tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post4183782057632416200..comments2023-12-25T23:40:17.701-05:00Comments on Confessions of a Carioca: Toward General Convention IV: The Anglican CovenantDaniel Martinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15980949721733826978noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-52112876945500931682012-06-30T04:46:20.705-04:002012-06-30T04:46:20.705-04:00IIRC the Maori didn't reject the Covenant on t...IIRC the Maori didn't reject the Covenant on the grounds that it was an attack on TEC for being to liberal, they rejected the Covenant because they believed it would do as you say and limit their self-governance contrary to the treaties they have signed with non-Maoris.<br /><br />It's also somewhat disingenuous to say that the CoE didn't reject the Covenant since the Covenant more or less died in committee. Sure, it could come up again when they elect a new Synod, but Scotland could revisit their response, too, they're just unlikely to do so at this time. While it is certainly true that the vote totals were quite close and favored the Covenant in at least one house, that argument reminds me of the old joke, "What do you call a candidate for President that loses the popular vote but wins the Electoral College? A: Mr. President".Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13323740465436735706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-13755993753324740102012-06-30T01:43:47.889-04:002012-06-30T01:43:47.889-04:00With respect, Bishop, your characterization of the...With respect, Bishop, your characterization of the Covenantsceptic position is little more than a straw man. There have been some very detailed critiques that Covenant supporters have generally ignored, preferring to shadowbox against an ephemeral opponent.<br /><br />As to the outcome in the Church of England, it is indeed premature to call it a firm "no." However the special pleading about the agregate votes is simply spin and manipulation of the grossest sort. The relevant measure was not referred to an aggregate vote of members of diocesan synods, but to diocesan synods - and the result was a substantial majority rejecting the measure.<br /><br />But it must also be noted that in several of the dioceses which approved the measure, there were serious procedural problems which raise legitimate questions about the legitimacy of the vote. Lichfield is a convenent example.<br /><br />In the Diocese of Lichfield, the only material distributed to synod members were the one-sided pro-Covenant propaganda pieces from the Anglican Communion Office and Church House. Nothing critical of the Covenant was permitted to be distributed, even when Covenant opponents offered to cover the expense.<br /><br />At the LIchfield diocesan synod, 90 minutes was allocated to debate the Anglican Covenant. The first 30 minutes were given over to a speech by a prominent Covenant supporter. The next ten minutes were allocated to the person moving the motion to approve the measure. In a 90 minute debate, fully 40 minutes elapsed before anyone opposed to the Covenant was permitted to utter a syllable. The remaining 50 minutes was split evenly between alternating pro- and anti- speakers, yet the oveall time allocation was still 65 minutes in favour of the Covenant and 25 minutes opposed.<br /><br />Frankly, I call that unethical, and dare to suggest that there are fairer debates conducted in the legislature of North Korea.Malcolm+https://www.blogger.com/profile/08469936715413110334noreply@blogger.com