Sorry, GAFCON, you've blown your credibility and this won't get it back.

And as for the snide and snooty sign off - "We... continue to pray for [the Archbishop of Canterbury] to be given wisdom and discernment."

Pathetic.

I'm guessing we'll be lobbing draft versions of the covenant back and forth until the second coming, when Our Lord will ask us all something along the lines of, "You spent you time doing WHAT!?"

"It has no prospect of success since it fails to address the problems which have created the crisis"

For many (more and more) of us, it is the "addressing" which IS "the problem which have created the crisis"! :-/

Lord have mercy...

What is it that unites extremists on the Anglican left with extremists on the Anglican right? Both are scared out of their minds of being a part of anything that might require them to be held mutually accountable to each other.

GAFCON replies in timid bureaucratese. Looks like Lambeth has got the charismatic ascendancy after all!

J-Tron is on to something: the anti-gospel of demanding that others submit to their authority, versus the willingness to bear one another's burdens. The Covenant persists in casting its language along the former lines: those who do not submit shall be dealt with. The Gospel invites us to a different kind of submission -- not to the authority of each other, but to the willingness to live with and forgive the faults of the other. This is why a Covenant based on discipline and expulsion is unacceptable; it is a prenuptial agreement. What is looked for is a Gospel-based Covenant which will accept and commit to the other "for better for worse" and for ever.

The GAFCON position is good news for those of us who oppose the Covenant idea. It’s now dead, even though some may pretend to “discuss” it during the remainder of Williams’ term as archbishop. Hopefully, the person who follows him will let the idea fade away.

GAFCON IS THE RESTORATION OF BIBLICAL TRUTH>, according to Chris Sugden in Evangelicals Now, August 2008.

291 bishops declared that they would not leave the Anglican communion..funny when over a 100 of them have never been bishops of the Anglican communion any way!

The 39 articles were re-affirmed as truthful...yet many episcopal signatories went home to continue breaking them. The tragedy of this is that the other Protestant side, knew that would be the case , but still let them bear false witness.

Sexual immorality was condemend...yes homosexuality...but no reference to whether Divorce and remrriage are biblical.

The issue of female ordination and headship is not mentioned by Sugden as that that would have led to UGanda, Rwanda and kenya pulling out!

Chris Sugden does his dubious maths again ..this time GAFCON represented 40 million out of a communion of 55 million!

He also confirms that the Church of England in South Africa ( CESA) was present and signed.

CESA has lay presidency....welcome lay presidency to the " Reformed" Anglican non Canterbury Communion!

There is also a nasty little article by a Doctor Peter May, lambasting the Anglo-catholics for their false sacerdotalism, but also asserting that evangelicals are divided over women bishops.
he notes there were plenty of women clergy at GAFCON.

Tobias:

I think you should re-read your post and consider the consequences. Perhaps a bit of a re-draft is in order. After all, is everyone supposed to stay together with the group that decides that human sacrifice is the order of the day? Will it make any difference when the crosses at the front of the church are replaced with gold plated Buddhas and/or we replace "Christ" with "Krishna"? I think you also have some lines beyond which you would admit that unity cannot be sustained. It is ingenuous to pretend that "for better or worse" is without limits. This is not true even in, and perhaps especially in, marriage

Steven

"extremists on the Anglican left"

What---who---do you have in mind, J-Tron? (I don't believe I've ever met such a creature)

"It is ingenuous to pretend that "for better or worse" is without limits. This is not true even in, and perhaps especially in, marriage"

Remind me not to marry you, Steven. ;-/

JCF:

Humorous, but still missing the point. I do know quite a bit about what "for better or worse, in sickness and in health" means having been married for almost 29 years (only once, thank you) with 5 children ranging from 9-26. It does mean there are limits. I would not, e.g., expect my wife to accept me bringing home a floosie every Saturday night while she sleeps on the sofa. You can think of your own limits, but the point remains: for better or worse does not mean there are no limits.

Steven

Steven, JCF said it well. I realize your argument is a strange sort of dilatio ad absurdum -- but I assure you I would oppose introducing human sacrifice into the liturgy (I don't even really like the Missa Versus Populum), or gold-plated Buddhas on the lawn (I'm even against having a fortune teller at the Church Fête) or Krishna in the liturgical texts (I even wince at Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier -- and that's in our version of the Great Litany since 1928!).

The fact is, Jesus put up with us while we were yet sinners, and we crucified him. He also said we needed to expect a similar cross-bearing exercise. Often the "cross" a Christian must bear is another Christian. Those who cannot abide their brothers, whom they have seen, will not be able to abide God when he comes to judge --- God may well appear to them as the miserific vision of all they hated and despised in others.

I have never understood the marriage vow to include finger-crossing. That strikes me as defective intent.

Tobias:

You continue to dodge the issue. And, while most of your comments can be categorized as pleasant generalizations and truisms, the reference to marriage vows including finger crossing is too oblique for me to fathom in this context. Overall, it would seem to be a simple matter for you to acknowledge that relationships are sustained by the fact that those involved in them abide by certain rules, and are damaged when those involved violate those rules. This is particularly true as your comments state or imply that the "other" side has violated whatever you consider those "rules" to be.

Steven

Turns out that at least one of the names appended to the GAFCON covenant response had never even seen it.

http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/blog_post.asp?id=60572

"I even wince at Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier"

As do I, Tobias. Yet, I sincerely doubt that there are many conservatives who would be able to give a reason why this is questionable language other than "it's innovative so it must be wrong." Given the Jerusalem Declaration, I wouldn't expect anything else from GAFCON.