Months and months of speculation to look forward to, passing itself off as “Anglican News”. The fact is that the selection will be made by a Committee of sixteen members. This is no more an election than the “election” of the new Chief Executive of Hong Kong.

I would take issue with the idea that NT Wright is somehow intellectually inferior to Rowan Williams. In terms of actual Bible scholarship, Rowan Williams is no match for Bishop Wright.

Well, now that the Anglican Covenant is dead in the Church of England, that will no longer be an issue for the new ABC.

#2: agreed. Plus we can usually understand what Wright is saying (except his stuff on justification).
Nick Baines is a soft woolly liberal from an evangelical background (he studied under George Carey), who has edged his way into the progay ranks, though he will never say so in as many words - he was Tom Butler’s right hand man in gay-friendly Southwark, where a fellow liberal John Clark has succeeded him. He pops up on BBC radio a lot to give a Blairite view of the world.
Chris Cocksworth is the one who has stayed closest to the evangelical constituency and other than Wright, has the best academic credentials (in liturgy and church history). But not well known nationally.
John Pritchard is another from an ‘open evangelical’ background but pretty ‘centrist’ now who think Anglican schools should lose their identity and admit anyone. Like Tec and communion, I suppose.

#3—how so, precisely? 1. 80% of the HOB (or more) in the CofE have voted Yes. We have yet to know what that means, translated into the next season. 2. There are 31 more provinces yet to decide the covenant, and unless the ABC lost his role as Instrument (which no one is proposing as a formality), he will have to relate to that final outcome in some way.

22 of the 44 Diocese in the CofE have defeated the covenant.  This means that it is dead in the water. What it means is that the issue can not be raised in General Symod again.  Having the CofE in the so-called ‘second tier’ of the Anglican Communion would mean that it is the Non-Anglican Communion.  As for the other Provinces, the ABC would be a non-entity in the Non-Anglican Communion as he or she would not be a party to it.  We know as of now that only Provinces may ‘sign on’ to the Covenant.  Provinces can do what they want, but they will be like GAFCON, a non-representative body of the Anglican Communion doing whatever they fancy.

1. 80% of the HOB (or more) in the CofE have voted Yes. We have yet to know what that means, translated into the next season.

The earliest that this could be brought before General Synod again is the General Synod of 2016.  And then it would have to start the process all over.

“What it means is that the issue can not be raised in General Symod (sic) again.”—strictly speaking, it can indeed be brought to GS in the future. But I doubt that will happen, unless the covenant were to be widely endorsed globally.

“Having the CofE in the so-called ‘second tier’ of the Anglican Communion would mean that it is the Non-Anglican Communion.”—No, the membership of the communion is tied to ACC rosters. Nothing, furthermore, prevents covenant adopters from declaring associations with those who share their Communion vision.

“As for the other Provinces, the ABC would be a non-entity in the Non-Anglican Communion as he or she would not be a party to it.”—That is to be seen, especially as 80%+ Bishops of the CofE have voted in favour; and, we do not know who will be chosen ABC. Also, see above.

“We know as of now that only Provinces may ‘sign on’ to the Covenant.  Provinces can do what they want, but they will be like GAFCON, a non-representative body of the Anglican Communion doing whatever they fancy.”—SE Asia is not a member of Gafcon and neither are a good number of GS provinces. So if the latter follow the lead of the former, in substantial numbers, we would have precisely the outcome the Covenant itself envisages: those who are the covenant Communion, and those who say No. The fact that the CofE has rejected the covenant also means the composition of Stannding Committees will need to be studied, if the covenant finds substantial provincial support. The next ACC meeting in is November. It would be useful to know the schedule of forthcoming provincial deliberations. Perhaps the April London meeting will bring that information into blogdom.

BTW, (and with excellent timing):

Related Categories: ACO

In the light of today’s news about the decisions of the dioceses of the Church of England about the Covenant I wanted to clarify the current situation across the Anglican Communion.

In December 2009, as requested by the Standing Committee, I sent the text of The Anglican Communion Covenant to all the Member Churches of the Anglican Communion asking that they consider it for adoption according to their own internal procedures.

I have received notifications from eight Provinces that they have approved, or subscribed, the Covenant or, in the case of the Anglican Church of Southern Africa, have approved pending ratification at the next synod which is usual procedure in that Province.

These Provinces are:
The Church of Ireland
The Anglican Church of Mexico
The Church of the Province of Myanmar
The Anglican Church of Papua New Guinea
The Church of the Province of South East Asia
The Anglican Church of Southern Africa
The Anglican Church of the Southern Cone of America
The Church in the Province of the West Indies

What next steps are taken by the Church of England is up to that Province. Consideration of the Covenant continues across the Anglican Communion and this was always expected to be a lengthy process. I look forward to all the reports of progress to date at the ACC-15 in New Zealand in November.

Secretary General of the Anglican Communion Canon Kenneth Kearon

#8 It is nice to see you hold on to hope.  I imagine that you must given your particular politics.  Unfortunately your cause is lost.  TEC remains in tact.  Canterbury remains out of the Covenant.  As Nigeria said, “The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Revd and Rt. Hon. Dr. Rowan Williams took over the leadership of the Anglican Communion in 2002 when it was a happy family. Unfortunately, he is leaving behind a Communion in tatters: highly polarized, bitterly factionalized, with issues of revisionist interpretation of the Holy Scriptures and human sexuality as stumbling blocks to oneness, evangelism and mission all around the Anglican world.”  This is what the new ABC will inherit.  And that ABC will be in communion with TEC.  Maybe not with Nigeria.

“The next ACC meeting in is (sic) November. It would be useful to know the schedule of forthcoming provincial deliberations. Perhaps the April London meeting will bring that information into blogdom.”

Irrelevant, but interesting.

“No, the membership of the communion is tied to ACC rosters.”

Membership is also irrelevant as to whether or not the Covenant could be Anglican.  With no English presence, the Covenant is Non-Anglican by definition.

” Nothing, furthermore, prevents covenant adopters from declaring associations with those who share their Communion vision.”

And nothing prevents me from joining a group of Anglicans internationally who enjoyed The Hunger Games, it simply has no meaning to the Anglican Communion.

#10—I prefer to hold on to hope about the missionary success story that is Anglicanism, as against petty negativism. 
“TEC remain in tact”—is this meant to be profound in some way? Not ‘intact’ but ‘in tact’? How anyone could say that TEC is ‘intact’ is beyond me. By the admission of ‘progressives’ it is in serious economic straits and is facing even worse days ahead financially.

If ‘irrelevant’ is the prospect of the vast majority of the Communion covenanting or otherwise finding a way foward together, that says a lot about your frame of reference. But I repeat, if a Sentamu or Cocksworth or NT Wright or Chartres is the next ABC, one can suspect that the covenant association will be back on the table, in some form.

Having been in academia, I have known many people who substitute obfuscation for intellect. Rowan is an idiot, in my opinion. Rowan makes an inane comment - it turns out badly and there is a public uproar. Rowan then makes another such statement with similar response. Again and again. The “he is really smart but lacks common sense” line only gets you so far. I am with Archer, #2. I saw Tom Wright on Stephen Colbert. He is a quick wit whereas Williams would have been a blubbering fool, sticking his foot in his mouth once again.

I am with Brian. This pathetic version of the Covenant is dead. Good riddance. Rowan has so damaged the Church of England, that I don’t see it approving a “new and improved version” (or one of the precursors). The whole thing has been (as I have said) an excercise in futility, Rowan pulling the football away from Charlie Brown conservatives.

What an ignominious legacy. I wonder if he feels any shame?

I have no real hope for the CoE. I see Cameron passing over Sentamu for the squish Chartres, who has shown no real leadership and has been played by the revisionists and the occupiers.