Monday, 21 February 2011

Anglican Covenant: more opinions

Updated Wednesday

Anglicans Online has taken a public stand on the Anglican Covenant. You can read this by going over here.

…In the nearly 20 years that this website called ‘Anglicans Online’ has existed, we’ve tried to be a place outside politics, a via media centre where Anglicans of every stripe, opinion, background, and churchmanship (remember that word?) could come and be at home. We shunned the shrill, avoided invective, and cleaved to reason, moderation, and what we’ve trusted is a genuine Anglican sensibility. We’ve not voiced our opinion on controversial matters, holding to that fact that reasonable people can disagree — and we’re proud to call many of those reasonable people our friends.

But it’s time for Anglicans Online to state that we’re not in favour of the Covenant and cannot imagine a Communion bound by it.

At the end of its cumbrous process for approval, we hope it will fail and be heard of no more. If such isn’t the case, we fear for what the quondam Ecclesia Anglicana will become.

Also, Paul Bagshaw points out that views about the Covenant in Japan are not straightforward, see The view from Japan.

And for those who want to trace the development of the text of the Covenant, this page from Tobias Haller should prove invaluable: A Comparison of various drafts of the proposed Anglican Communion Covenant.

Paul Bagshaw has comments on this, see The Synoptic Covenant.

Meanwhile, Pluralist is not impressed with the documents coming from IASCUFO, see Not a Whiff of No and also Not a Whiff of No: the Q and A.

And neither is Paul Bagshaw, see Study Guide, Q&A, C-

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Monday, 21 February 2011 at 9:33pm GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Anglican Communion
Comments

Pluralist makes one very good point in his tete a tete with the Covenant Questionaire.:

'The Anglican Covenant is not therefore only a doctrinal statment'

P: Indeed it is about (sexual) behaviours!

My question about this is whether the matter of gay relationships is really a matter of Doctrine?

When the Canadian St Michael's Commission met to discuss the prospect of same-sex Blessings, they came up with the definjitive understanding that no impoortant doctrine (as touching the Person of Chriust) was being contravened by this issue.

Now why is the Communion trying to make same-sex issues a 'Matter of Doctrine', needing to be defined by members of the Anglican Communion?

Surely there is sufficient doctrinal material to be agreed to by Communion Partners contained in the Lambeth Quadrilateral? Why do we need more hoops for the differing cultures of the local Churches to jump through? WE are not R.C.s. Our polity has always been based on Scripture, Tradition and REASON. Are we to now dispense with the latter in favour of a colourless uniformity?

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Tuesday, 22 February 2011 at 10:23am GMT

Good comments, Ron
Our prayers for you and yours in Christchurch.
Edward Prebble
Auckland

Posted by: Edward Prebble on Tuesday, 22 February 2011 at 8:34pm 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.