vote on all assembled to support GAFCON's Jerusalem Declaration, it was clear that he was going to go and arrange the vote anyway within the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC). This is the body which a number of Conservative Evangelicals kept attending whilst others fell away, so it is in their hands, and they regard it as still representative.So what are others doing? It's a case of if he must, then they are getting in on the act. So we move from the picture of Militant and entryism to the added image of smoke filled rooms. It's by email - what else - to cobble together a resolution that somehow would meet objections of the more communion minded Evangelicals as well as those who have one foot in and two feet out - the GAFCON crowd.
So far it seems to be a private conversation amongst the few, and no doubt whatever comes about to be voted on at CEEC will be presented to those not in the know in the manner of the one presented in the first place. After all, having been negotiated, if such results, how can it then be changed? Would such be any more representative of Evangelicals than the original, or just those who think that they represent other Evangelicals as well as themselves.
As a complete outsider to this, I simply ask...
Let's be clear, though. The GAFCON crowd only use the negotiations of others in order to further its own interests. The result will be entirely compatible with its own objectives, otherwise one will be presented and voted upon regardless. And in the end, it's all for show. The reality was that of NEAC 5.
4 comments:
Hi, you've been tagged
(I know you have dreeds but there you go)
see
http://timgoodbody.blogspot.com/2008/11/spread-my-wings-and-fly-away.html
Dreeds? Are they dreadful creeds?
Tomorrow then, after I've been out.
Adrian, this simply takes the worst of comments and gives it an even more negative spin.
On Thursday, I have both the CEEC and a PCC meeting. In both cases, the items for the agenda have been discussed in advance by e-mail. In both cases, the wording of motions to be presented has been established in advance by a group smaller than the whole committee, which necessarily excludes the voices of the entire constituency.
In both cases, decisions will be taken which will then be 'revealed' to the constituency.
I might add that in both cases, proceedings are overseen by a Chair with some influence on the outcome - but that might be to overstate the powers of the Chair of CEEC.
Almost no one would dream of arguing that this procedure is thereby somehow 'corrupt' in the case of the PCC.
There is no special reason, other than a dislike of the outcomes as well as the personalities involved, to regard the pre-meeting preparations of the CEEC any differently.
As it happens, the agenda for the CEEC has now been circulated to the members with two 'post-NEAC 5' motions on the table. It is clear that considerable 'note' has been taken of what happened on November 15th, and I very much doubt that the mood of the meeting will be to 'nod through' anything which anyone attempted to foist on it.
Unless a totally new way of running committees is being proposed, I think that the 'smoke filled' room accusation needs to be laid to rest.
My own take on all this can be read here.
Let's see how all that preparation fits with the GAFCON agenda then.
Post a Comment