I do find all this very worrying and I am very suspicious as to what may be planned. After the furore over women bishops and gay marriage one would think that 'the powers that be' may have learned something but I fear not.
Some of us are, however, constantly vigilant and will do all we can to ensure this damaging covenant is not smuggled back.
The tiresome Lambeth ¨facesavers¨ are gasping to make sense.
It's hard to know what to make of this. It must be driven by the need to 'save face' but I can hardly think of a more divisive thing to do than even to contemplate re-opening something which has just been so conclusively rejected.
Surely, the next Archbishop, whoever he is, would be reluctant to take up his predecessor's failed initiative? Rather like a new vicar coming into a parish with a 'bit of a history', no doubt the new Archbishop will have sweet words for Rowan William's time at the helm and then quickly scurry away to pursue a new and different agenda.
Herewith, of course, the problem for those staff who remain at Lambeth and in the Communion Office, they'll be a bit desperate and concerned for their futures having been 'hung out to dry' as it were.
Still, not long now, there are the summer holidays ahead and then Christmas after which in the New Year we enter a land flowing with milk and honey!
"Therefore it is a mistake to focus too narrowly either on the disagreements around human sexuality, or on seeking legally or structurally based solutions to current Anglican Communion
difficulties." Archbishop of York (Annex 'A') -
And this is precisely why the Anglican Covenant, as presently constituted, would not meet the current needs of Communion Partners. GAFCON has already said it would not join in a Covenant relationship with TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada. If they, therefore, are not willing to be part of this Covenant, the issue of sexuality may not remain a defining issue of difference between the rest of the Provinces. So No Covenant required.
And if the new archbishop is Sentamu, who has already nailed his colours to the mast on this issue, Concerned Anglican?
"would not meet the current needs of Communion Partners" if you mean "Communion Partners" in the US, that is incorrect. The CP parishes, rectors, Bishops are positive re: Covenant. They do not think it likely that the TEC GC would adopt it. I think that is fairly agreed across the board. TEC believes it is a special church with special gifts.
John Sentamu will not be the next ABC whatever the Daily Mail (aka The Jupiter of Barchester) says.
However, to avoid any charges of 'bias' the Nominations Commission is bound to interview Sentamu and probably Christopher Cocksworth, Graham James and possibly Richard Chartres.
... but I've got my money (Gift Aided of course) on the Commission surprising us with an unexpected choice.
I'll give you 50 pence on Tim Stevens of Leicester. Popular and trusted amongst the bishops, liberal but cautious, he could well be their short-termer choice to see the C of E and the Communion through the next four or five years whilst everything quietens down.
... and a piece of advice for the next incumbent at Lambeth as its one of the few things directly in his gift. Postpone the forthcoming Lambeth Conference by five years to about 2023 by which time a fresh leadership of the Anglican Communion will have emerged.
Two words should cover the situation: Dead Duck!
"Sentamu will not be the next ABC...." I hope you are right, CA, but never count your chicks.
On the Covenant map of England, you could travel on a reasonably direct route from the Yorkshire Dales to the Cotswolds, from the Humber to the Solent and from the Severn to the Medway without crossing a single pro-Covenant diocese. All six dioceses neighbouring London, including the capital itself, rejected it. Perhaps the most remarkable factor was the influence of the anti-Covenant bishops on their synods, emboldened into voting against without appearing disloyal.
""would not meet the current needs of Communion Partners" - if you mean "Communion Partners" in the US, that is incorrect." - cseitz - Wednesday
If you looked at the context of my original comment, Christopher, you would realise that I was not speaking of 'Communion Partners' as in some esoteric part of TEC, but rather in the larger context of Anglican Communion Partners (Provinces)
I am aware that the U.S. 'Communion Partners' are not in synchrony with their host Church, TEC, but that does not make them 'Communion Partners' in any realistic sense of those words - especially when one realises that their nemesis (TEC) actually is a legitimate 'Communion Partner'..
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.