Friday, 1 April 2011

letters about the Anglican Covenant

Letters published last week in the Church Times can now be found at Anglican Covenant: responses to last week’s Church Times guide.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Friday, 1 April 2011 at 8:12am BST | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Anglican Communion | Church of England

I expected there to be letters for the Covenant this week but I can't see any...

Posted by: Lesley Fellows on Friday, 1 April 2011 at 9:07am BST

These all seem to me to be excellent letters & if they are truly representative of what actual members of the Church of England believe, the Anglican Covenant should have no chance of passing if people really had an opportunity to act. If the articles in the previous post are accurate, that opportunity is to be denied them by the bureaucracy -- I can't decide whether it is tragedy or farce.
But I don't suppose it much matters, since the ACO is already acting as if the Covenant were in force.

Posted by: Prior Aelred on Friday, 1 April 2011 at 9:53am BST

Well there are no Covenant letters this week, pro or con, so maybe the letters editor feels other topics need attention, or maybe there actually weren't any pro letters received that were deemed fit to print.

Posted by: Simon Sarmiento on Friday, 1 April 2011 at 12:08pm BST

If the intent of the Covenant is to stop the Communion from falling apart at the seams, then threatening to kick out everyone who doesn't agree with it seems a strange way to go about things.

Posted by: Fr Levi on Friday, 1 April 2011 at 3:15pm BST

I confess that I'm with the good Prior Aelred. I can't decide whether the process in the Church of England, both in General Synod and in the directives sent to the dioceses, to discern whether to adopt the Anglican Covenant is tragedy or farce.

Posted by: GrandmèreMimi on Friday, 1 April 2011 at 6:06pm BST

Prior Aelred and Grandmere Mimi: The Anglican Covenant is both tragedy and farce. That's why it's called "Anglican."

Posted by: Bill Moorhead on Friday, 1 April 2011 at 7:22pm BST

Rowan Williams and the C of E leadership have seriously lost the plot. This kind of dictatorial leadership is appalling.

The ministers and people of the Church do not wish to be dictated to in this manner. Sending out one-sided materials undermines the whole process. It is farcical-- or would be, were it not so pathetic and unnecessary.

You cannot treat the British people like this, and get away with it. We may be courteous, patient and long-suffering,but at the end of the day, do not suffer fools (too) gladly or submit to this kind of extrinsic 'authority'. Which, being extrinsic,
is not authoritative.

Rowan Williams step aside.

Posted by: Laurence Roberts on Friday, 1 April 2011 at 7:40pm BST

Jean Mayland's letter is particularly telling. "Pamphleteering."

Posted by: Lapinbizarre on Friday, 1 April 2011 at 9:54pm BST

Jean Mayland's comments about the failure to include arguments against the proposed Covenant in the materials sent to Synod members speak to the fundamental principle of Natural Justice known as audi alteram partem - hear the other side. If we can't even respect Natural Justice in debating the Covenant, how can we do so in impllementing it?

For my comments about Natural Justice and the Covenant, I refer you to my blog. (Click on my name above.)

Posted by: Alan T Perry on Saturday, 2 April 2011 at 3:03am BST

Jean Mayland's letter is particularly telling. "Pamphleteering."

Posted by: Lapinbizarre on Friday, 1 April 2011

Or tracts ?

May be incipient Tracts for Our Times

Posted by: Laurence Roberts on Saturday, 2 April 2011 at 6:03am BST

When is the Church of England going to come out into the open about the problems associated with the imposition of the Covenant? I guess not many people in the pews have been warned what the process might do for relationships with other Provinces of the Communion that feel called by the Holy Spirit to move into the 21st century on issues of gender and sexuality.

Furthermore, the obvious craftiness with which the Covenant has been handled - first in General Synod, by obtaining a vote to send it on to the dioceses; and then to represent to the dioceses that the G.S. vote was FOR the Covenant - rather than for the PROCESS to be moved in their direction.

Then, if dioceses approve of the Covenant - on this premise - G.S. may be conned into thinking it was the dioceses that actually gave their approval of the Covenant, so why should they (G.S.) over-rule?

Sounds like chicanery to me.

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Saturday, 2 April 2011 at 11:00am BST

Jean Mayland is a great person. So is her husband. The two of them have personality and integrity by the bucket-load. It is so good to be reminded that our Church still has such people: sometimes one wonders.

Posted by: john on Monday, 4 April 2011 at 4:58pm 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.