The motion (to read, click here) was briefly proposed by Richard Turnbull (CEEC Chairman).

Keith Malcouronne (Guildford Diocese) commented that people had been promised that material would be mailed in advance and wondered why the motion had been made known only on the day. [Applause]

George Kovoor (EFAC) said that he endorsed GAFCON, despite minor quibbles. He was concerned at the erosion of our fundamentals in Anglicanism. There was a need to send a clear signal of our belief. The Church of England did not recognise the pain of the orthodox global Church. Therefore he personally would vote in favour of the motion. He thought that the deposition of Bishop Bob Duncan was a crime. The Archbishop of Canterbury’s silence was bothersome. [Applause]

George Day (Rochester Diocese) said that he was an evangelical who supported gay relationships. Our constituency needed to face the fact that there were evangelicals who did so. He personally was heterosexual, but he urged that those who shared his view should not be excluded. He had spoken to a missionary society representative who said that he agreed but added a plea that his boss should not be told.

Maurice Sinclair (Birmingham Diocese, formerly presiding bishop of the Southern Cone) argued that the Anglican instruments of unity were reformable. Such instruments were needed. He urged that they should not be set aside, since reform was possible. He requested prayer for the primates’ meeting in February. [Applause]

Charles Raven (Worcester Diocese) expressed thanks for Mike Ovey’s contribution. The Jerusalem Declaration provided a confessional understanding of the future. He expressed surprise at some of the positive descriptions of the Archbishop of Canterbury. How could his role be squared with 2 Corinthians 11:29, when he acted contrary to the Scriptures? He had supported the TEC bishops who consecrated Gene Robinson, thus precipitating GAFCON. What confidence could there be in the instruments of unity?

David Hawkins (Bishop of Barking) said that he was in favour of women bishops. [Scattered applause] He said that he was also in favour of the Jerusalem Declaration, but could not vote for it that day. He explained that paragraph 13 required the rejection of the authority of his Diocesan Bishop and therefore of his own authority. Repentance was important, but he could not reject his Bishop’s authority. Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali had presented evangelicalism as a movement, not an institution. He thought the current proposal was a tactical error.

Graham Kings (London Diocese) introduced himself as an ex-All Souls caretaker. He stressed the importance of how we conduct ourselves. The motion had been sprung upon the meeting. The motion had been admitted by Richard Turnbull in an interview with the Church Times. Parochial Church Councils were not bounced like this. [Many hear, hears] Philip Lovegrove was willing to move that the motion be not put. This was not an amendment. Lambeth and Windsor were not mentioned in the resolution, only GAFCON. If there were a divided vote, the press would say that evangelicals were split. Most of the African bishops went to Lambeth, including some who were at GAFCON. Was GAFCON backed by EFAC? Only the fourteen points of the Jerusalem Declaration. [Applause; the Chairman said that the speaker had overrun his time]

Sally Gaze (Norwich Diocese) agreed that the motion ought not to be put, as it had only just been seen. There was a climate of fear in taking a conservative view of homosexual relationships, which was deemed homophobic.

Linnet Smith (Norwich Diocese) agreed with those who objected to the resolution having only just been tabled. One side of the room had not had the GAFCON Statement tabled. [Editorial note: apologies to those who were without copies, papers had been placed on every chair before the start.] The citation of John Stott’s name during a previous contribution had amounted to moral blackmail. In 1966 John Stott had opposed Martin Lloyd-Jones by urging evangelicals to stay in the Church of England.

David Banting (Chelmsford Diocese) said that a recent ordination by the Diocesan Bishop had caused difficulty. At GAFCON Anglicans were urged to receive the conference as a gift, for GAFCON was a movement of blessing. The evangelical awakening had spawned the Church Mission society, but the Church of England had pushed out much that was good. We were not splitting off from the Anglican Communion, but reaffirming it. It was the leadership of the global south who regarded GAFCON as the fruit of the ministries of John Stott and Jim Packer. This was not moral blackmail.

Liz Goddard (AWESOME) was concerned about GAFCON because no Church of England ordained women had been invited. There was a need to work together. She regularly preached in the name of Christ and therefore should be included. Awesome had asked to be included in NEAC5 planning. This had been heard, but Awesome was not included. [Applause]

Ian Paul (St John’s Nottingham) supported not putting the resolution, for otherwise we should be setting aside the wisdom of what had been said earlier. Proceeding would be to question CEEC’s representativeness. He agreed with Mike Ovey’s diagnosis, but not that there was only one remedy. We were being jumped into a vote for which there had been no preparations. [Applause]

Philip Lovegrove (Veteran!) had served with John Stott and Jim Packer on the Church Assembly in 1965 and sat on as many committees as Christina! It would be unwise to proceed with the vote on that day. CEEC was not what it was. We had a lot of bridges to mend. He wished to move that we should pass to next business. [Applause]

Steve James (Manchester Diocese) said that he formerly served at St John’s Shaughnessy, Vancouver, which was currently waiting for the axe to fall. Canadians were nice and did not have our way of expressing divisions. Yet the present problem had spread to Vancouver Island and orthodox people would be thrown out of their church. They were looking for UK support. Jim Packer’s licence had been removed. He was appealing on the Canadians behalf that we should not leave them out on a limb. [Applause]

Andy Gubbins (Ripon and Leeds Diocese) said that the Church in the North was experiencing a new lease of life at the hands of a liberal bishop! Personal integrity linked institutionalism and confessionalism. We were here to listen, including to those with whom we get fed up. Diocesan Evangelical Fellowships were important for this. Did GAFCON hear the absence of Bishop David James? [Applause]

Michael Saward (Keele Press Officer) had been involved in all NEACs, General Synod and CEEC. There had been a different flavour then. Such groups never asked at a few hours notice for a vote on such a motion as this. Constituency-minded groups cannot act like this. He was not against the motion, but uncertain as to whether he was for it. A vote to withdraw it would be better. We needed time to consider the future (he said, at the age of 76!). [Applause]

Richard Turnbull (CEEC Chairman), replying to the motion, said that he wished to comment on detail, on strategy and to conclude with a brief story. In detail, he agreed with Maurice Sinclair that the instruments of unity were reformable. He was puzzled by the Bishop of Barking’s contribution and especially the notion that we should not challenge unorthodox bishops. As to strategy, we should stand together. There had been plenty of time in which to study the Jerusalem Declaration and he could not understand how this could be a problem for evangelicals. He therefore believed that we should vote on the motion that day. The preamble was a statement of where we stood already. Clauses (a) and (b) concerned statements which had been available for many weeks. Clause (b) included GAFCON, but not exclusively so. In conclusion, he told of meeting an old man in his 90s from Atlanta, Georgia, who had finally left his Episcopalian church because the church was now defined as a building while evangelism was defined as unnecessary and inappropriate.

The Chairman then allowed Philip Lovegrove to put his procedural motion that the Question be not put. There voted in favour 123 and against 104. The motion was therefore carried and the substantive motion was not put.