Comments: Questions on Anglican Covenant and relational consequences

It wouldn't take much of a barrister in a court to start suggesting dishonesty in the answer, that it sure quacks like a duck so you don't need to name it as a duck to have the duck quacking away. Mind, there is more substance in a duck's quack than there is in this use of the word 'consequences'. What ever happened to honesty and calling a spade a spade instead of engaging in some wordplay choreography?

Posted by Pluralist at Thursday, 18 February 2016 at 7:18pm GMT

"And therefore the way in which the consequences were looked at was not related to the Covenant in any way at all."

Yes, I'm sure that many Primates, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, would prefer to forget that the so-called Anglican Covenant (which was neither) failed to pass in the Church of England.

The point of the question was that the so-called Anglican Covenant was to be the means by which to create some measure of power, at the Communion level, to impose relational consequences.

The Covenant flopped. But the Primates went ahead and purported to grab the power for themselves anyway.

This sort of extra-legal behavior has to be resisted, and resisted strenuously.

Posted by Jeremy at Thursday, 18 February 2016 at 7:21pm GMT

Andrew Godsall is one of the new intake of Synod - this is an excellent and fearless question about a subject that needs some light and not heat.

Posted by Nicholas Henderson at Thursday, 18 February 2016 at 10:08pm GMT

Act two, scene two. A room in the castle.

Polonius: "What do you read, my lord?"
Hamlet: "Words, words, words."

Posted by Dennis at Thursday, 18 February 2016 at 10:18pm GMT

So much for Andrew Godsall's attempt to raise the spectre of the 'Anglican Covenant'. This is already a dead duck as far as the Church of England (and many of the other Provinces of the Anglican Communion) are concerned - as the Archbishop of Canterbury rightfully reminded him.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Thursday, 18 February 2016 at 11:02pm GMT

"They [the Primates] have set out specific consequences in the functioning of the Communion and a task group will be appointed to carry forward the implications of their decision."

With which the Archbishop of Canterbury had nothing to do? And will have nothing to do?

Come now, Archbishop. Did you vote yes on the "consequences," or did you abstain?

And will you now lead the effort to "carry forward the implications of" the consequences? Even though the Church of England has flatly rejected the notion that any consequences may be imposed?

Posted by Jeremy at Thursday, 18 February 2016 at 11:12pm GMT

Father Ron, you are completely missing the point of Canon Godsall's excellent question.

As you say, the so-called Anglican Covenant is as dead as a doornail.

That being so, why is the Archbishop of Canterbury behaving as though the Church of England approved it?

Posted by Jeremy at Friday, 19 February 2016 at 12:43am GMT

Listening to the ABC here, it seems in terms of diversity, I think the CofE has consecrated the first member of Mustela nivalis ("least weasel").

Posted by JCF at Friday, 19 February 2016 at 4:12am GMT

Poor Justin Welby seems to be falling prey to the old adage re clergy that in the first three years of a new ministry they can do no wrong, in the second three years they can do no right and in the third three years no one cares what they do. I do not look forward to the years 2019 to 2021, which, of course, includes the C of E's crunch year 2020! Be afraid, be very afraid. Unless, that is, Reform and Renewal - sorry - Renewal and Reform comes to our rescue and with one bound we are free and William Temple's dream becomes a reality and England is converted.

Posted by Father David at Friday, 19 February 2016 at 5:12am GMT

Disingenuous.

Posted by Susannah Clark at Friday, 19 February 2016 at 5:51am GMT

Fr Ron,
I think you may have misunderstood Andrew Godsall's question. The Covenant is dead, that is precisely it. It was defeated because the Dioceses in the CoE did not want an unelected body to be able to impose "relational consequences" on any decision General Synod might make.

And yet, relational consequences is precisely what the last Primate Meeting is trying to impose on TEC.

Which is why Andrew is 100% right to question the Archbishops just what they thought they were doing.

Posted by Erika Baker at Friday, 19 February 2016 at 9:34am GMT

Why does Welby remind me of Nathan Thurm?

"I'm aware that the Covenant hasn't been approved! Why would you think I think it's been approved? It's just so funny that you would think that."

Posted by MarkBrunson at Friday, 19 February 2016 at 10:44am GMT

Rachel's question is good though are people here really happy to have both consequences? As a evangelical I have no hesitation is suggesting provinces that support criminalisation are entirely wrong but that I also think ECUSA is also, are people here happy to support both?

Posted by Paul at Friday, 19 February 2016 at 10:47am GMT

There's a lot of talk about ducks above (to say nothing of weasels). To add to it, isn't the ABC ducking the questions?

Posted by Malcolm Dixon at Friday, 19 February 2016 at 2:10pm GMT

Paul,
no, I don't support "consequences" at all. Nor does the CoE, officially, that's why it voted against the Anglican Covenant.

The Anglican Communion is a group of independent national churches. Their independence is to be respected.

Posted by Erika Baker at Friday, 19 February 2016 at 2:22pm GMT

There should be no consequences for disagreement with a consensus that is less than complete. We do not take the vote away from minorities, because they are minorities, nor do we interfere with the process of reception (or rejection) by preemptive removal of the matter from the table.

Of course, Nicodemus and Gamaliel were ignored when they suggested allowing for time and examination to proceed, so there is some precedent for dismissing proposals out of hand -- just not a very good precedent.

Posted by Tobias Haller at Friday, 19 February 2016 at 3:07pm GMT

" As a evangelical I have no hesitation is suggesting provinces that support criminalisation are entirely wrong but that I also think ECUSA is also, are people here happy to support both?"

I don't think one has to "support" both, but I do believe that we must all agree to come to the same table, in Jesus' name. Punitive actions are deeply un-Christian, as un-Christian as refusing to worship with the "other." I even take communion with people who cross themselves with the wrong number of fingers, a burning issue over which wars have been fought.

Posted by Nathaniel Brown at Friday, 19 February 2016 at 6:43pm GMT

I see something that has been rolling along at least since Rowan didn't invite Gene Robinson to the last Lambeth conference,but no one calls it by its name. If some bishops (a largish group I guess) say they won't come to Lambeth if XYZ are also invited, or that they won't come to the primates' meeting unless KLM (not a member of the Anglican Communion) is also invited, or if they say there must be "consequences" or we're walking out, isn't that a form of extortion? And why would the ABC give in to extortion which surely is an unChristian form of manoeuvring? I suppose some might call it mitigation, but it looks a lot like extortion to me.

Posted by Sara MacVane at Saturday, 20 February 2016 at 10:48am GMT

Sara McVane - no point coming up with clever arguments..... If the majority of provinces don't want tec and its friends in the AC, why not set up a global organisation in which liberals don't have to compromise their principles for years ... It was a disgrace TEC accepted bishop Robinson not being invited to Lambeth 08..... Why still compromise to be in the club. Make a new global communion in which there won't be all the nonsense we have had for decades already. Why is tec so desperate to be in Rowan and Justin's club??? Life with tec (global) would be so much more filled with integrity

Posted by S Cooper at Sunday, 21 February 2016 at 3:12pm GMT

Paul, this false equivalence between equality and criminalization shows the utter bankruptcy of the "moderate" position.

In other areas, moderates themselves recognize this: you would, I can safely assume, be horrified at the suggestion that a church that married interracial couples be "consequenced" alongside a church that supported apartheid and anti-miscegenation laws. Because you believe that racism's evil, you wouldn't dream of compromising on this point. When it comes to racism, most none of us are "moderates."

Why, then, d'you expect those who believe that LGBT inequality is wrong to compromise, and why should they? This position's only viewed as unreasonable and hardline because it's currently unpopular in church circles. As acceptance of LGBT people spreads and entrenches in society, that'll change.

Posted by James Byron at Tuesday, 23 February 2016 at 6:36am 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.