Thinking Anglicans

more about GAFCON and the Covenant

George Conger writes in the Church of England Newspaper today: Gafcon primates vote of no confidence in the Covenant.

The Anglican Covenant is too little and too late, to hold the Anglican Communion together, the leaders of the Gafcon movement said last week.

Revisions to the document adopted last December by the Anglican Communion’s Standing Committee were unacceptable, the Gafcon primates’ council said on Nov 24, and urged the communion to adopt “new initiatives to more effectively respond to the crises that confront us all.”

Seven primates along with Archbishops Robert Duncan of the ACNA and Peter Jensen of Sydney acknowledged as “well intentioned” the “efforts to heal our brokenness through the introduction of an Anglican Covenant,” but concluded the “current text is fatally flawed and so support for this initiative is no longer appropriate.”

And he also reports:

…While the statement was released on the same day as General Synod debated the covenant, the timing of the release was not intended to sway discussion in England, a spokesman told CEN.

The “Oxford Statement” required weeks of refining and was passed from archbishop to archbishop before it was ready for release, a Gafcon secretariat spokesman said.

Sources within the Gafcon movement tell CEN, the Oxford Statement should not be read as an outright rejection of the covenant, but as a vote of no confidence in the current draft that vests authority in the Anglican Communion “Standing Committee”.

10
Leave a Reply

avatar
3000
10 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
8 Comment authors
CharlottePerry ButlerLaurence RobertsTobias Hallerrobert Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
Leonardo Ricardo
Guest

That´s odd as I believe deposed-TEC bishop Robert Duncan and his non-Anglican Communion ACNA ¨continuing church¨ group already accepted the ¨covenant¨…must be some confusion or simply playing all angles to cover their bases?

Oh my, do “new initiatives¨ mean that Bishop Gomez/chair of the ¨covenant design group,¨ is busy sharpening his blue pencil?

Leonardo Ricardo
Guest

Sources within the Gafcon movement tell CEN, the Oxford Statement should not be read as an outright rejection of the covenant, but as a vote of no confidence in the current draft that vests authority in the Anglican Communion “Standing Committee”.

One wonders why these much self-esteemed Primates aren´t capable of spelling out what they really mean…you know, being honest, direct and forthright and requesting further corrections to the covenant draft so they can get what they think they must have to punish other provinces and exclude sadly imagined less pure Christians at The Body of Christ.

Cynthia Gilliatt
Guest
Cynthia Gilliatt

Yet again, the “Oh my goodness, was the timing of this statement calculated? How could you think that!” What tosh.

Father Ron Smith
Guest

This review of the GAFCON shenanigan around the issue of the Covenant clearly demonstrates the hubris of this group of Primates by drawing the attention of the Anglican World to their failure to cooperate at any level in strategies designed by Canterbury and the ACO to keep the Communion together.

GAFCON’s further dissociation from the Primates’ Council in Dublin next year gives further proof of their un-willingness to remain part of the Communion. Does the ACO need any more evidence of GAFCON’s desire to ‘Go It Alone’?

robert
Guest

Wasn’t Chris Sugden in the press room during the General Synod covenant debate (seem to remember a twitter comment to that effect). Where was the Oxford statement issued – was it really without the GAFCON Oxford presence? There’s a similar statement from Minns with just as little credibility

Tobias Haller
Guest

To what extent are the statements about non-attendance in Dublin set in stone? Or is this more brinksmanship and crozier-rattling?

Charlotte
Guest
Charlotte

@Tobias Haller: I myself think there is a considerable degree of crozier-rattling here. For Conger’s “Gafcon sources,” it’s the membership of the Standing Committee that is actually at issue here. The threat of non-attendance is being used to get the ACO to comply with their demands. What are those demands? Christopher Seitz+ is campaigning for a “representative” Standing Committee. That is, he wants to see more Africans appointed. In “fairness,” according to Dr. Seitz, the membership should reflect the never-substantiated, non-transparent claims made in Evangelical circles about the huge numbers of African Anglicans. There is also a move afoot to… Read more »

Laurence Roberts
Guest
Laurence Roberts

That is a very clear and helpful analysis Charlotte. Thank you. I get it now.

Perry Butler
Guest
Perry Butler

I am still interested in the issue of how far these Primates speak for their Provinces and what liklihood there is of inter-provincial strife.Friends with a good knowledge of Ghana tell me Akrofi does not speak for the whole episcopate let alone the bishops of Sierra Leone or Liberia.Do we know anything about this? Or, for example how GAFCON Primates view the “oddities” ( which are likely to increase) of the diocese of Sydney?

Charlotte
Guest
Charlotte

Just to follow up with a comment Christopher Seitz+ made on a Stand Firm thread, and reposted on TitusOneNine:

“Our view is the GS will/ought to covenant and also see to its proper administration. Why concede to the present SC? Gafcon appears to be more worried about the SC than the actual covenant text; that is correct.”

Here, Seitz+ confirms what I’ve been saying: he is not seeking “fairness” on the Standing Committee; he wants the Global South to control. Then they will be able to use their powers under the Covenant to discipline the Episcopal Church.