Tuesday, 25 November 2008

What was on the table (and the chairs) at NEAC 5?

A lot has been said in the last few days about the proposal brought before the 2008 NEAC at All Soul's Langham Place on Saturday 15th November. I have followed this with interest, but have only just had sight of exactly was on delegates' seats.

The document itself is quite enlightening, and needs to be read in its entirety, since only in this light (and particularly the preamble) is it possible to evaluate properly the majority decision of the meeting that the motion itself not be voted on.

I was personally rather surprised to see how carefully the preamble explicitly makes the point that this would have formed part of a consultation process. This also makes it quite clear that the decision of the meeting not to vote could not at the time it was taken be regarded by anyone there as binding on the CEEC.

As a member of the CEEC myself, I will certainly be arguing that very careful attention must be paid to what happened on the 15th, but it is already clear that the CEEC will be thinking hard about what should happen next, and particularly what should be done to support beleagured fellow Anglicans throughout the Communion.

John Richardson

(PS, I have scanned this document and tried to reflect the original formatting, but obviously this is difficult moving from an A4 page to a blog.)

****************************************************

National Evangelical Anglican Consultation debate

At its next meeting, the Church of England Evangelical Council will vote upon the Global Anglican Future Conference Statement and Jerusalem Declaration. The Council will take into account a wide range of perspectives and insights from its membership.

This Consultation is invited to offer its own insights, comments and advice to the Council. Members of the Council and its Executive are present at this Consultation and a report will be made to the Council, including a summary of points made from the floor. The Consultation is also invited to express an opinion through a formal vote. This vote will inevitably reflect the views only of those able to be present on the day, but will be of considerable assistance to the Council.

Motion
The motion, to be proposed by the Chairman of the Church of England Evangelical Council, is as follows:

“That this National Evangelical Anglican Consultation,

acknowledging that the Church of England professes the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds and bears witness to this truth in her historic formularies (the Book of Common Prayer, the Thirty-nine Articles and the Ordinal) and as set out in Canon A5, Article 6 and the Declaration of Assent

and mindful, as members of the Anglican Communion, of our obligations to faithful Anglicans across the globe,

(a) express our support for the Jerusalem Declaration

and

(b) recognising that Evangelical Anglicans will pursue a variety of strategies, support our brothers and sisters in their strategic decisions including those set out in the GAFCON Statement

made in Jerusalem on 29* June 2008 at the Global Anglican Future Conference gathering attended by 1148 people, including 291 Bishops of the Anglican Communion”

Procedure

For the avoidance of doubt, please note the following:

• No amendments will be permitted
• The motion will be voted on in parts (i.e. (a) and (b) above will be voted on separately)
• The Chairman of the session, the Revd Canon Michael Walters, has full control over the handling of the session to ensure a clear vote and timely finish and no challenges to his rulings are permitted
• The vote will take place no later than 3.55pm.


When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.

9 comments:

  1. Hi John,
    I was there ...
    Maybe the wording does imply that this is only supposed to be part of a consultation process, but for those of us who opposed the vote (either because we oppose the Jerusalem declaration or because we object to being pushed around by bullies, or both) the problem was that those who spoke in favour of the document on (some of) the chairs did not take into account any other approach than GAFCON in their addresses. RT tried hard to "stand alongside" those who wanted to take a different approach, but his behaviour following the vote not to vote undermined his authority somewhat in the eyes of many at the meeting - even those who might otherwise be with him.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The CEEC indeed has the right to go ahead with this motion, but if it does so despite the wishes of its constituency as expressed during the consultation process, it will undermine its own position and lose credibility especially in the eyes of those who are not happy with the GAFCON process. The effect will be to divide C of E evangelicals all the more into separate camps. The majority of NEAC delegates apparently do not want this kind of division. If the CEEC also doesn't want it, they would be wise also to refrain from voting on this motion.

    (Chelmsford)

    PS This new comment system is still not working properly - not giving me the chance to log in and comment until I refresh the page.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The software system is, I'm afraid, out of my hands!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm not sure I get the strength of opposition to GAFCON. Looking at the Christ Church Algarve website - they discribe themselves as Open Evangelical and have now got oversight through GAFCON. Most in TEC or breaking from (or TEC breaking from them?) who GAFCON seek to support will be Anglo-Catholic or Open Evangelical (most conservatives became Reformed Episcopal or Presbytarian a while ago), in Canada with 1 notable exception they will be Charismatic and open....

    SO why are English Open Evangelicals so anti-GAFCON? One day they may need someone to stand with them, but would have all been kicked out or left. Hopefully it won't get that far.

    Darren Moore
    Tranmere

    ReplyDelete
  5. It seems to me to be more about personalities than anything. The open evangelicals in the UK seem to be opposed to the manners and style of the conservatives more than anything.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yes, Michael, that seems to be a consistent issue. And some particularly don't like Australians or anything that may pick up influence from them (whilst others find you lot quite refreshing).

    It seems odd to me on 2 fronts thought. 1st to make such a big issue of personalities rather than facts. The 2nd is that it is a generalisation where we can find lots of exceptions, after all not all Open Evangelicals are exactly cuddly and polite either, are they? - But that is irrelevant - isn't it?

    Darren Moore
    Tranmere

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yes, Michael, that seems to be a consistent issue. And some particularly don't like Australians or anything that may pick up influence from them (whilst others find you lot quite refreshing).

    It seems odd to me on 2 fronts thought. 1st to make such a big issue of personalities rather than facts. The 2nd is that it is a generalisation where we can find lots of exceptions, after all not all Open Evangelicals are exactly cuddly and polite either, are they? - But that is irrelevant - isn't it?

    Darren Moore
    Tranmere

    ReplyDelete
  9. The challenge for the CEEC is that it lost the opportunity to consult, even in the abbreviated day meeting.

    Reading the many reports of the meeting, it seems that there was an attempt to generate a crisis mentality and bludgeon agreement. The lack of prior circulation of papers, the failure to spell out the agenda of the day at the outset, the single unamendable motion, the petulance - none of this was necessary.

    Whatever the CEEC now chooses to do or say, the opportunity to say that it speaks with the mind of its constituency is lost. Tragically lost. Unnecessarily lost.

    This is something for CEEC to repent. How it does so may determine whether it can recover a role in the truly broad yet truly evangelical community.

    Jeremy
    Cambridge

    ReplyDelete