Sunday, 21 November 2010

Covenant - reply to Andrew Goddard

Jonathan Clatworthy has written a response to this recent article by Andrew Goddard.

Read it in full at Reply to Andrew Goddard.

Andrew Goddard has now provided a lengthy defence of the Anglican Covenant against the arguments in PDF our advertisement of 29 October. At over 15,000 words it bears witness to Dr Goddard’s commitment. It is not light bedtime reading, and a point by point reply would not be either. In any case our views are already available. Although he does not refer to it, at the bottom of the advertisement we printed a website address (www.modernchurch.org.uk/anglicancovenant) for further details, where we had already provided much of the further information he asks for. Since then a huge amount of additional material has been placed on websites. There is a list in the resources section at www.noanglicancovenant.org, of which notthesamestream.blogspot.com is particularly worthy of note.

Nevertheless it may be helpful to respond to the substance of his points…

Note: the reply is only 3,700 words long.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Sunday, 21 November 2010 at 12:02pm GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Anglican Communion | Church of England
Comments

More good work from Mr. Clatworthy.

To me the question really boils down to this: Does a family need a constitution?

Posted by: Jeremy on Sunday, 21 November 2010 at 12:43pm GMT

'The bitter controversies of the last decade have indeed been most unfortunate. The presenting issues have been ethical and theological disagreement. They should be resolved by patient, informed ethical and theological dialogue, not by ecclesiastical power politics and threats of exclusion.'(Jonathan Clatworthy)

Now that is a thought.

It is the way things were done in the Church of England, and other anglican Churches, I think, for much of the twentieth century.

BUT how can you have dialogue with women-who-*demand-Ordination*.

Never mind those dreadful, immoral, abusers,- Homosexuals with their Agenda which Force on (the rest of) Us Good People.****

* Women * can't seek ordination or to test their vocations, they Must be making Demand - and Unreasonable at that.


**** Dialogue with them ?**** Forget it.

I feel I count for little, just because I happen to be one of them.

Posted by: Laurence Roberts on Sunday, 21 November 2010 at 5:10pm GMT

Jonathan Clatworthy's response addresses Andrew Goddard's points very clearly.

Posted by: Savi Hensman on Sunday, 21 November 2010 at 5:59pm GMT

Reporting from Episcopal Cafe on media remarks back here:

BBC Radio 4's 'Sunday' sees Edward Stourton asking Times religion correspondent Ruth Gledhill about the Anglican Covenant - if it's primarily about discipline or something else.

She responds:
'You can't get round the fact that it does apply a potentially disciplinary procedure to provinces that step out of line and it probably will create a two-tier Communion and America probably will be relegated to the outer tier, so [the Covenant's] critics feel that this is imposing a centralized disciplinary structure which is very un-Anglican.'

And it comes on a day that Gledhill writes in the Sunday Times:

'If the covenant unity document championed by the Archbishop of Canterbury goes through, with its punishing semi-exclusion clause for provinces that step out of line, Bishop Gene Robinson's church will almost certainly find itself relegated to the second tier of a two-tier Anglican Communion....

What a shocking waste of a Church, and what a disgraceful response to a glorious ministry....

It is illogical to proceed with women bishops while denying homosexuals full participation. Who are we to say that all are not made in God's image?

As the traditionalist Anglicans are proving, any who want an authority rooted in a more Apostolic structure have the choice of Rome....

The Episcopal Church must be allowed to respond to its own context. It should be praised for its courage in elevating Bishop Gene, not buried.'

Elsewhere Giles Fraser writes:
'What I dislike about the Anglican Covenant is that it is ...an attack on traditional Anglican pluralism.'

Posted by: Susannah Clark on Sunday, 21 November 2010 at 11:14pm GMT

Laurence. I sometimes wonder what you are wanting to convey in your posts. Obviously, this one must be irony. However, I beg you - not to be too down-hearted. It is God's Church after all! Remember,
Christ the Universal King will have the last Word!

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Monday, 22 November 2010 at 12:02am 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.