Friday, 30 November 2007

Canadian response to Draft Covenant

At its recent meeting, the Council of General Synod approved the following initial response to the draft Anglican Communion Covenant and asked that it be forwarded to the Communion offices.

Read it all at A Preliminary Response to the Draft Covenant by the Anglican Church of Canada.

Reference is made in that to the 2007 Canadian response to the Windsor Report.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Friday, 30 November 2007 at 11:38am GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Canada
Comments

How long before the Right starts howling that the Canadians are being duplicitous, engaging in double speak, rejecting the covenant, etc.? Why do I get the feeling that conservatives will see anything other than full acceptance of the first draft as not merely rejection of them, but full on apostacy?

Posted by: Ford Elms on Friday, 30 November 2007 at 3:46pm GMT

My Church's Council is far more generous than I.

I think the draft covenant is nowt but the legislative apologia for a coup d'eglise by foreign prelates. The proposed role of the Primates is nothing but the establishemnt of centralized authority and curial dominance with the utter destruction of synodical government.

The so-called "Draft Anglican Covenant" is not so much "Anglican" as "Puritan," and less "Covenant" than "Hostile Takeover."

Posted by: Malcolm+ on Friday, 30 November 2007 at 5:29pm GMT

"The so-called "Draft Anglican Covenant" is not so much "Anglican" as "Puritan," and less "Covenant" than "Hostile Takeover.""

And as I said before, if we can't keep the New Covenant given by God Himself, why do we think a man-made one will be any better?

Posted by: Ford Elms on Friday, 30 November 2007 at 6:15pm GMT

I always thought Presbyterians were the ones who went in for Solemn Covenants, anyway. Their record on schism ain't that good, is it...

Posted by: Fr Mark on Friday, 30 November 2007 at 6:28pm GMT

"Their record on schism ain't that good, is it"

Ah, but according to the good Dr. Packer, it isn't schism if you break with the other side because they have abandoned 'orthodoxy'. Thus there have never been schisms in the history of Christianity.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Friday, 30 November 2007 at 7:26pm GMT

I pretty much agree with Malcolm+ (not Malcolm X -- well, on some things I agree with him as well) -- but we have polite Anglican speak here -- "perhaps the emphasis ..." = "the manifest lies ..."

Ford Elms -- on the contrary, the Canadians seem to get away with anything they want -- it is the US & TEC that is hated (perhaps because it is US dissidents who are funding this entire mess) -- Canadians are just unarmed Americans health coverage (they also say, "eh" a lot):)

Fr Mark -- nonsense -- the Presbyterian record on schism is great -- they have another every few years!

Posted by: Prior Aelred on Friday, 30 November 2007 at 7:53pm GMT

Perhaps what is really needed is a Daft Anglican Covenant. ;-)

Posted by: Tobias Haller on Friday, 30 November 2007 at 8:55pm GMT

As Ford asked "If we can't keep the New Covenant given by God Himself, why do we think a man-made one will be any better?"

The proposed covenant does nothing to address cruelty from primates or bishops. It does nothing about restoring the everlasting covenant of peace, nor does it remove Baal-like attempts to sacrifice chidren or this earth. They have a false promise for their heaven because they are incapable of creating it simply because they eschew peace and love violence. There is no rest for the wicked.

We don’t need more rules; we need hearts that faithfully love with compassion and merciful justice.

Isaiah 54:7-10 “…with deep compassion I will bring you back. In a surge of anger I hid my face from you for a moment, but with everlasting kindness I will have compassion on you,” says the LORD your Redeemer. “To me this is like the days of Noah, when I swore that the waters of Noah would never again cover the earth. So now I have sworn not to be angry with you, never to rebuke you again. Though the mountains be shaken and the hills be removed, yet my unfailing love for you will not be shaken nor my covenant of peace be removed,” says the LORD…"

Hosea 2:14-23 "“…I am now going to allure her; I will lead her into the desert and speak tenderly to her. There I will give her back her vineyards, and… a door of hope. There she will sing as in the days of her youth, as in the day she came up out of Egypt. “In that day,” declares the LORD, “you will call me ‘my husband’; you will no longer call me ‘my master.’ I will remove the names of the Baals from her lips; no longer will their names be invoked. In that day I will make a covenant for them with the beasts… Bow and sword and battle I will abolish from the land, so that all may lie down in safety… I will plant her for myself in the land; I will show my love to the one I called ‘Not my loved one.’ I will say to those called ‘Not my people,’ ‘You are my people’; and they will say, ‘You are my God.’ ”

Posted by: Cheryl Va. Clough on Friday, 30 November 2007 at 9:46pm GMT

As a happy (and happily) lay Episcopalian, but former Presbyterian minister, I'm a little weary of the cheap shots about the Presbyterians.

Yes, certainly divisions are part of Presbyterian history. So are mergers, unions, and re-unions. Certainly the "Solemn League and Covenant" in Scottish history damaged episcopacy in that country, but episcopacy had already seriously compromised itself. Anglicans of any stripe who are committed to historical accuracy will also recognize Presbyterian leadership in ecumenism, and occasional instances of courage and "spine" where Anglican prelates collapsed --witness the flap about the Falklands memorial services under Margaret Thatcher in the early 1980s, which the Church of Scotland refused to bless with quite the abandon and caesaro-papism of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Anglicans and Episcopalians on all sides (of the controversy, and of the Atlantic and Pacific) could usefully stop calling each other names, and a good way to model that behavior would be to stop calling other Christian groups names and drawing gross and inaccurate caricatures.

Posted by: Amalarius Metensis on Saturday, 1 December 2007 at 2:35am GMT

Amalarius: I'm from a Presbyterian family background, in fact; and they do have quite a history of schism in Northern Ireland (and what about the Wee Frees?). I wasn't trying to be malign (merely light-hearted, something we don't get enough of in ecclesiastical controversies) and sorry if it sounded that way. The Church of Scotland has made a great contribution to reasonable theology, which I'm proud of. Irish Presbyterianism has not quite gone that way, though, has it?

Posted by: Fr Mark on Saturday, 1 December 2007 at 8:25am GMT

Are you trying to say that there really are no caricatures about and that people are just being mean for the heck of it?

Or are you saying that there are so many that behave like the caricatures they are, to make sure language is correct and appropriate?

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Saturday, 1 December 2007 at 8:41am GMT

"on the contrary, the Canadians seem to get away with anything they want"

So far, but how long will it last? At what point will we be too Christian? "The Devil goeth about like a roaring lion."

Posted by: Ford Elms on Saturday, 1 December 2007 at 2:16pm GMT

So about Canadian Presbyterians we know full well were the term "frozen chosen" came from.....

To the tune of National Hymn in the background....

Posted by: choirboyfromhell on Sunday, 9 December 2007 at 6:46pm GMT
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.