right" class="buttonheading" width="100%"><br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>Paul Bagshawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17694279608748668806noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5108550303571033600.post-42985633866212239212012-05-04T13:25:00.002+01:002012-05-04T21:08:17.038+01:00No Anglican Covenant - next stepsUntil now the <a href="http://noanglicancovenant.org/" target="_blank">No Anglican Covenant Campaign</a> has, for obvious reasons, focused strongly on England and the vote in English dioceses.<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.equitum.ca/images/malcolm_small.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://www.equitum.ca/images/malcolm_small.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Malcolm French</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
A number of changes have followed the defeat of the Covenant in England.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://revdlesley.net/" target="_blank">Lesley Fellows </a>has stood down as International Moderator and she deserves great praise and gratitude for the manner in which she performed this role.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://simplemassingpriest.blogspot.co.uk/" target="_blank">Malcolm French</a> has taken on the tasks of International Moderator.<br />
<br />
Jean Mayland, a lifelong campaigner for change in the Church of England, is now the English Convener for the group.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://blog.noanglicancovenant.org/2012/05/no-anglican-covenant-coalition.html" target="_blank">Press Release here</a>.<br />
<br />
NACC attention is now turning to the US where the mood is difficult to read.<br />
<br />
The Episcopal Church's General Convention meets in July in Indianapolis, Indiana. Three motions have already been proposed and the <a href="http://blog.noanglicancovenant.org/2012/04/model-covenant-resolution-for-2012.html" target="_blank">NACC motion</a> is currently looking for sponsors. (OK, I'm being pedantic here. These proposals are all called resolutions. I believe that a motion becomes a resolution when it is agreed (resolved) not when it's put forward. But, when in Indianapolis ... So, I concede, and the texts will hereinafter be called resolutions.)<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://yhgc12.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/2012_color_01.gif?w=210&h=210" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://yhgc12.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/2012_color_01.gif?w=210&h=210" width="200" /></a></div>
Three resolutions have so far been proposed. One for the Covenant, one for continuing engagement with the Covenant process, and one against the Covenant. All resolutions are <a href="http://generalconvention.org/gc/resolutions" target="_blank">listed here</a>.<br />
<br />
The one for the Covenant comes from a group who call themselves Communion Partners (firmly conservative) and was <a href="http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/003968.html" target="_blank">announced in 2009</a>. The one <a href="http://archive.episcopalchurch.org/79425_130304_ENG_HTM.htm" target="_blank">opposing the Covenant</a> comes from the Episcopal Church’s Executive Council. And the one in the middle seems to be a response to these two with the intention of keeping the ball in the air until everyone else has declared what they think. (<a href="http://anglicanfuture.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/three-resolutions-on-anglican-covenant.html" target="_blank">Comparison at Preludium</a>)<br />
<br />
All these, and any others received in time, then go into a mincing machine which people have explained to me and I still have no clear idea how it all works.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Paul Bagshawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17694279608748668806noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5108550303571033600.post-14247543898277380892012-05-04T13:14:00.001+01:002012-05-04T13:19:40.838+01:00Time to open up the ACC<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.anglicancommunion.org/_userfiles/Image/medium/acns3992am.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://www.anglicancommunion.org/_userfiles/Image/medium/acns3992am.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The Anglican version of the Olympic<br />
opening ceremony, ACC Nottingham 2005,<br />
Photo: ACNS</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The next meeting of the <a href="http://www.anglicancommunion.org/communion/acc/" target="_blank">Anglican Consultative Council</a> in Auckland, New Zealand, begins on October 27th. An <a href="http://www.auckanglican.org.nz/dox/Miscellaneous/2012/What%20is%20the%20ACC.pdf" target="_blank">outline of events is here</a> (pdf).<br />
<br />
Traditionally the ACC has been very circumspect about sharing its deliberations and the event <span id="goog_93335111"></span><span id="goog_93335112"></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/"></a>programme says "The ACC needs to get on with its own work in relative privacy,".<br />
<br />
But it's not 'its own work', it's the Church's work (and, we would hope, God's work). The secrecy, with only selective and carefully managed press releases coming out of the conference, followed by the bare list of resolutions, is wholly inadequate.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The role of the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) is to facilitate the co-operative work of the churches of the Anglican Communion, exchange information between the Provinces and churches, and help to co-ordinate common action. It advises on the organisation and structures of the Communion, and seeks to develop common policies with respect to the world mission of the Church, including ecumenical matters. (<a href="http://www.anglicancommunion.org/communion/acc/about.cfm" target="_blank">Anglican Communion site</a>)</blockquote>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.cartoonchurch.com/cartoons/acc/4.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="193" src="http://www.cartoonchurch.com/cartoons/acc/4.gif" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">From <a href="http://www.cartoonchurch.com/content/cc/anglican-consultative-council/" target="_blank">Dave Walker</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The ACC is (a) a meeting of representatives from around the world, (b) consultative in its character and (c) of interest to a very large number of people around the world. Representatives should be audible to those they represent, consultation should (as much for its quality and comprehensiveness as for the benefit of others) be as public as possible, public interest is to be taken seriously as a sign of the engaged membership of the global communion.<br />
<br />
I accept that members may not want to release the details of everything while debate is still going on. I accept that, occasionally, some matters may be confidential (though, having written that sentence, I puzzle over what would require confidentiality, and on what grounds). But what would be the harm in releasing transcripts or, at least, detailed summaries of each debate once the event is concluded?<br />
<br />
Secrecy in government is both necessary and corrosive. As a rule I believe the balance should be struck by beginning with the presupposition that everything is public; exceptions should then be justified on a case by case basis according to previously agreed criteria.<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.anglican.ca/help/files/2009/12/just-ask-square.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://www.anglican.ca/help/files/2009/12/just-ask-square.gif" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Logo from the <a href="http://www.anglican.ca/help/database/" target="_blank">AnglicanChurch of Canada</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
But the ACC is not making judgments on commercial matters, nor dealing with information that's market sensitive. It's not debating matters which entail the disclosure of sensitive personal information. It's not a private club. There are no security implications of its debates. I even struggle to think of issues that it would simply want to hide.<br />
<br />
So why is it so secretive? Why is information about its deliberations so sparse as to be almost vacuous? <i>Whose Communion is it anyway?</i><br />
<br />
<i><span style="font-size: large;">Time for a new campaign:</span></i> for an open minded, hearted, and voiced Communion.<br />
<br />Paul Bagshawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17694279608748668806noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5108550303571033600.post-68434521704783235542012-05-01T09:29:00.000+01:002012-05-01T09:29:00.135+01:00Final voting figures on the Covenant<div>
<a href="http://blog.noanglicancovenant.org/2012/04/church-of-england-final-voting-stats.html" target="_blank">Alan Perry</a> has produced a final tally of the statistics on the Covenant vote (and I've added some comments). </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In all, 3588 people voted in the 44 diocesan synods, including 94 bishops, 1584 clergy and 1910 laity. (Bishops' votes did not count toward the results, but were nevertheless recorded.)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The proposal to endorse the Covenant was defeated by 26 Dioceses to 18. This is a significantly bigger margin than the difference in individual votes. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It is important to remember that this voting system was devised as part of synodical government. It was never a system of individual votes where people happened to be gathered geographically. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Matters referred to dioceses under Sections 7 & 8 of the Synodical Measure are proposals for significant change in church life. Therefore the bar which a proposal had to pass was set noticeably higher than 50%+1. The intention was to find a way of ensuring, so far as possible, that a positive vote really reflected sufficient support for change around the country and amongst both clergy and laity. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vG0G80SLOwc/TwUnDK9_nuI/AAAAAAAABaE/ikwnFC4oLrQ/s320/vote2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="156" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vG0G80SLOwc/TwUnDK9_nuI/AAAAAAAABaE/ikwnFC4oLrQ/s200/vote2.jpg" width="200" /></a>Therefore one way of looking at the discrepancy between the votes of bishops and those of the laity and clergy is to suggest that synodical government structures have proved effective. Bishops may be out of step with their people but the synodical system provided an effective brake on their forward march.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Whether the lesson you draw is that diocesan voting should be circumvented or strengthened depends on deeper questions of how you perceive the nature of the church.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>Percentages of the vote by houses:</i></div>
<div style="text-align: -webkit-left;">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cols="3" frame="VOID" rules="NONE">
<colgroup><col width="178"></col><col width="141"></col><col width="86"></col></colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17" width="178"><b><i>All voters</i></b></td>
<td align="LEFT" width="141"><br /></td>
<td align="LEFT" width="86"><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="CENTER" height="17">For the Covenant</td>
<td align="CENTER">Against the Covenant </td>
<td align="CENTER">Abstained</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="CENTER" height="17" sdnum="2057;" sdval="49.25">49.25</td>
<td align="CENTER" sdnum="2057;" sdval="46.29">46.29</td>
<td align="CENTER" sdnum="2057;" sdval="4.46">4.46</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="CENTER" height="17"><br /></td>
<td align="CENTER"><br /></td>
<td align="CENTER"><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><i>Voters excluding bishops</i></b></td>
<td align="CENTER"><br /></td>
<td align="CENTER"><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="CENTER" height="19">For the Covenant</td>
<td align="CENTER">Against the Covenant </td>
<td align="CENTER">Abstained</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="CENTER" height="17" sdnum="2057;" sdval="48.43">48.43</td>
<td align="CENTER" sdnum="2057;" sdval="47.14">47.14</td>
<td align="CENTER" sdnum="2057;" sdval="4.44">4.44</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="CENTER" height="18"><br /></td>
<td align="CENTER"><br /></td>
<td align="CENTER"><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><i>Bishops only</i></b></td>
<td align="LEFT"><br /></td>
<td align="LEFT"><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="CENTER" height="19">For the Covenant</td>
<td align="CENTER">Against the Covenant </td>
<td align="CENTER">Abstained</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="CENTER" height="17" sdnum="2057;" sdval="79.79">79.79</td>
<td align="CENTER" sdnum="2057;" sdval="14.89">14.89</td>
<td align="CENTER" sdnum="2057;" sdval="5.32">5.32</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="20"><br /></td>
<td align="LEFT"><br /></td>
<td align="LEFT"><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><i>Clergy only</i></b></td>
<td align="LEFT"><br /></td>
<td align="LEFT"><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="CENTER" height="16">For the Covenant</td>
<td align="CENTER">Against the Covenant </td>
<td align="CENTER">Abstained</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="CENTER" height="17" sdnum="2057;" sdval="46.65">46.65</td>
<td align="CENTER" sdnum="2057;" sdval="49.49">49.49</td>
<td align="CENTER" sdnum="2057;" sdval="3.85">3.85</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><br /></td>
<td align="LEFT"><br /></td>
<td align="LEFT"><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><i>Laity only</i></b></td>
<td align="LEFT"><br /></td>
<td align="LEFT"><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="CENTER" height="17">For the Covenant</td>
<td align="CENTER">Against the Covenant </td>
<td align="CENTER">Abstained</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="CENTER" height="17" sdnum="2057;0;0.00" sdval="49.9">49.90</td>
<td align="CENTER" sdnum="2057;" sdval="45.19">45.19</td>
<td align="CENTER" sdnum="2057;" sdval="4.92">4.92</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<i><br /></i><div>
<i>Number of dioceses v</i><i>oting for and against by houses</i><i>:</i></div>
<div>
<div>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cols="2" frame="VOID" rules="NONE">
<colgroup><col width="178"></col><col width="141"></col></colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17" width="178"><b><i>Bishops only</i></b></td>
<td align="LEFT" width="141"><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="CENTER" height="17">For the Covenant</td>
<td align="CENTER">Against the Covenant </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="CENTER" height="17" sdnum="2057;" sdval="37">37</td>
<td align="CENTER" sdnum="2057;" sdval="7">7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><br /></td>
<td align="LEFT"><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><i>Clergy only</i></b></td>
<td align="LEFT"><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="CENTER" height="17">For the Covenant</td>
<td align="CENTER">Against the Covenant </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="CENTER" height="17" sdnum="2057;" sdval="18">18</td>
<td align="CENTER" sdnum="2057;" sdval="26">26</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><br /></td>
<td align="LEFT"><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17"><b><i>Laity only</i></b></td>
<td align="LEFT"><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="CENTER" height="17">For the Covenant</td>
<td align="CENTER">Against the Covenant </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="CENTER" height="17" sdnum="2057;" sdval="22">22</td>
<td align="CENTER" sdnum="2057;" sdval="22">22</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It is clear overall that the Covenant was unable to secure majority support amongst either the clergy or the laity. The bishops voted overwhelmingly for the Covenant.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In 22 dioceses both clergy and laity voted against and only in 4 dioceses was the Covenant defeated in a single house (clergy).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="http://blog.noanglicancovenant.org/2012/04/church-of-england-final-voting-stats.html" target="_blank">Source here</a>.</div>Paul Bagshawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17694279608748668806noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5108550303571033600.post-18221352028962896552012-04-28T12:16:00.003+01:002012-04-30T08:31:14.184+01:00Reading the FoCA tea leavesThe lineaments of the Anglican polity of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans have become a little sharper after their London conference, though a great deal still needs to be clarified.<br />
<br />
The fundamentals are:<br />
<ol>
<li>The <a href="http://fca.net/resources/the_jerusalem_declaration/" target="_blank">Jerusalem Declaration</a> sets out both what is of God and what is truly Anglican. </li>
<li>Consequently those who cannot or will not assent to it are neither godly nor Anglican (historic continuity is irrelevant if the path followed has departed from the ways of God).</li>
<li>Authority to determine contested issues and who may be recognised as Anglican rests with ultimately with the Primates whose provinces accord with the principles of the Jerusalem Declaration, meeting as equals.</li>
</ol>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.anglican-mainstream.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/fca-logo1-300x148.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="98" src="http://www.anglican-mainstream.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/fca-logo1-300x148.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
Consequently:<br />
<ol>
<li>The goal of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans is to 'rescue' the Anglican Communion - from cultural relativity, from deserting the plain meaning of the Scriptures and from becoming no more than a 'movement for social betterment'.</li>
<li>In practice the rescue comprises: (a) those provinces which endorse the Jerusalem Declaration will establish their own structures of communication and decision making and (b) individuals and larger groupings within other provinces will be recognised as Anglican under (varied) structures which are overseen by those
provinces which endorse the Jerusalem Declaration.</li>
<li>The Anglican Communion's 'Instruments of Unity' are 'dysfunctional' not because they don't work but because they do not serve to conform the Communion to the principles of the Jerusalem Declaration - and in particular because they are not able to 'exercise discipline in the face of overt heterodoxy' (<a href="http://gafcon.org/images/uploads/BeingFaithful_JD_Commentary.pdf" target="_blank">Being Faithful: The Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today</a>).</li>
<li>The FoCA has no need to institute schism. They are happy to remain in communion with all faithful Anglicans. If there are those who have left the proper Anglican path to promote a 'false gospel' that is a matter of deep regret and, ultimately, of the salvation (or not) of those individuals: but it is they who have left, not faithful confessing Anglicans.</li>
</ol>
<div style="text-align: center;">
* * *</div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200806/r266830_1116764.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200806/r266830_1116764.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Archbishop Peter Jensen, key mover in the<br />
Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The epistemic divide is clear. FCA members have objective criteria (both biblical and from within traditional church teaching, though the former is definitive) by which to critique both secular society and Christian praxis.<br />
<br />
In particular history in the sense of legitimating and identity-forming narratives is replaced by salvation history: judgement by objective biblical and theological criteria. Concluding a survey of 500 years of Anglican polity the Revd Dr Ashley Null concluded,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Effectiveness in mission is the highest historic priority in Anglicanism, for the church derives its existence, purpose and power from the faithful proclamation of the gospel in word and sacrament. Because of this divine call, the church has God’s assurance of his abiding presence among his people. Nevertheless, since the church as a human institution can err, adapting the proclamation of the gospel to a specific culture can all too often lead to the culture adapting and changing the gospel to its own human idolatries. Therefore, a global fellowship is necessary to help individual national churches to discern whether a specific gospel proclamation is adapting to the culture or capitulating to it. (FCA Leaders' Conference <a href="http://gafcon.org/images/uploads/Statement_and_Comittment.pdf" target="_blank">Statement and Commitment</a>.)</blockquote>
Thus historic continuity is replaced by a confessional church, as they say in their title. (A
fellowship of confessing Anglicans began as a lower case description of people who would attend or align themselves with the Global Anglican Future Conference (Jerusalem, 2008). I also guess that 'Gafcon' was unacceptable as a long term title.)<br />
<br />
Therefore, rejecting the error of subordination to secular mores, Anglicanism has a great and godly future:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
We do not need to repudiate or belittle our history, but learn from it and set ourselves <i><b>now </b></i>to walk humbly with our God into the future and the hope that he has planned for us. (Archbishop Wabukala, <i>emphasis added</i>)</blockquote>
There are hints that the FoCA is still in early and slightly unstable days. However there is also a clear sense that the enemy which brought the group together is now less important to its identity than its own internally generated programme. Sexuality is still significant as a shibboleth but the issue is little more than a symptom of the much deeper malaise from which the FoCA will rescue both church and society.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
* * *</div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii232/TERESA7_album/FORUM-1%20TO%20041408/0622-GAFCON-MOUNT-OF-OLIVES.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="216" src="http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii232/TERESA7_album/FORUM-1%20TO%20041408/0622-GAFCON-MOUNT-OF-OLIVES.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Gafcon members on the Mount of Olives, Jerusalem, 2008</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
In this context the focus of media commentary on the proposal that the Primates' Meeting should be chaired by an elected member for, perhaps, a 4 or 5 year term is peripheral. It is merely a statement of how the FoCA will order itself internally, drawing from inherited patterns of Anglican polity but adapting it to suit their programme.<br />
<br />
More significant was the view that the election of the Archbishop of Canterbury was a matter for England alone. It will be the leaders of the FoCA who decide whether or not to accept him as part of the Fellowship: no-one is acceptable (i.e. godly and Anglican) merely by virtue of their office.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
* * *</div>
Therefore there will be no schism in the sense of one organization separating itself out from another on a certain day, followed immediately by either or both bodies setting up new structures and legal identities.<br />
<br />
Instead there will be a steady continued tearing of the fabric as distinct ecclesial units (parishes, dioceses and provinces as well as individuals) align themselves explicitly with the FoCA. The legalities will depend on the law of each country (property and pensions being governed by secular law) and on the ecclesiastical structure of each Church.<br />
<br />
I anticipate that the FoCA churches will thrive, purposeful and enthusiastic for at least the medium-term foreseeable future. It will thus be self-legitimating.<br />
<br />
On the other hand I guess the remaining churches will flounder for a while before accepting the reality that there will be no accommodation between the two Anglican entities. Then they too will revise their own relationships, structures and communications and will settle into the new geography of Anglicanism where, in most places, there will be one dominant Anglican Church and a minority owing allegiance to its mirror image.<br />
<br />
I don't think who is appointed as Archbishop of Canterbury will make much difference to this process - except, perhaps, to the timing.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Paul Bagshawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17694279608748668806noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5108550303571033600.post-17997223456430398152012-04-28T09:00:00.000+01:002012-04-28T18:31:30.705+01:00The final diocesan votes<br />
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 19px;">Today sees the last two dioceses to vote on the Covenant. As the proposal has already been defeated the issue cannot return to General Synod until the summer of 2015 at the earliest.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 19px;"><b><br /></b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="color: #222222; line-height: 19px;"><b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">N</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;">ewcastle </span></b></span><span style="color: magenta; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">Against</span></b></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;">
Bishops For: 2, Against: 0, Abstained: 0<br />
Clergy For:
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: normal;">8</span>, Against:
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: normal;">18</span>, Abstained: -<br />
Laity For: <span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: normal;">14</span>, Against: <span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: normal;">15</span>, Abstained: 0</blockquote>
<div style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: normal;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 1.4;"><span style="color: #222222; line-height: 19px;"><b>York </b></span><span style="color: #6aa84f; font-size: large; line-height: 1.4;">For </span></span></div>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.4;">
</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.4;">Bishops For: 4, Against: 0, Abstained: 0</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.4;">Clergy For: 26, Against: 5, Abstained: 0</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.4;">Laity For: 38, Against: 5, Abstained: 1</span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.4;">
</span><br />
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.4;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.4;">
</span><b style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: x-large; line-height: 18px;">Summary</b><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.4;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<div style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;">
Dioceses <span style="color: #38761d;">for </span>the Covenant to date: <span style="color: #38761d; font-size: small;">16</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 18px;">
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">Dioceses </span><b style="font-size: 13px;"><span style="color: magenta;">against </span></b><span style="font-size: xx-small;">the Covenant to date: </span><span style="color: magenta; font-size: small;"><b>26 </b></span></div>
<div style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: 13px;">
<div style="line-height: 18px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>Paul Bagshawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17694279608748668806noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5108550303571033600.post-77845594843580645152012-04-25T08:30:00.000+01:002012-04-25T08:30:00.076+01:00An Archbishop for our times<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://modernchurch.org.uk/image/conference/highleigh2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="119" src="http://modernchurch.org.uk/image/conference/highleigh2.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption"><div style="text-align: center;">
Modern Church's annual conference will be at High Leigh</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://modernchurch.org.uk/conference/2012.htm" target="_blank">By whose authority</a>? An interfaith look at women and religious authority</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Modern Church has <a href="http://modernchurch.org.uk/resources/mc/2012-8.htm" target="_blank">set out its shopping list</a> for the next Archbishop of Canterbury. They want:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
an archbishop who will<br />
<ul style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 1.5em; margin-right: 1em; margin-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<li style="line-height: 1.4; margin-bottom: 0.2em;">articulate and defend the Church's unity in diversity;</li>
</ul>
<ul style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 1.5em; margin-right: 1em; margin-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<li style="line-height: 1.4; margin-bottom: 0.2em;">respond to controversies by seeking consensus without being unduly influenced by the prospect of schism or demands for quick resolutions;</li>
</ul>
<ul style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 1.5em; margin-right: 1em; margin-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<li style="line-height: 1.4; margin-bottom: 0.2em;">consider each proposal for change on its merits, without any presupposition against innovation;</li>
</ul>
<ul style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 1.5em; margin-right: 1em; margin-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<li style="line-height: 1.4; margin-bottom: 0.2em;">see it as his role not to tell the faithful what to believe but to encourage the ongoing processes of enquiry; and</li>
</ul>
<ul style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 1.5em; margin-right: 1em; margin-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<li style="line-height: 1.4; margin-bottom: 0.2em;">be willing to hear the voice of God speaking through the moral and spiritual concerns of ordinary Christians and non-Christians.</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<br />
<a href="http://modernchurch.org.uk/image/other/logo_small.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; display: inline !important; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://modernchurch.org.uk/image/other/logo_small.gif" /></a>Inevitably we look backwards when we want to address the future. This submission asserts a 'classic Anglicanism' - embracing diversity, enabling change, supporting learning and the celebration of new insights, responding positively to the insights of secular society. It seeks an Archbishop who embodies and would promote this vision of which Modern Church is a guardian.<br />
<br />
I too would love to see such a person. In fact, when Rowan Williams' name was announced in 2003 I was delighted because I believed we did indeed have such a person. That naivety soon faded.<br />
<br />
I guess I now see things in a harder way than Modern Church. Indeed, the term 'Classic Anglicanism' suggests it has already passed away, stuffed and mounted in some display cabinet. It has echoes of 1970s corporatism, a presupposition of agreement if only there were goodwill enough, a suggestion that if we give uncertainty and ambiguity their proper place no-one will want to draw lines in the sand.<br />
<br />
In a harder world responding positively to secular society means (or could mean) taking on a more strident tone, more individualistic self-assertion and a more calculating approach to relationships, discarding the notion that the state is good (debilitating for a state church), the commodification of anything and the costing of everything.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://uploads8.wikipaintings.org/images/james-tissot/statesmen-no-380-caricature-of-archibald-campbell-tait-archbishop-of-canterbury.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://uploads8.wikipaintings.org/images/james-tissot/statesmen-no-380-caricature-of-archibald-campbell-tait-archbishop-of-canterbury.jpg" width="212" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archibald_Tait" target="_blank">Archbishop Tait,</a><br />
for no particular reason</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The next Archbishop should be:<br />
<ul>
<li>a technocrat who understands the changing impact of new communications technology and an historian who will not lose tradition</li>
<li>a prophet who will side with the poorest globally and locally</li>
<li>a woman who will stand up to bullies and choose her fights carefully</li>
<li>a theologian who will talk plain common sense and a media operator who will never say anything to give hostages to fortune </li>
<li>a team player and a figurehead <i>contra mundum</i></li>
<li>a devout hard-liner and a liberal and generous soul</li>
</ul>
But I'm pretty sure whoever we get will not be up to it. It's a really stupid job. It should be split up into at least 5 separate jobs. (Some earlier thoughts on <a href="http://notthesamestream.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/and-what-shall-we-do-about-canterbury.html" target="_blank">dividing the role</a> in relation to the Communion.)<br />
<br />
So that's what I want, what I really, really want: a different sort of ABC altogether.<br />
<br />Paul Bagshawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17694279608748668806noreply@blogger.com1