Saturday, 2 August 2008

Lambeth: Covenant or bust

Yesterday’s press conference was about the proposed Covenant. Here are the reports of that:

ENS Mary Frances Schjonberg Lambeth Conference begins two-day covenant discussion

Anglican Journal Marites Sison Lambeth seeks common ground in proposed covenant

ACNS Press Conference on Anglican Covenant: ‘We are on a pilgrimage together’ and the full audio recording of the press conference is here.

Jim Naughton has some background links and commentary at Live: softpeddaling the appendix.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Saturday, 2 August 2008 at 9:16am BST | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Anglican Communion | Lambeth Conference 2008
Comments

TM "Only the devil is in a hurry"

So if you don't sign this covenant, then you must be aligned with the "evil one".

Gee, and I thought humanity existed within space and time and that there was a finite amount of fuel left.

But don't worry, TM's Jesus is going to come down from the clouds with eyes blazing and clothes dripping blood to kill off all the infidel and take away all the "true" Christians. So they don't have to worry about the death throes of an oil-dependent civilization, or how to avoid war and mass genocide, or how to rebuild societies after all the oil is gone.

If God wanted this world gone, we would all be gone. We're not.

This covenant has nothing to do with helping humanity survive its next evolutionary challenge and everything to do with short-sighted and selfish priests trying to stop reforms, even if they are in humanity's (and thus Christian and/or Jewish and/or others') interests.

Posted by: Cheryl Va. on Saturday, 2 August 2008 at 12:24pm BST

"[Cameron]said Episcopalians who were skeptical of the two men’s intentions should “meet them yourselves, talk to them, tell them your concerns and then make a decision.”

He said he did not think that Gomez’s preaching at the Kenyan ordinations or Radner’s membership in the IRD “invalidated” the work they have contributed to the covenant."

You will know them by their fruit. Grapes aren't gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles, are they? [Matt. 7:16]

Posted by: Pat O'Neill on Saturday, 2 August 2008 at 2:33pm BST

The purpose of Windsor and the Covenant has always been to rein in the US and Canada. If the US signs on soon the rulse will be broken and the mechanism employed to evict. This will set moderate diocese against liberal dioceses in the US. The same split will be present in Gen'l Convention when the Covenant will be voted on. Let us stop this idolatry called The Anglican Communion. It has now become in Paul's word a principality giving life neither to gays and lesbvians nor to the whole church. It is best now to refuse the Covenant and two walk apart. It is best to split now in grace than remain in acrimony. Let us stop the fighting, act like adults up and split.

Posted by: William R. Coats on Saturday, 2 August 2008 at 3:27pm BST

Yes the covenant searches for policing and punishment as keys to the kingdom, and then we shall have a feast together, all like-minded as Anglicans. (Or at least we shall be afraid enough of somebody ratting us out to the new Anglican police that we know when to shut up at all the proper tea parties.)

It is a bad deal, no thanks. Stuff like this never helped form my real adult ethical conscience, so why should I start letting it narrow and demean the best efforts I can manage in daily life - at work, in service, in lived witness, and in committed relationships - now?

Just think, all this talk about protection and safe spaces for those who fear queer folks, and no or lip service talk to the queer folks all around the planet who truly have much to fear from the folks so ignorant and fearful of them.

Gomez and Radner are only the clues that give the policing away, as you can resign from IRD but it never resigns from you. You will, you must be realigned conservatively or be put out, called all manner of names in God's name.

Posted by: drdanfee on Saturday, 2 August 2008 at 6:22pm BST

At the risk of repeating myself, I will ask on this thread also if anyone can cite a source other than African Anglican bishops for the consecration of +Gene inciting anti-Christian Islamic violence. I'd take something cited to an Islamic leader by NYTimes, WPost, AP, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, BBC, Christian Science Monitor.

Where is independent evidence for this?

Has anyone offered it at Lambeth?

Just a little reality check.

Posted by: Cynthia Gilliatt on Sunday, 3 August 2008 at 1:56am BST

Reflecting on the Covenant idea; could it not be that the covenantal relationship could embrace the differences of theological viewpoints within the parameters of a common discipleship to Christ?

If we really wanted to stay together as Anglicans there should be a way to proceed that could unite us. It seems that the main stumbling block is the variety of interpretations of the Scriptures. So what's different? Even Jesus had that problem.

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Sunday, 3 August 2008 at 7:15am BST

"I will ask on this thread also if anyone can cite a source other than African Anglican bishops for the consecration of +Gene inciting anti-Christian Islamic violence."

Typical Gaffecon propaganda, I'd say.

Remember the Nigerian legislation last year. It failed because it didn't have the numbers in Parliament claimed.

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Sunday, 3 August 2008 at 12:42pm BST

Not to my knowledge.

'At the risk of repeating myself, I will ask on this thread also if anyone can cite a source other than African Anglican bishops for the consecration of +Gene inciting anti-Christian Islamic violence. I'd take something cited to an Islamic leader by NYTimes, WPost, AP, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, BBC, Christian Science Monitor.

Where is independent evidence for this?

Has anyone offered it at Lambeth?

Just a little reality check.

Posted by: Cynthia Gilliatt on Sunday, 3 August 2008 at 1:56am

An excellent point. These reality checks are vital to combat the wooly thinking and the wishful thinking of homophobes

Posted by: Treebeard on Sunday, 3 August 2008 at 4:54pm BST

Why can't you just adopt the Gafcon attitude...sign up to the Covenant , but ignore the strictures..after all Gafcon do not discipline signatory biships who are in open defiance of the 39 Articles!

Posted by: Robert Ian Williams on Monday, 4 August 2008 at 6:48am BST

"Why can't you just adopt the Gafcon attitude"

Because it's heretical? They haven't declared themselves Monophysites, Monothelites, or Nestorians, but they clearly belong to one of those groups, given their recent statements at Jerusalem. I am an Anglo-catholic, Athanasian, Trinitarian, whatever. I don't want any of GAFCON's innovations, not their implied espousal of ancient heresies. Gimme that old time religion!

Posted by: Ford Elms on Monday, 4 August 2008 at 1:37pm BST

I'm afraid I'm rather with you, Ford. I'm not sure that I could live with the restrictions of the Global South Contingency, should they decide to sign up to the proposed inhibitions against piracy into other people's territory. I, too, am A.C. - not dyed-in-the-wool, but dead to bigotry.

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Tuesday, 5 August 2008 at 4:25am BST
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.