Comments: Anglican Covenant rejection in England: various reactions

Andrew Goddard just doesn't get it. Does he?

Little of his analysis strikes true. I don't accept the choices he says puts before us - nor do I think the three ways he describes are particularly helpful - yet alone an accurate portrayal of the wide spectrum of views held across the Communion. His constant attempts to "slice and dice" have fostered division by concealing the nuanced layers that run through AND CONNECT the many varied views we Anglicans hold.

Let's seen an end to this type of spin that tries to tell us what IS and then mislead us into facing choices that totally misrepresent the facts.

Posted by Martin Reynolds at Monday, 26 March 2012 at 10:28am BST

"“I am disappointed that the Anglican Communion Covenant, even in its watered down version,has failed to gain the support of the Church of England. This now means that the Jerusalem Statement (2008) is now ‘The only game in town.’” - Bp.Nazir-Ali -

So here we have a clear declaration from the former Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, that the 'only game in town' is the GAFCON resolution known as the 'Jerusalem Declaration.

As he is one of the Key-Note Speakers for the up-coming conference of the FCA/GAFCON leadership in Egland next month, he obviously has a decidedly un-English agenda on his mind for that meeting.

When one considers, too, that the Chair of that Meeting - under the guise of the 'Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans' (whatever that may mean) - will be none other than the Archbishop of Kenya, Eliud Wabukala, who was responsible for the ordination of indigenous UK clergy to raise up the GAFCON love-child AMiE - the Anglican mission in England - one realises the seriousness of the intentions of GAFCON to try to usurp the Church of England's place in the Anglican Communion.

Of interest, also, is the fact that the one-time organising Secretary of Gafcon, Archbishop Peter Jensen of Sydney, Australia, whose own 'orthodoxy' on matters of Lay-Presidency at the Eucharist is in question, is now the Secretary of FCA and will be at the meeting. These prelates need watching!

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Monday, 26 March 2012 at 10:51am BST

As mentioned by Perry on a thread below, the churches of the Indian subcontinent are completely ignored by Goddard.

Posted by Martin Reynolds at Monday, 26 March 2012 at 11:01am BST

Dear God, this is such a mess!

History will show the Covenant proposals to be one of the most divisive projects ever undertaken in the history of Anglicanism.

Posted by Concerned Anglican at Monday, 26 March 2012 at 12:48pm BST

I read about half of Andrew Goddard's epistle and then got bored. Perhaps someone can tell me if I missed anything important.

Posted by Richard Ashby at Monday, 26 March 2012 at 6:05pm BST

'Anglicanism could be seen as a family: in families, you don’t expect everyone to think in exactly the same way. You listen, you shout, cry, talk, compromise. You do not show the door to one member of the family, just because you don’t agree with them.'

Couldn't agree more. But again and again I invite my fellow liberals to bite the requisite bullet and admit that this conception of the C of E/Anglicanism absolutely requires that we give traditionalist Anglicans (who want to remain Anglicans) the space they require to remain Anglicans (which they want to do).

I know rjb is with me. Who else?

Posted by john at Monday, 26 March 2012 at 7:18pm BST

Peter Carrell quotes: "the course for inter-Anglican conversation of the last half century in a visionary, missionary mode"

There's nothing "visionary" or "missionary" about institutionalized homophobia. Nothing.

Posted by JCF at Monday, 26 March 2012 at 8:57pm BST

I hope it will not sound churlish to inquire, is MacCulloch serious? 'Start afresh'? 'Just get on with being a family'? Is this pollyana or just being out of touch with communion realities? Maybe it is just nice to give a happy line to the Guardian, but anyone following this cannot for a minute think there is some nice re-set button to push. Yes, a 'family' idea may work for progressives as they wrestle with Communion without Baptism and Same-Sex blessings/civil marriage/etc and whether Christianity is a World Religion compatible like others and best forms of polity, and so on -- everyone having their own view and disagreeing amicably (if indeed that is possible). But what percentage of the Communion are we talking about in this kind of 'family'?

Posted by c.r.seitz at Monday, 26 March 2012 at 11:17pm BST

Sorry john, although I might be considered a progressive I am very definitely not a liberal!

Posted by Martin Reynolds at Monday, 26 March 2012 at 11:19pm BST

Peter Carrell does not speak for the majority in ACANZP. His known support for GAFCON is a potent sign of his opposition to the emancipation of the LGBT community in the Church.

Most New Zealand Anglicans are more open-minded to the natural phenomenon of the continuum occurring in human sexual-orientation. Important to understand is that our Province will probably reject the Covenant.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Monday, 26 March 2012 at 11:30pm BST

"But what percentage of the Communion are we talking about in this kind of 'family'?"

Ah, the old "Nigeria has tens of millions so we should do what they say" argument.

Did I really sign up to be a member of an international organization where doctrine and discipline are driven by the local needs of churches in sub-Saharan Africa?

I don't think so!

Posted by Jeremy at Tuesday, 27 March 2012 at 2:57am BST

So, it would seem, using Bishop Kings' analogy that we in the Church of England are indeed a bag of marbles rather than a bunch of grapes, after all!

Posted by Father David at Tuesday, 27 March 2012 at 4:44am BST

With Martin Reynolds.

I stand behind the belief that they *have* a place in the Christian family, though not, perhaps, the Anglican branch. I still think this "encompassing everybody" trope points to a disturbing deeply-held-and-denied belief that we are the ONLY TRUE CHURCH, pat. pend.

Paul may have been able to be all things to all men - I doubt it - but the rest of us can't. Recognizing limits is humility, not hubris.

Posted by MarkBrunson at Tuesday, 27 March 2012 at 5:02am BST

john, how do you square your idea that 'You do not show the door to one member of the family, just because you don’t agree with them' with your idea that 'we give traditionalist Anglicans (who want to remain Anglicans) the space they require to remain Anglicans (which they want to do'?

After all, it is these so-called 'traditionalist Anglicans' who show the door to women priests and partnered gay priests. I'm happy to leave the door open to all, as long as all leave the door open to others - but they won't. It's this conflict which which is at the heart of the issue. It's the lockers-out who demand to be let in. Can't work.

Posted by toby forward at Tuesday, 27 March 2012 at 7:19am BST

if people are so determined to kick the likes of me out of their church that they set up a whole Covenant exercise for the purpose of disciplining those who are happy to include me and treat me as 100% equal - just how do you propose that I should give them space?

This is a genuine question.

Posted by Erika Baker at Tuesday, 27 March 2012 at 8:20am BST

I very much fear that some of those who, like me, opposed the Covenant have no interest in a catholic and apostolic Anglican Communion at all. For some, I suspect, the defeat of the Covenant is simply a means to make our Broad Church much narrower: a "Church of Little England." But Anglicanism has always been a diverse movement, and I for one think we will be impoverished inestimably if we try to cast out the conservatives and the traditionalists, bad theology and all. Of course, there may come a point where it is impossible for all parties to live together under one roof, but I hope it will never be liberals who shut the door. And I hope that if the conservatives ever do walk away we will never stop calling for them to come home.

I hope, moreover, that the slow death of the Anglican Covenant will create space for us to talk seriously about what it means to be in Communion as Anglicans. I would suggest that one thing all Anglicans should share is a renunciation of ideological purity and a willingness to accept difference while cherishing our own traditions. There is a certain paradox in admitting that the only way to remain true to the tradition of Anglican liberalism is to continue to respect the traditions of Anglican conservatism.

Posted by rjb at Tuesday, 27 March 2012 at 8:43am BST

I also hope that it will not be liberals who shut the door. But I ask you the same question I have asked John. What does that mean in practice when the only way the door can remain open is for me to walk away or be kicked out?

It seems we'll either end up with a conservative Communion or with 2 separate groups.
The kind of group I'd like to see where conservatives can tolerate liberals and don't insist on treating me as a second class person does not appear to be on offer.

Posted by Erika Baker at Tuesday, 27 March 2012 at 10:01am BST


If you polarise 100%, you are right. But you shouldn't, so you are wrong. What is this nonsense about your being kicked out? A substantial proportion of C of E people - probably now a majority - have no problem with gayness. That is true of the church you attend. It is also true of the church I attend. It is true of most cathedrals, etc. etc. It is also of course true of many RC churches. The battle to secure blessings/church marriage for gay partnerships/marriages goes on but will be won. The battle to secure the same for clerical gays also still goes on - but it also will be won. Those who cannot in conscience accept these things - and no, they're not all homophobes - will be accommodated/not coerced. Similar things apply to WO (and there will be women bishops).

Toby and others. There are many arguments here. But one is sufficient. You cannot logically oppose the top-down centrism of the now defunct covenant on principle - and then seek to impose a top-down liberal centrism. Everybody here fell over themselves praising Jones of Liverpool - he's not a bigot (so far as I know), but all he was arguing for traditional 'live-and-let-live' Broad Church Anglicanism, alias ecclesiastical liberal pluralism. Liberal pluralism by definition commits you to tolerance of positions you think wrong, always provided such positions are not vicious. It is perfectly obvious the thinking of, for example, Father David here or Father Trevor Jones is not vicious. I want to keep them with us, because I am absolutely sure Father Jones (a) runs a very good church against considerable odds and (b) doesn't want to 'pope', and I daresay the same is true of Father David. I think everybody in England/the UK needs to keep their eye on the ball - the fragility of main-line Christianity - and avoid doing anything which will turn the fragile into the collapsed.

Posted by John at Tuesday, 27 March 2012 at 2:38pm BST

Erika, liberals don't tolerate conservatives either. Just this morning I saw a blurb about the Gene Robinson movie and his push to make everyone who sees it a teacher/missionary for anyone who disagrees. Toleration is never enough for people on either side. Would your hypothetical group treat conservatives like second class citizens? If one side is trying to educate the other out of their position, it's not acceptance. If people used the words in church face to face that they use to describe opponents on blogs like this, would opponents go to church together? Doubt it.

As for "family" not having to agree, but still being a family, I'm not sure that really works either. "Family" means different things to different people--are you really family if you haven't spoken for years or hate each other? Not everyone agrees. And families break up, a lot. And many people today say divorce can be a good thing. Divorce was, after all, the start of Anglicanism.

Posted by Chris H. at Tuesday, 27 March 2012 at 4:11pm BST

I don't like the use of right and wrong here, can we agree on just having different opinions?

My point is that TEC and Canada have started a trend that, I hope, the CoE will eventually follow.
The Covenant was conceived by people who are absolutely determined that TEC must be punished for having openly partnered gay priests and bishops. It is highly unlikey that these people are warmly welcoming of non ordained partnered gay couples in their midst. In fact, as group contact point for Changing Attitude and from my own experience I can assure you that this kind of attitude goes hand in hand with generally not wanting any openly partnered people in your church. And because you worship in a tolerant church you probably have no idea of just how uncomfortable people can make lgbt people's lives.

Of course this doesn't equate to literally kicking them out, but in the employment sector it would be called constructive dismissal.

As with women's ordination my main and as yet unanswered question to you is how one can compromise with people who are not willing to compromise.

And simply tolerating a bad situation going on at a church near you, in the safe knowledge that you personally and your church will not be affected, is, to my mind, nothing more than silent complicity.

Posted by Erika Baker at Tuesday, 27 March 2012 at 7:02pm BST

This talk of toleration is wooly!

Listen to Erica. Lgbt people of all ages - yes we are young and old and widowed unemployed etc but also demeaned in public utterances of RC and CE leaders in a manner that would be illegal if spoken against Black or Jewish people. W

We are imprisoned and murdered around the globe.

So no, let us withstand them to their face wherever safe to.

Posted by Laurence Roberts at Tuesday, 27 March 2012 at 8:13pm BST

Chris H,
I don't see a concerted American campaign to set up a system that is then used to impose relational consequences on Nigeria because of their reprehensible attitude to homosexuality.
I don't see any moves to cut parish links across Continents.

It must be allowed to voice disagreement. And of course I want to educate people out of opinions I find appalling. They don't have to accept my views just as I don't have to accept theirs, but a lively debate must be allowed.

But what actual moves are afoot to treat conservatives as second class people? To stop them from being priests and bishops? To dismiss their relationships as immoral?

Have you ever come across a conservative who was stalked by a stranger and then told by his priest that this was God's punishment for being conservative?
But it happened to a gay woman in a church near me.

Has a group of liberals been shown a video of a conservative wedding and one of them stood up, face contorted, shaking a fist at the video and shouting that he'd like to effing push their effing faces in - without being challenged?
Also happend in a church near me during the showing of a clip of a civil partnership ceremony.

And you find it oppressive that Gene Robinson wants to change people's minds?

Are we really comparing like with like?

Posted by Erika Baker at Tuesday, 27 March 2012 at 8:45pm BST

"Toleration is never enough for people on either side. . . . If one side is trying to educate the other out of their position, it's not acceptance."

It's wearying, the frequent assumption here among conservatives that "gay" and "straight" and their proper treatment are just matters of opinion, like use of candles or vestments. We all tend to take our own experience as the norm until we learn that other people experience things differently. (Strong case in point: how the nuns used to whack the knuckles of a fellow second-grader for "showing off," "trying to be different," as he tried to write with his left hand.) Straight conservatives seem to think that homosexuality is an individual aberration, rather than the way some proportion of human beings are made to function. But being gay isn't a choice to be accepted or denied, tolerated or discouraged, it's a fact of life. Saying so isn't to "seek to impose a top-down liberal centrism." It's to try to ram reality down the throats of those who prefer their traditional suppositions. Some things aren't matters of opinion. Please listen to people who know that this isn't one of them.

Posted by Murdoch at Tuesday, 27 March 2012 at 9:19pm BST

"Liberal pluralism by definition commits you to tolerance of positions you think wrong, always provided such positions are not vicious." - John -

In your argument, John, which I take it is not about the acceptance or rejection of sexual-orientation issues (an important one); you are saying that the Church ought to allow acceptance of two different theologies of the gender capability of women to represent the common humaity of christ at the altar.

This, to my mind, is not 'adiaphora' (as I believe the sexual-orientation question to be) but rather a matter of basic Christian doctrine.

It is possibile there may be two different views on this matter - gender appropriateness for the exercise of leadership and priestly-episcopal ministry - in different Churches (RC v. C.of E.) but surely not in the one episcopal sodality - such as is the Church of England.

If, after due consultation, the Church of England categorically states that a person's gender does not affect their validity in Christian ministry; then those who believe this to be heretical - or even vaguely unsatisfactory, on grounds of their individual conscience - must surely find themselves out of communion with the C.of E. - a situation that would be seriously undermining for the ministry of women in that Church.

If some people want both the Anglican provenance - but without the added ' burden' of oversight by a canonically-ordained woman bishop - then this is precisely what the Pope of Rome has provided for in the R.C. Ordinariate.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Tuesday, 27 March 2012 at 9:41pm BST

It would always come to this: Rousseau v Locke liberals, once the outcomes they judged top priority came into view. Now the battle (within this segment of the Communion) will be between laissez-faire liberalism and justice-all-the-way-down liberalism.

Posted by c.r.seitz at Wednesday, 28 March 2012 at 12:21am BST

'You listen, you shout, cry, talk, compromise'

Oh well, sorry John, but that compromise idea of yours died in the space of about ten subsequent posts.

As presented above, the non-liberal 'anglicans' have formed themselves into an unvarying monolith of Nazi-like hate. We hear that, to a man, we want to:
1. kick (or, less hyperbolically, constructively dismiss) LGBT's out of the church;
2. show the door to women priests and partnered gay priests;
3. punish openly partnered gays and priests;
4. 'effing push their effing faces in'
5. imprison and murder gays around the globe
5. And worse (A catch-all. Beats naming the full complement of our diabolical sins, which, of course, are legion, given the 400-word posting limit).

You can see why we're better off elsewhere. Yet, if we survive the rigors of our peculiar purgatory for following the horrendous heresy of apostolic authority (boundless 'hope springs eternal' optimism here), we might also find a place in heaven...

But NOT in the Anglican branch (as you know, it's the one that really matters).

Posted by David Shepherd at Wednesday, 28 March 2012 at 12:42am BST


Simplest argument:

It isn't pluralism to "include" those who would end inclusion and pluralism, it's impossibility. To try to force it to happen is insanity. This is not a pejorative argument, it's reality. All the hand-wringing in the world, all the false "sacrifices," won't change it.

You cannot put the two together and make a community - it is impossibility. This alleged "compromise" you keep speaking of, is, in fact, the end of community while imposing an undue burden on both parties. It has been tried. It hasn't worked, it won't work, it can't work.

I understand you feel real pain over this. However, you don't seem to care what real pain you cause the rest of us, so long as your conscience is clean. Think of that, consider the reality of it before you reply or post again on this subject.

Posted by MarkBrunson at Wednesday, 28 March 2012 at 5:34am BST

Again - regarding the dubious claims of "exclusion" of people who are, traditionally, in the majority;

First - the basis of the argument is completely wrong: no one is excluded from Christ or Christianity by refusing to cooperate with creating these special places. The anglican tradition has long accepted the legitimacy of other expressions of Christianity as valid. The insistence that people are being "thrown out" of community reeks of religious exclusivism itself and is deplorable. We *are* in community with the RCC's, with the Orthodox, with the various Protestants, and, if they do not wish to acknowledge that we are only responsible for *our* good behavior and upbringing, not theirs.

Second - the basis of the argument is unreasonable. You speak of making, in churches that have become gradually more liberal, a place for conservatives, as if they were an endangered species, when they, we and everyone else acknowledges that they are the rule, rather than the exception, in the arena of religion. I can count, off the top of my head, five easily-available options for conservatives who reject alleged innovations to be "safe" as well as ministered to sacramentally (or lack thereof), with a wide variety of choices. Those of liberals and especially progressives within religion are extremely limited. I have to wonder about how committed to the Great Commission the so-called moderates are when they would run some completely out of the faith, so others wouldn't have to move to a differet denomination that actually agrees, in majority, with their views.

Thirdly - for us, it isn't about convenience. When we speak of discomfort with these *real* innovations of special "pockets of resistance" and tier and layers and all that, it is because we value community - not because we value not having to take the wife and kids two blocks down the street to a different church. It is because we are trying to do Christ's call, and can't while we are having to watch our backs with those who are supposed to support us. When someone claims a special oversight, or tier, community is finished and they are simply a danger to community.

Posted by MarkBrunson at Wednesday, 28 March 2012 at 5:51am BST

john, thanks for your answer, but I think you're still missing the point. You keep saying that the door must be open to everyone. But you're saying it to the wrong people. Say it to Forward in Faith and the other objectors, and keep saying it until they listen. Until they do, they can't be permitted to dictate the terms.

Posted by toby forward at Wednesday, 28 March 2012 at 6:58am BST

Lots to reply to here, no doubt. I'm tired. Best wishes to all from a laissez-faire liberal (sort of)/consequentialist (sort of).

Posted by John at Wednesday, 28 March 2012 at 9:54am BST

Isn't is wonderful that God accepts us all - whether we like that or not. The real problem is, we don't always, easily, accept one another. Whenever someone is told "You do not have a place in my Church" - solely because of their gender or sexuality - we may be refusing the companionship of Christ!

Think of Blessed Francis, whose life changed when he saw Christ in the face of a leper; and didn't distance himself but actually embraced the leper!

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Wednesday, 28 March 2012 at 11:16pm 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.