Thinking Anglicans

Anglican Covenant news

This week, stories about the Windsor proposal for an Anglican Covenant resurfaced:

Telegraph Jonathan Petre Archbishop backs two-track Church to heal divisions
Ruth Gledhill That Petre ‘covenant’ story
Living Church Steve Waring Anglican Covenant Unlikely in Less than Five Years

Jim Naughton had this comment.

Notify of

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Göran Koch-Swahne
18 years ago

“A covenant would set out the ‘house rules” Oh, this dysfunctional family imagery! “a well-written covenant would clarify the identity and mission of the churches of ‘or in association with’ the Anglican Communion” The problem is not a want of “covenants”. There is the Bible in various versions, short and long; there are the XXXIX Articles; a host of Books of Common Prayer; the Lambeth-Chicago Quadrilateral, and so on and so forth. The trouble comes when differing and incompatible interpretations held by different strands within the Anglican churches confront each other – or, rather, when anachronistic and allegoric late-modern interpretations… Read more »

18 years ago

Well, I actually agree with Göran on one point! That suitable covenants exist. These have the welcome advantage of historical authority and distance from the current problems. In particular I think a mildly recontextualized form of the thirty-nine articles might well do the trick to sort out inter-Anglican relationships. If I were a non-liberal Primate I would be thinking that the draft covenant seems much too relative – basing authority in certain individuals and councils rather than Christ’s teachings and Holy Scripture; and aiming for ‘communion’ with each other rather than with God. Much too humanistic… and doomed to perpetuate… Read more »

Prior Aelred
18 years ago

I must admit that I have never been happy with “Covenant” theology — those of the Anglican family who enthuse about it always end up leaving — I am happy with the Quadrilateral & mutual respect among those who differ in adiaphora (not “making windows into men’s souls”) — sadly, I feel increasingly like a dinosaur in contempoary Anglicanism.

18 years ago

As projected it is unacceptable, period, full stop.

J. C. Fisher
18 years ago

In an organization which has *not* been run by “majority rule” (e.g., as the AC hasn’t been), a majority cannot suddenly RULE that it *is* now a “majority rule” organization.

The AC has been constituted by the “bonds of affection” (aka a “defacto consensus” . . . aka “showing up”!). ANY CHANGE to that unofficial constitution, can only occur now, through an EXPLICIT CONSENSUS. Unanimity. Period. Any province/church which “shows up” can BLOCK any change (change coerced *without* achieving a consensus, would then be properly described as a “coup”)

Five years to a Covenant? Try five millenia…

18 years ago

Yet another compromise that no-one will agree with.

There is no way of bridging the gap.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x