Thursday, 6 May 2010

GS primates on the Covenant

The Christian Post has published a very lengthy article titled New Power Brokers Discuss Future of Anglicanism.

Paul Bagshaw has written about it, in a blog article No clear view of the Covenant from the South. He begins:

Singapore based The Christian Post has kindly set out the views of the Primates at the recent Global South Encounter concerning the Covenant in an article by Edmond Chua entitled New Power Brokers Discuss Future of Anglicanism.

I make the vote:
Yes 1
No 0
Depends on the Covenant / still negotiate 3
No clear statement 5 and (based on the tone of comments) probably no 2, probably yes 3

It was clear that the Global South leaders do not agree on the matter, despite a statement prior to the meeting that 20 Provinces would be expected to endorse the Covenant…

Related to these views, Anglican Mainstream has published the views of Chris Sugden from the May issue of Evanglicals Now. This is in an article headed The Covenant, Canterbury and Persecution. The latter is a reference to Nigeria. His comments include this:

…The UK website group Fulcrum have now recognized that TEC was dishonest from the beginning. But they are still blinded by the belief that Canterbury remains the key to the unity of the Communion and the integrity of orthodox faith in the Communion.

The real issue is not the Covenant, but the Archbishop of Canterbury. His track record in protecting and including TEC is obvious – namely reneging on the agreements at Dromantine (so that TEC was present at the ACC in Nottingham), inviting the consecrators of Gene Robinson to Lambeth ( in advance of the conclusion of the Dar-es-Salaam timetable), and undermining the debate at the ACC in Jamaica which would have mandated a covenant with sanctions…

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Thursday, 6 May 2010 at 8:14am BST | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Anglican Communion

So, Sugden's problem with Canterbury is that he has not been a puppet for the Global South...

Posted by: Pat O'Neill on Thursday, 6 May 2010 at 10:10am BST

When we talk about a 'covenant', the meaning of the word has different connotation for different peoples and cultures. Within our Anglican family we therefore have many cultures, and families. The strenght of the communion in the past is that we have respected the various families, and each province has had, and still does its own automony. We do not want to go down the road of our Roman brothers, with a 'monochrome' structure ruled from the centre.
A covenant binding us together could become a rope around our necks, causing further distress, and anger between the Anglican family.
Each province has a deep root of culture, and history which must be valued and accepted.
In our seperate autonomous provinces we bring to the Communion, the rainbow richness of our diversity, but unity in Jesus Christ.
I pray long may that situation continue.

Fr John (Scotland)

Posted by: Fr John Harris-White on Thursday, 6 May 2010 at 12:38pm BST

If Canon Dr Sugden wants to drive the wedge between Canterbury and God's Saints, rather than between TEC & the same, who are we to try to stop him?

Posted by: Lapinbizarre on Thursday, 6 May 2010 at 1:47pm BST

Wonderful to have Canon Sugden's words. It is one thing to read the right wing blogs and their fringe commenters, but quite another to read such a clear ad hominem attack on, what for many, (and I posit most ---even in the ACNA dioceses) is the center of Anglicanism.

It was one thing to attack a committee...The attack on the Anglican Consultative Council and attempt to pack with primates, the request for the "voluntary" absence of the Anglican Church of Canada and TEC, the attack on the primates by cell phone down the street or shuttle diplomacy to the room up stairs by Andersen, Minns and Duncan. It is quite another to take on +Cantuar directly. The office is the man.

For the GS core, Canterbury may no longer be relevant (viz: the Noll drafted "Road to Lambeth" and the removal of any reference to it in the Nigerian church constitution), but that may not be the case communion wide. At some point, the squishy center, even among the primates, may have had enough. The article from the Christian Post makes clear the right is not as unified as its vociferous Noll/Barfoot/Sugden/Minns/Andersen/Venables led core would lead us to believe.

Posted by: EmiyH on Thursday, 6 May 2010 at 2:52pm BST

I am a High Church Anglican who is an American and because I serve as veger and reader at a US Army base, I am under the ECUSA. Still I don't know what all the fuss is about. Anglicanism will continue... it continues in many ways and in many places - regardless if it is under one central lead. In the US there are many, many people who hold the True Anglican Faith regardless if they are "offically" under the See of Canterbury. What's all thus fuss about - just some notion that there should be one single union. That's never been what Anglicanism has ben about. That the ABC is not a Pope with ruling authority throughout the currently existing Communion speaks to that. Yes, The ECUSA will be "expelled" from the Communion - but so what. We should be happy that Anglicanism is growing throughout the 3rd World in that it is a voice of sanity in very, very troubled placed..,..

Posted by: Dr. John Dieter on Thursday, 6 May 2010 at 6:05pm BST

Dar-es-Salaam was a debacle as some people spent most of their time in a side venue preparing interventionary motions of censure and rebuke, primarily aimed at TEC. Many of which were about trying to reinvoke Lambeth passages on TEC, even though TEC weren't particapants in the session they were passed.

Members of this camp are no more interested in working with TEC than they were with the leadership that peacefully brought apartheid to an end. That they continue to lobby against and build counter organisations to TEC is merely continuing the same dynamic that led to the setting up of an alternative church in South Africa in 1988.

It's the thinking and rationale behind such lobbying that needs to be dealt with. In the book of Numbers, Korech kept badgering and attempting to white-ant Moses as he shaped the Israelites into a people capable of creating a holy nation. Eventually God had enough, told Moses to tell people to pull back from Korech and his camp and them simply swallowed Korech's camp.

Same thing will happen here. Take on the thinking, pull back from the sociopaths and their lobbying. It becomes more and more clear that their thinking is selfish and tyrannical. The alternative is to continue on the path to tyrannise this planet's occupants in the hope of their brave new world. That makes their Jesus nothing more than a male pole cat who kills a female's kittens so that she will go into heat again.

The female consciousnesses responsible for life on this and other planets don't respect male tom cats. Satan and Jesus want to serve up stray feral strutting as the best that is to be offered, they can both be sidelined. Males can be better than that, and if neither of them will look after this planet and its occupants, then neither of them are a planetary guardian.

Posted by: Cheryl Va. on Thursday, 6 May 2010 at 6:57pm BST


'responsible for life on this and other planets'

er, .... sorry?

Posted by: ordinary vicar on Friday, 7 May 2010 at 7:46am BST

"Noll/Barfoot/Sugden/Minns/Andersen/Venables led core"

How DARE you leave out The Lord High Archbishop Dunkin'?

He will throw a mighty and awesome hissy fit!

Posted by: Cynthia Gilliatt on Friday, 7 May 2010 at 12:20pm BST

Ordinary Vicar

There are two books. The book of Life and the book of Death. Gaia has and does repeatedly choose the book of Life.

You could go and try and breathe on Venus, Mars or a local sun, if you don't think Gaia is amazing.

Jesus was raised as a Jew. He knows about the Cloud of the Divine Presence, the Daughter of Zion (aka the Shekinah). He knows that they work with Gaia to protect life and promote peace.

If Christians don't know that or respect anything female, that is to Jesus and his priests' shame.

If Jesus does not work to protect life, then Jesus is no better than Satan. Personally, I don't have a problem with Jesus finding out how the "vengeful", "capricious", "unloving" Jewish God deals with tyrants and their selfish and ignorant lackeys. The overthrow of Satan was not done on some capricious whim, but on the commitment to Life.

Posted by: Cheryl Va. on Saturday, 8 May 2010 at 6:39am BST

Isn't it about Time Chris Sugden left the security of his privileged position within the Church of England and took up residence with one of the Global South protagonists? His constant defamation of the Archbishop of Canterbury is, to say the least, unbecoming for a priest of that Church.

Sugden's patent disloyalty to the Church in which he is a minister ought to cause some discomfort to his Diocesan, whoever that may be, and should perhaps be reined in - if only for the sake of decency. If Mr Sugden so champions the agenda of his Global South friends, perhaps he should do the decent thing and take up his abode among them. I'm sure the ABC could fix up a visa for him to reside in Nigeria - or Sydney - or anywhere but the U.K.
(But please - not New Zealand!)

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Sunday, 9 May 2010 at 8:04am BST

"Isn't it about time Chris Sugden left the security of his privileged position within the Church of England"

In response to Father Ron Smith : as far as I am aware, Sugden did a curacy in Leeds in the mid-1970s, since when he has not held any positions in the Church of England. He has never been a parish priest anywhere.

Posted by: Laurence C on Monday, 10 May 2010 at 12:05am BST

Sadly, this is all about the theology of hatred. It is time to bid farewell to these fundamentalists of the far right, be they in England, the Global South, or wherever they raise their forked tongues. It is about misogyny and homophobia and fear of the modern. It contains great threads of ignorance woven through the tapestry of hate and therefore, is not of Christ. It is really a political cult more than a Christian movement. The sooner they leave mainstream Anglicanism, the better for all concerned. Their future is questionable based on past history of such break away groups from their mother Church. If they do manage to survive, they will be similar to the Southern Baptists in America. Another group solidly against women's ordination and homosexual people. I say to them: "Please go quickly and make a clean break. Spare us the blood shed. We have seen and heard enough of your hate speech that is masked in the name of God. Just go please".

Posted by: Chris Smith on Monday, 10 May 2010 at 3:02am BST

"Sugden did a curacy in Leeds in the mid-1970s, since when he has not held any positions in the Church of England. He has never been a parish priest anywhere." - Laurence C. on Monday -

Ah! That explains a lot of things, Laurence, thank you for that information. How does it come about, then, that he has so much to say on important matters within the Church of England? Is he still an Anglican clergy-person? Does he have a licence from anyone to preach, for instance? - because he certainly gets to preach a lot in the name of Evangelican Anglicans (some of whom, I believe, would rather he didn't). What exactly is his provenance? And who has the power to moderate his rantings against the activities of more-Gospel-oriented, beneficed clergy in the Churches of Anglicanism around the world?

Sugden has the power to do a lot of damage to the good name of the Communion.

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Monday, 10 May 2010 at 12:00pm BST

Canon Sugden has a licence to officiate in the Diocese of Oxford. Such licences are commonly given to non-parochial clergy in England. He is a member of the General Synod, elected by his fellow clergy in the diocese of Oxford.

Posted by: Peter Owen on Monday, 10 May 2010 at 2:20pm 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.