Thursday, 24 February 2011

Anglican Covenant: more documents

A new set of documents has been published by Modern Church as Church of England resources intended for use in forthcoming diocesan synod debates on the proposed Anglican Covenant.

The resources can all be found at this page which notes that:

On 24 November 2010 the General Synod of the Church of England voted to consider adopting the Anglican Communion Covenant. As this would constitute

“a permanent and substantial change of relationship between the Church of England and another Christian body”

it may not receive final approval unless first approved by a majority of the dioceses at meetings of their diocesan synods.

These documents have been produced as resources for presenting the case against the Covenant in these debates.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Thursday, 24 February 2011 at 10:41pm GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Anglican Communion | Church of England
Comments

Jonathan Clatworthy's seminal article on the disadvantages of being part of the Covenant Process is fascinating reading. At the moment, it seems that even GAFCON Provinces do not want to take any part in the process - believing it to be oriented in favour of TEC, the A.C.of C., and other liberal Provinces of the Communion.

The irony is, that if GAFCON refuses still to entertain the idea of being part of the Covenant, it might behove the rest of us to join up. However, that would require a substantial re-write - including the controversial Section 4, which is still talking about consequential effects on relationship within the Communion of any who continue to ignore the historic *moratoria*. Many of us believe that what the North American Provinces have begun - in the way of inclusive attitudes towards the LGBT community - ought not to be either stemmed or reversed, and are anxious that this not be the only 'way in' to remain 'in communion'.

Jonathan's arguments are pretty persuasive, so that many of us might be inclined to go along with them - at least until there is some clarification on the retention, or otherwise, of the iniquitous and imperious, Section 4.

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Friday, 25 February 2011 at 8:32am GMT

Yes indeed, what Clatworthy said.

Posted by: drdanfee on Saturday, 26 February 2011 at 1:47am 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.