on Monday, 14 January 2008 at 12.34 pm by Simon Sarmiento
categorised as Anglican Communion
The response of the Scottish Episcopal Church to the Draft Anglican Covenant is now available.
You can read it here.
“Rich pluriformity” and “concordat” are certainly keepers from this thoughtful document. I am happy to see rational questioning of the elevation of the 1662 BCP to canonical status, as well as objection to the elevation of the Primates’ collective authority. Let Rome have its College of Cardinals – we don’t need one.
Very fine statement from the Scots (BTW — Thanks for our episcopate & Eucharistic Prayer — just in case no one has ever gotten around to thanking you before — we do appreciate it!) — it is one of those polite statements that so many of us have at some point in our lives gotten from someone we were interested in that begins, “I really like you as a friend, but …” (“but” is an interesting word that usually means, “ignore everything that came before”).
I do have a life, but here is more:
i think i discern the hand of brian smith, bishop of edinburgh in this document. he is on the board that produced it, and he can be relied upon not to have any truck with the separatists or those who seek to marginalise gay people or women. good for them.
As usual, the Scottish Church hits the nail on the head! We Americans can note that our liturgical tradition also has foundations other than just the Book of Common Prayer of 1662. During the Colonial Period, Anglican services in America were performed from the Prayer Books of 1559 and 1604, as well as from the 1662 Book. We were the first Anglicans outside of the Churches of the British Isles to engage in Prayer Book revision. American Churchmen produced our Proposed Book of Common Prayer in 1785, and the first Authorized American Prayer Book in 1789 which, as the Prior… Read more »
One thing that worries me over the whole covenant issue, is that there appears to be no machinery for subsequent alteration and amendment. Is the Covenant to be set in stone creating the problems that the 39Articles caused the Church of England?
So what will happen now?
It’s unlikely that New Zealand and Scotland will now be disinvited from Lambeth and there is no indication that they are planning to stay away.
So if they attend, will they be considered to have consented to the Covenant despite these statements?
Pluralist: thanks for the link – your comments are very good.
Ah yes, I know something of the “pain” whereof they speak when the refer to the term “covenant.”
My mother’s family belonged to the Reformed Presbyterian Church (AKA the Covenanters); a very austere form of presbyterianism (if it’s fun, it’s a sin). In fact my maternal grandfather was an ordained Covenanter Minister. The Covenanters descend from the followers of John Knox who made Calvin look like a raging liberal.
Yes, I can see where the Scots would take a dim view of the term.
“I can see where the Scots would take a dim view of the term.”
I felt the same from the beginning. The Scots Episcopalians have a history of being on the margins of legality, surrepititious Eucharists, babies baptised through prison bars, that sort of thing, because they would not covenant. I would be incredibly surprised if they were to assent to something their ancestors suffered a great deal to oppose.
Pluralist Don’t worry. There are times when you’re the one who can hit the balls for a six or out of the field. If you’ve got the calling and wherewithall at the time, go for it. Others breathe a sigh of relief that someone else is playing well. I agree with the Scot’s concerns first itemised concern “The discussion of the foundations which are traditionally held to undergird Anglicanism omits to mention reason, which has long been thought to stand alongside scripture and tradition.” This “covenant” is nothing more than an attempt to build a straight jacket and hand control… Read more »
I think I can do better than that, Deacon Charlie Perrin
Shock announcement from GAFCON…
Another take on “covenant”:
As my bishop pointed out, a covenant implies a way for people to stay together — the covenant between Abraham and God, the covenant of marriage, or our baptismal covenant, to name a few.
This whole business of an Anglican Draft Covenant is not so much a covenant as it is a document on how people and provinces can be effectively removed from the Communion.
Wales is planning an interesting day conference on the Covenant, 15 March at St Michael’s College, Llandaff. Those expressing a view from the platform will be Barry Morgan, Gregory Cameron, Will Strange and Derek Belcher – very much open to the rest of the Anglican world – if you are interested, coming far and want a bed we can accommodate a few. I see no harm in “covenants” – when they are facilitative rather than coercive, though I oppose this Covenant tooth and nail not necessarily because I dislike what it says or does but because it is premature and… Read more »
An interesting Covenant is found at the end of this interesting document many may not have read for some time http://anglicancommunion.org/listening/resources/conversations_on_human_sexuality.pdf It reads like a statement of an Anglicanism now dead: Appendix A Covenants 1. We will respect each other’s faith journey. 2. We will listen respectfully. 3. We will ask inviting questions. 4. We will have flexible understanding, attempting to understand from the point of view of others. 5. We will seek to learn from all perspectives 6. We will keep the topic in mind when speaking 7. We will not speak as individuals for the group apart from… Read more »
Since the requirement is from ++Rowan that appearance at Lambeth involve some “working with” the process of a covenant, maybe one of the best ways to do that is to point out where it sucks, starting with its existence, its name, and its content in much that order? 😉
Tim suggested “maybe one of the best ways to do that is to point out where it (the proposed covenant) sucks, starting with its existence, its name, and its content in much that order? ;)” A good suggestion but it does not go far enough. We also need to point out who wants it, why they want it, what they intend to do with it, against whom, and the implications for those that it is used against. Otherwise we are guilty of contributing to the best designed covenant that has ever existed, and failed to notice that it was a… Read more »
Thanks very much Martin Reynolds, you are right !
We really need to read this again. How could it have been so sidelined ?
It seems to speak the language of a different world the queendom of God , perhaps ?
I really wish it could have informed the speaking and ethos of the ‘discussions’ since then.
I wonder if LGCM would circulate somehow (well you have here, of course!) as Richard Kirker did the (June) Osborne Report — another neglected gem.
At this point it would appear that the very concept of an Anglican Covenant, let alone the proposed draft that is out there, is an instrument of distrust and dissension rather than an instrument of unity. The reasons for this? I would suggest the following: 1) the composition of the committeee and especially those who were actually at the drafting session; 2) the appointment of the Primate of the West Indies as Chair – especially in view of his subsequent comments and actions in contravention of the Windsor Report such as participating in the consecration of our new invasive species… Read more »
“In my humble view, the Episcopal Church in the United States is much more a child of the Episcopal Church of Scotland than it is of England.”—Kahu Aloha
Yes, indeed! A lot of us Yanks feel that way!
Posted by: Kurt on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 at 10:07pm GMT
Yes, well, that’s because it is actually the case !
‘I’d rather say, “No thanks. You want to build a weapon? Go ahead, but don’t purport that I liked or agreed to its construction. Let the sin of the violence lovers rest with its perpetrators.”‘ Cheryl Va. Clough When I read the Advent Letter, and saw the weapon involved, and was disgusted, I wrote here and there, and a reply said definitely will go to Lambeth Conference, to meet those with whom there is disagreement. The daft thing is that the conservatives are split over going because they think they cannot go and some say they should, and the Advent… Read more »
“In my humble view, the Episcopal Church in the United States is much more a child of the Episcopal Church of Scotland than it is of England.”—Kahu Aloha I believe that Kahu Aloha is right on target; moreover: (1) if the ABC were to cave in to the neo-Puritans, and if he somehow tried to align the CofE with Nigeria, Rwanda, Uganda, Kenya, Southern Cone, West Indies, SE Asia, and minor parts of Australia, then (2) I would predict a realignment of the AC focused upon the leadership of Scotland, joined by Wales, Ireland, Canada, USA, Mexico, Brazil, New Zealand,… Read more »
No one has tumbled to the fact that Sydney do not want th Covenant, because it could be used to challenge their diocesan autonomy and desire for lay presidency.
Ther are “conservatives” who are disturbed by the Covenant as well.
The “conservatives” though want it to look as if it is the liberals who scupper it.
Jerry: further to your third point above, remember also that the vast majority of English people in the pews, including in the churches led by homophobic clergy, are liberal on the gay issue, and are becoming more so all the time, partly as a result of the general acceptance in society, and partly as a result of being fed up with the way the extremists have been banging on about the issue. Friends who go to Con Evo churches are increasingly embarrassed by their leadership’s harsh stand. Their hold over the “official” stance of the C of E is not… Read more »