Thinking Anglicans

Anglican Covenant: more opinions

Updated Wednesday

Anglicans Online has taken a public stand on the Anglican Covenant. You can read this by going over here.

…In the nearly 20 years that this website called ‘Anglicans Online’ has existed, we’ve tried to be a place outside politics, a via media centre where Anglicans of every stripe, opinion, background, and churchmanship (remember that word?) could come and be at home. We shunned the shrill, avoided invective, and cleaved to reason, moderation, and what we’ve trusted is a genuine Anglican sensibility. We’ve not voiced our opinion on controversial matters, holding to that fact that reasonable people can disagree — and we’re proud to call many of those reasonable people our friends.

But it’s time for Anglicans Online to state that we’re not in favour of the Covenant and cannot imagine a Communion bound by it.

At the end of its cumbrous process for approval, we hope it will fail and be heard of no more. If such isn’t the case, we fear for what the quondam Ecclesia Anglicana will become.

Also, Paul Bagshaw points out that views about the Covenant in Japan are not straightforward, see The view from Japan.

And for those who want to trace the development of the text of the Covenant, this page from Tobias Haller should prove invaluable: A Comparison of various drafts of the proposed Anglican Communion Covenant.

Paul Bagshaw has comments on this, see The Synoptic Covenant.

Meanwhile, Pluralist is not impressed with the documents coming from IASCUFO, see Not a Whiff of No and also Not a Whiff of No: the Q and A.

And neither is Paul Bagshaw, see Study Guide, Q&A, C-

2
Leave a Reply

avatar
3000
2 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
2 Comment authors
Edward PrebbleFather Ron Smith Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
Father Ron Smith
Guest

Pluralist makes one very good point in his tete a tete with the Covenant Questionaire.: ‘The Anglican Covenant is not therefore only a doctrinal statment’ P: Indeed it is about (sexual) behaviours! My question about this is whether the matter of gay relationships is really a matter of Doctrine? When the Canadian St Michael’s Commission met to discuss the prospect of same-sex Blessings, they came up with the definjitive understanding that no impoortant doctrine (as touching the Person of Chriust) was being contravened by this issue. Now why is the Communion trying to make same-sex issues a ‘Matter of Doctrine’,… Read more »

Edward Prebble
Guest
Edward Prebble

Good comments, Ron
Our prayers for you and yours in Christchurch.
Edward Prebble
Auckland