Given the history of the Sees of Cape Town and Natal, it's interesting to see the (arch)bishops thereof moving and seconding the motion.
It is curious that the motion refers to autonomous churches whilst at the same time adopting a treaty that curtails their autonomy.
The resolutions sound wonderful but the unity envisaged is far too narrow.Anglicans need to live in unity with much greater diversity.Above all those of us who think it is right need to be free to welcome fully LGBT people and to provide for 'gay marriage'. I just wish this Covenant would die and leave us free to be true Anglicans
This is the unfortunate legacy of the abortive Rowan Williams initiative. It lives zombie like to remind us all of a past we'd rather forget. When finally half the Communion has voted to adopt it and the other have not, it will have achieved precisely the opposite of what was meant to happen, cementing division instead of creating order and harmony. 'The road to hell', they say, 'is paved with good intentions.'
So now I guess the Anglican Church of Southern Africa is not in fullest possible communion with the Church of England, which rejected the covenant as, among other things, unAnglican.
Rowan Williams's bad strategic thinking does persist in haunting us.
Lambeth Palace, and Anglican Communion Office, please take note.
"The Archbishop of Cape Town, Dr Thabo Makgoba, proposed the motion. Addressing the Synod, meeting this week in Benoni, Johannesburg, he emphasised ACSA’s commitment to being at the heart of Anglican life, often acting as a bridge-builder, and drawing on its own experiences of living with considerable diversity and wrestling with difference." - article.
At least, Archbishop Thabo MakGoba, evinces a desire to remain 'at the heart of Anglican life - rather than becoming part of its liver at GAFCON.
He wants to be a 'bridge-builder' and not a demolisher of Anglican solidarity like GAFCON.
Though I personally have problems with the whole concept of the Covenant as presently constituted, I do believe that a different wording of a new Covenant between non-GAFCON Provinces of the Communion that would retain that degree of 'living with diversity and wrestling with difference' that the Archbishop mentioned, could become viable.
they should tread carefully as within their midst is a viable " Anglican " alternative. The thriving Church of England in South Africa, now calling its self the Reformed evangelical Anglican Church.REACH as it calls itss elf is fully represented at GAFCON.
RIW, I doubt that most SA Anglicans would consider the CESA especially "Anglican," much less "viable." They practice lay presidency (with grape juice!) in contrast to the largely A-C tone of much of Southern Africa.
CESA is a small version of Sydney: lay presidency, eschewing the word "catholic" in the Creeds, more Calvinist than Anglican.
CESA's orders are fully recognised by Canterbury and there are several CESA clergy serving in the Church of England.
Robert, there are also many ex-Roman Catholic priests serving in Anglican Church around the world - not only in England.
Robert Ian Williams - we need more information on what you say. The Church of England in South Africa is not in the Anglican Communion. It is only recognised by Sydney Diocese.
It is not a case of whether its orders are recognised or not, after all Anglicans recognise Roman orders and Roman priest converts are not re-ordained. Any CESA priest coming into the C of E would not be re-ordained but would have to be received, that is effectively renounce the CESA.
CESA or REACH as it now calls itself has the same status at GAFCON gatherings as the Anglican Church of North America i.e not in communion with the Anglican Communion, whatever GAFCON says.
"...we do this (affirm our Covenantal relationship) in order to proclaim more effectively in our different contexts the grace of God revealed in the gospel, to offer God’s love in responding to the needs of the world, to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, and together with all God’s people to attain the full stature of Christ (Eph 4.3,13)...." - A.C.S.A.'s declaration -
If this were the major philosophy behind the original Covenant Declaration "in our different contexts", and the constituents partners were encouraged to respect each other's differences on gender and sexuality questions, then the Covenant may just have had a chance to be accepted by everyone - except the GAFCON Provinces, who would not have approved.
As it is, however, with GAFCON's dissension from the gender and sexuality inclusivity, the rest of us might yet agree to an ongoing relationship that does not tie us to a confessional fundamentalism.
I am a bit confused here, do you stand by the 39 Articles or not?
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.