on Thursday, 5 July 2007 at 9.26 pm by Simon Sarmiento
categorised as General Synod
It appears that Church Society doesn’t think so. Read Is an Anglican Covenant a good idea? and then also read General Synod The Anglican Covenant.
A concern that keeps coming up is the idea that the scriptures have been completely interpreted and applied. If that is the case, why is tyranny so rampant? Why are ecosystems (on the verge of) collapsing? Why are so many women raped, children abused, and souls tormented because they “deserve it” or “don’t fit” or can’t protect themselves? There are souls who have refer to Jesus for selfish reasons. They want the miracles, the authority to act with impunity, to do whatever they want to whomever they want however they want whenever they want; with no regard as to what… Read more »
First reaction was, “That’s a turn up for the books,” but their opposition to it is actually on expected lines – the Covenant, for them, is not strong enough. It is too weak (etc.), there would not be a stronger one from its current source, and it focuses too much on structures. I took it that this one or its action would lead to a stronger one as another one or replacement, but perhaps I should have expected them to oppose it. Good if they do. Now I’ll read some detailed comment…
The Church Society is roughly right when it comes to the Declaration of Assent, or let’s put it another way. Asked why the creeds cannot do the job the Covenant is being asked to do, the Archbishop said that there are historical and cultural reasons why not – in other words, they have slipped into a kind of liturgical pattern but do not often reflect actual theology in some settings today. A general definition of Anglicanism in a Covenant could be based on the Declaration or the Lambeth Quadrilateral, but it would be pointless to do it. If it adds… Read more »
I fully support the comment by Giles Goddard on behalf of Inclusive Church. I also think it is important that the General Synod does not shy away from the difficult and no doubt potentially divisive task of giving thought in the coming year to the character and terms of the Covenant. I hope therefore that members of General Synod at this forthcoming meeting will support the amendment proposed by the Revd Jonathan Clark (London) on behalf of Inclusive Church.
Well kudos to the evangelicals involved for being so straightfoward: (1) They seek a covenant which not only permits, but apparently requires, that all prog-lib believers, honest and lovingly partnered queer folks, and any friends of these vilified believers be, well, vilified and kicked out, no hesitations, emboldened by the clear word of God as these involved evangelicals read it. Their definition of sodomy hasn’t really changed all that much, since the term was first coined in company with heresy, a link these involved evangelicals still hold dear with quite a bit of their heart. Okay. But wait, we get… Read more »
“This covenant does not address fulfilling these visions, the intent is simply to stop the voices of conscience pointing out what they have failed to do”
Reminiscent of the House of Bishops’ opposition to the unilateral Abolitionism of Wilberforce, Cheryl?
Cheryl, you are bang on! I find it terribly amusing that those who go around with their wrist bands and T-shirts arrogantly asking WWJD? seem the least interested in actually DOING what Jesus would do. I have a fridge magnet that says “Jesus would slap the S^%$ out of you”. drdanfee, “We bear witness to Jesus of Nazareth, every bit as much as you, as living, risen Lord of life.” Some of those who post here have made it pretty clear that they don’t think you don’t actually do this at all. In fact, you really have no faith and… Read more »
The AC is fractured and on the verge of collapse. Without a covenant, it has no hope to survive. Whatever covenant emerges, some will be unhappy. A “big tent” covenant is not a possibility as conservatives will not recognize it. A covenant that will satisfy the GS and conservatives will force New Agers to have to find new homes. In either case, the AC as we have known it will be no more. It is silly to complain that covenants are not how Anglicans do things. They have in the past (the 39 Articles for example) and are destined to… Read more »
The only covenant that I’m completely comfortable with is the one established by Christ and called the “New Covenant”. That seems to have functioned to the benefit of innumerable souls, if not ecclesiastical power structures, for 2k years or so. Human-made covenants are always about control. That is what they do, that is their raison d’etre. Control over doctrine, and censure rights regarding the sexuality of a bishop in the tiny diocese of New Hampshire, are antithetical to the freedom offered us in Christ’s New Covenant. Ambiguity is a hallmark of modernism and modern life. And it is the bane… Read more »
“A covenant that will satisfy the GS and conservatives will force New Agers to have to find new homes.” So anyone who isn’t a conservative on this issue is a “New Ager”? I’d really like it if conservatives could, just once, acknowledge that those who disagree with them actually have faith. Given that the 39 Articles were intended to bring peace between Catholics and Protestants, their utter failure to do so, a failure which is still having repercussions 500 or so years on, should be enough to tell you that any such “covenant” is no guarantee of peace. And the… Read more »
“The AC is fractured and on the verge of collapse. Without a covenant, it has no hope to survive.”—Dan
Well, Dan, I don’t think that it DESERVES to survive. Particularly INFESTED as it is with fundagelicals.
I am still mystified as to just what the larger outcome of all this Anglican realignment is prayerfully thought to be, by the new Anglican Evos. Will they not still have to live together with the rest of us on the same small planet? Will they not, together with the rest of us, still face urgent crisis – real crisis – issues like global warming, ODC’s, fouled water or unbreatheable air, mass extinctions of species along with habitats? What makes policing other peoples’ orgasms so important that it becomes the battle line where blood must be drawn? Above all, what… Read more »
An AC that seeks to destroy those that do not placate power brokers doesn’t deserve to survive. If being in the AC means becoming Edomites who not only refuse passage but actively participate in hunting down their “enemies”, then it is better that it is reduced to ashes. The AC is in a context of a bigger problem. Namely the potential collapse of global economic systems of water supply; food distribution; manufacturing and provision of sufficient medicines, clothing, shelter; funding and access to adequate education and medical support. Funding military ventures by diverting funds from providing basic infrastructure and opportunities… Read more »
“A “big tent” covenant is not a possibility as conservatives will not recognize it. A covenant that will satisfy the GS and conservatives will force New Agers to have to find new homes.” – Dan What a distorted and delusional viewpoint. First of all, I am no “New Ager,” in fact I am very far from that, and take offense at this hyperbolic sinplicity. Dan’s use of that epithet would be equivalent to my calling all conservatives “mindless knee-jerk reactionaries.” Sure some of each part of the spectrum probably fit Dan’s description, or my hypothetical over-the-top equivalent, but most are… Read more »
Jerry I agree. I am really tired of being told what we represent and having people enter our discussion attacking us on the basis of what we are. Yet their forays bear no relationship to what we actually represent. In the preceding week people on this forum commented that their morals were more evangelical than liberal, even though they were gay. With derision they dismissed regular TA posters. Yet, if they bothered to look at the history of TA postings, they would know that there is a fundamental respect for reverential monogamous relationships and distaste for imposition and coercion. Thus… Read more »
Note how Church Society skirts around the divorce issue, as evangelicals actually cannot agree as to the meaning of heterosexual marriage, whether it is indissoluable or breakable!!!
“I am really tired of being told what we represent and having people enter our discussion attacking us on the basis of what we are. Yet their forays bear no relationship to what we actually represent.”
Those of us on the conservative side of the discussion kindly ask for the same consideration.
“Those of us on the conservative side of the discussion kindly ask for the same consideration.” How many on the left have ever denied your faith? Claimed that you are merely seeking the approval of the world? How many have colluded to rid the Church of you? Have you been called a cancer on the Body of Christ by one of the more vocal and powerful bishops? Has anyone published a document claiming that all you conservatives believe everything believed or stated by the most extreme and heretical of you? How many websites vilify and stir up strife against you… Read more »
I am not aware of anyone accusing the “conservatives” of hating the scriptures, of rejecting Jesus, of despising the Gospel.
And to the degree that “conservatives” have been accused of things like scheming, plotting and schism, those accusations have been directed at specific individuals and groups, based on some fairly compelling evidence, and have not been directed, holus-bolus, against any and all who cavil at the blessing of same sex unions or the ordination of non-celibate homosexuals.
If you are trying to defend marriage, Chris, and judging others you should be able to defend your claim that the Bible is clear cut and explain why evangelicals cannot agree about divorce and re-marriage. After all adulterers as well as active homosexuals are to be excluded from the Kingdom of God.
If its a question of moral integrity and loyalty to the Word of God, explain this anomaly.
Its a question of motes and beams.
The Covenant will not define too finely what Anglicans actually believe on marriage.
I know conservatives have been hurtful and I wish that would stop – but it is not a defense anyone over the age of 4 should be using to justify their own behavior. To answer some of the specific questions raised… The use of the term “fundagelicals” gives a decent running start to the point I’m making. Ford you posted in this thread, “I’d really like it if conservatives could, just once, acknowledge that those who disagree with them actually have faith.” Dan doesn’t speak for all conservatives, but he is right to assert that there are many liberal leaders… Read more »
Neither Integrity nor Changing Attitude are trying to set up an alternative heirarchy in Nigeria / Uganda / Kenya / Rwanda / Southern Cone and cetera. I don’t have an issue per se with people organizing for their “side” of an issue at or between Synods in the hopes of an outcome they perceive as favourable. I do have a problem with people saying (in essence) screw the Synodical proccess, if we don’t get our way we will simply deny that you have any faith at all, we will drive you out of the Communion, we will replace your structures… Read more »
“drawing conclusions from small data sets.” But, Chris, I’m not drawing conclusions from a small data set. I have met many Evangelicals in my lifetime. The vast majority have fed my stereotype. Dismissal of non-Evangelicals is the rule, not the exception. Look the use of words like ‘faithful’ ‘believing'(or better ‘Bible believing’, meaning that I believe what, the Necronomicon?), ‘orthodox’ (an amusing change of meaning), and on and on. The assumption, and often the clear statement, is that the rest of us have no faith at all. Sorry, Chris, but 44 years of experience tells me that the majority of… Read more »