Saturday, 30 October 2010

Covenant: the articles continue

Malcolm French who blogs at Simple Massing Priest has written about Aesop on the Anglican Covenant.

Paul Bagshaw at Not the same stream has written The legal fiction at the heart of the Covenant and earlier he also wrote How to mount a successful coup in Anglicanism, and even earlier there was Two conversations not talking to one another.

Lesley’s Blog has some thoughts from Jonathan Clatworthy at Is the Anglican Covenant Innocuous or a Serious Threat?

Earlier Lesley herself wrote What to write about the covenant?

And there is media coverage of the IC/MC advert:

Guardian Liberal Anglicans challenge ‘dogmatic’ Church of England covenant

ENS ENGLAND: Church groups campaign against Anglican Covenant

Ekklesia Campaign launched in C of E against ‘backward-looking’ Anglican Covenant

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Saturday, 30 October 2010 at 4:34pm BST | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Anglican Communion | Church of England | General Synod
Comments

Love the application by Malcolm of the Fable. It really says it all. Sadly, I think we are about to do make the story come true.

Posted by: Rod Gillis on Saturday, 30 October 2010 at 7:01pm BST

There are those who are advocating the Covenant on the basis that with the Windsor Report paragraph 146 in place, the Dromantine Anathema established as quasi-law, the Listening/indaba process on the way to re-education - that centralised interventions in the activities of the more venomous Churches, at the behest of gay affirming provinces in the, will - over the next 30 years, transform the situation.

I understand that at a London meeting last week a former employee of the ACO was saying that with a Covenant in place and the fulfillment of the Canon Law project taking a further two Lambeth Conferences - progressives should have no concerns over the Covenant. The internal governance of Provinces is apparently also on the agenda and the likes of Jensen and that dishonest man in South Carolina would have their comeuppance. It has already convinced many.

Posted by: Martin Reynolds on Saturday, 30 October 2010 at 8:55pm BST

"Outside organisations are also allowed to sign up to the covenant, a move that could lead to official recognition of breakway conservative factions that dislike liberal churches in the US and Canada."

- Riazat Butt, in 'The Guardian' -

This is just one of the effects that would emerge from the affirmation of The Covenant - affirmation for the schismatic movements in North America and the Global South Provinces, which have already withdrawn from association with TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada, thereby creating a culture of disunity even before any covenantal relationship could have been secured.

Schism is not the best basis for achieving unity -especially when the schismatics have their own agenda - quite outside of the agreed basis of unity which had already existed in the Anglican Communion, which relied on the preferred Anglican Tradition of 'Unity in Diversity'.

One of the glories of traditional Anglicanism is that is has never been a monchrome organisation like the Roman Catholic Church, but has been content to allow the mission of the Gospel to be pursued in each Province according to the specific needs of the local culture and context. If that flexibility disappears, there will no longer be a need for the traditionally reformed character of the Anglican Communion in situ.

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Sunday, 31 October 2010 at 12:10am GMT

The only sentiment worth promoting is NO COVENANT!

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Sunday, 31 October 2010 at 5:24am GMT

"Schism is not the best basis for achieving unity -especially when the schismatics have their own agenda - ..."

And especially when that agenda includes border violations and attempted theft. Sheeesh!

Posted by: Cynthia Gilliatt on Sunday, 31 October 2010 at 12:02pm GMT

@Martin Reynolds: The former employee of the ACO, whose name I would not even wish to guess at, may be indulging in wishful thinking. However, even if he (I presume "he") is correct, and the Covenant's edge has been turned against its earliest and most vocal advocates, it really doesn't help matters. GAFCON, ACNA and their supporters will still want the Covenant to be a bill of attainder against TEC. They will still see it as enabling a procedure to remove TEC from the Communion.

So while one faction will be attempting to use the Covenant process against anti-gay and boundary-crossing prelates, the other will be back at its same old game, trying to expel TEC. Then adoption of the Covenant will change nothing. What the Covenant will give us is Communion politics as usual, as mean-spirited as ever, world without end.

Perhaps, the ex-employee of the ACO might say, we have at least set up a forum and a process to contain the political contests within the Communion, to give them some structure, some rules of the game.

But will the warring factions agree to come to the table and abide by the rules of the Covenant process?

I suppose the ex-employee would say it's a slender hope but better than none.

What reason do we in TEC have to believe that the Covenant is not designed to target us, or that the Covenant process is not hopelessly stacked against us?

Posted by: Charlotte on Sunday, 31 October 2010 at 4:27pm GMT

An interesting and revealing contribution from Charlotte. Her analysis here gives an interesting perspective, though I would encourage her not to presume .....

With Kenneth Kearon's declaration that TEC no longer shares the faith and order of the rest of the Communion one has to wonder just what further loss of status those who belong to that Church are anticipating might come from at the end of the Covenant.

I can only guess, but if the governing body of my Church received THAT message from the Archbishop of Canterbury's emissary then we might already feel ourselves condemned by extra-judicial process. What else is there to say?

I think it hard to envisage a position worse than we now enjoy as a family of Churches and while I do believe the rationale Charlotte tenders on behalf of those advocating the Covenant might closely reflect some of their thinking, my own position always has been that this is the wrong time for such a document and this is the definitely the wrong document to unite us more closely.

Posted by: Martin Reynolds on Sunday, 31 October 2010 at 9:46pm GMT

An article by Andrew Goddard in favour of the Covenant has been published at Fulcrum.

Posted by: Suem on Sunday, 31 October 2010 at 10:02pm GMT

What Martin Reynolds said -- (or what General Omar Bradley said about Korea, "The wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.")

Posted by: Prior Aelred on Monday, 1 November 2010 at 1:39am GMT

I don't feel I belong to 'a family of churches'.

Unless it is one so dysfunctional ..,..

Posted by: Laurence Roberts on Monday, 1 November 2010 at 1:21pm 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.