When I went to vote in the admittedly rather pointless vote whether the Covenant is the best way to achieve Anglican unity, 226 votes had been cast with 94% against.

Well Anglican approaches to ethics and theology and hermeneutics and harmonizing with empirical sciences are each, and all, way too important to leave them entirely up to the Primates Meeting. I wonder when was the last time some of the Primates currently ensconced even happened to read a peer reviewed science journal?

I still think the Chicago Lambeth Quad is sufficient covenant statement, and that if we cannot pray and gather and witness and serve across our hot button differences, no covenant then will serve.

One of the key covenant considerations which most excites many con evo realignment commentators - i.e, police powers - is an aspect I find utterly dismaying. And tangential to gospel at best.

In case anyone didn't follow pluralist's meaning, there is a poll at the end of the Church Times article with the question: Is the Anglican Covenant the best way to achieve unity?

At 11:00 CST, the results were:

Yes - 7%
No - 93%
Total Votes - 350

Of course, self-selcting online polls are utterly unreliable as an actual measure of opinion since the samples are not random.

Yes, the C of E and the AC are inexorably moving towards greater pluralism and diversity. No surprise there !

Even the most conservative orthodox Bible-centred groups have conceded to the sporit of the age --that of pluralism--how could it be otherwise ? Everytine they exclude another body they drive another nail in the coffin of (their own ) theological and ethical exclusivity.

They KNOW theirs is one viewpoint among many. The *idol of their dreams* is unobtainable, given the force of human creativity and will to life.

* e.g. Even Geo Carey knows from his own family life that the conservative stand on marriage is a nice romantic-sounding theory, but in real life such stands wobble into compromise as people do their best, --with mixed results.*

e.g. Even the Vatican knows that its stand against gays in the clergy gets no further than the pope's office, as there are gays in the Vatican -- and worldwide--in fact gays are one of the most truly catholic things about the RC denomination ! *

e.g. the C of E is OF COURSE, so structured that an occupant of Canterbury can canter away with the Church, and place them under the hegemony of foreign prelates. So talk cant yes --- but no cantering !

I appreciate the links to other responses -- a good way to refresh one's memory -- I see some of the same concerns about the nature of a covenant, the place of the 39 Articles & the 1662 BCP & the role of the Primates.

Perhaps the "guidance" of the Primates will be seen as more pastoral & respectful of different cultural settings once the GAFCON primates have set their own church, separate from the Anglican Communion. Reluctant as I am to play the game of "identified patient", they really do seem to be the bullies on the playground & their departure would mean a return to mutual respect for cultural diversity & "big tent" Anglicanism (IMHO).

drdanfee made a comment and possibly didn't realise it incorporated humour

"I wonder when was the last time some of the Primates currently ensconced even happened to read a peer reviewed science journal?"

Schori was a scientist before she was a minister. The irony is gorgeous.

Plus, one of my fun tactics in the last few years is demonstrating that God encapsulates all of space and time, so therefore there is nothing in Creation that is a threat to God.

God existed before this earth, before humanity, before literacy, before the Torah, before Jesus. God will continue to exist long after this planet and its occupants have been reabsorbed back into the sun.

God doesn't care whether you repent or rebel; you're still part of Creation. When you repent and choose to manifest the everlasting covenant of peace, things go well for you and your neighbors. When you rebel, things are harder for you and your neighbors.

The fields of psychology, sociology, quantum physics, game theory, economics, biology and medicine have wonderful models that work in their own fields and the thinking brings new light to biblical comprehension.

There are some who black ban authors because they talk about "ignoramus" Christians and show contempt for the figure head Jesus who they purport tolerates their aggression. The deliberately ignorant can not lead those who can see for when the light was turned on we all saw they had nothing of substance in which to cover themselves.

Nor would the aggressive ones want done unto them has they have done unto others.

John 14:27-31 “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid…for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold on me, but the world must learn that I love the Father and that I do exactly what my Father has commanded me.“

Correction :

I did of course mean to say that an occupant of Canterbury can NOT canter away with the Church of England. He or she cannot hand it over to the primates or any other cabal. Nor can he force us to think or do as he wishes !

PS

Dont let them abolish parsons' freehold -- it serves a bital purpose !!

(Me and my typos !)

"Is the Anglican Covenant the best way to achieve unity?"

The Anglican Communion already has unity - we are all in communion with the ABC. That's a good thing.

I think that some may be saying 'unity' when their agenda is 'unanimnity.'

We can and do have the former without the latter.

We do not have unanimnity over divorce and remarriage, over the place of women in Holy Orders, over the death penalty, over liturgy and the Prayer Book, over music for worship, over a great many other issues, both within and among the provinces. Why not over the place of glbt people in the church?

Unanimnity is a false god, and certainly not an Anglican one.

“Reluctant as I am to play the game of "identified patient", they really do seem to be the bullies on the playground & their departure would mean a return to mutual respect for cultural diversity & "big tent" Anglicanism (IMHO).”— Prior Aelred

I agree, Prior. It was only after the departure of Bishop Cummins et. al. in the 1870s that American Anglo-Catholicism and Low Church theological liberalism really began to flourish.

Kurt

Do you want to expand on that Bishop Cummins comment, or refer us to a site that does?

Those of us with non-American roots might find it both interesting and inspiring. As well, it might inspire within America as a "brushed under the carpet to be forgotten" piece of history comes back to light (a bit like the Black Noir legislation dynamics did a while ago).

So, if the legal office of the Synod says that the decisions of the Primates cannot be binding upon the Church of England, then it makes no sense for any other province of the Church to be bound by these decisions. And that really is the end of the covenant, isn't it?

Cheryl, I believe Kurt is referring to the schism and formation of the Reformed Episcopal Church in 1873.

In practice, what is the difference between "give direction" and "offer guidance"? Although the Primates Meeting merely offers guidance, it uses coercive tactics, which amounts to giving "direction", in relation to TEC's policy on gay bishops and blessings. If it is unlawful to "give direction", why is it not unlawful to "offer guidance", when this is the same thing in reality? It's just a clever play on words.

“Do you want to expand on that Bishop Cummins comment, or refer us to a site that does? Those of us with non-American roots might find it both interesting and inspiring. As well, it might inspire within America as a "brushed under the carpet to be forgotten" piece of history comes back to light (a bit like the Black Noir legislation dynamics did a while ago).”— Cheryl Va. Clough

“Cheryl, I believe Kurt is referring to the schism and formation of the Reformed Episcopal Church in 1873.”—Pisco Sours

Pisco is correct, Cheryl. Below you will find documents pro et contra regarding the formation of the Reformed Episcopal Church:

http://anglicanhistory.org/usa/rec/

Here is a critique about some of the more recent developments in that denomination:

http://reasonablechristian.blogspot.com/2007/04/departure-of-reformed-episcopal-church.html

Hugh of Lincoln --
Currently it may well be a clever play on words, but my hope is that the GAFCON departure would lead to a return to Anglicanism's tradition of respect of different points of view held together in our shared roots, common worship & the Chicago/Lambeth Quadrilateral -- a significant rejection of the move towards greater centralization & control (which I don't think can work without the good will that would make it unnecessary).
Bishop Cummins was the suffragan of Kentucky who was censured by the House of Bishops for receiving Communion at an ecumenical Protestant gathering who went on to found the Reform Episcopal Church.

Thanks Kurt, Cummins letter written then could easily have been written by some today.

It's interesting to see that it is the same kind of tensions too.

So aparrently the problem is more than homosexuality.

I don't think the souls who expel others for co-operating with people outside of their own church are the keys the future. They are most likely to be the ones to advocate barricading and barring "the heathen" thus escalating conflicts rather than healing breaches. No pluralistic society for those souls, and interfaith dialogue means what? for them.

The pro-Covenant forces have the momentum.

Our first report on the Church Times online poll result showed the pro-Covenant position at 6%. Our next showed it at 7%.

Since then, I looked back three times and it was 8%, 9% and 10% in succession. If I look back another 41 times, they'll have won!