ENS reported yesterday on the latest development in International campaign launched against Anglican Covenant.
This evening the Telegraph has reported on developments in the English campaign in Bishop brands his liberal critics ‘little Englanders’ as new gay row hits Church by Tim Ross.
…The covenant was deemed necessary after international criticism from conservative Anglicans followed the ordination of the Rt Rev Gene Robinson, who is openly gay, as Bishop of New Hampshire in 2004.
Two liberal groups, Inclusive Church and Modern Church, have launched a campaign against the covenant plan, which they say is overwhelmingly backed by traditionalists.
The critics ran an advertisement in the Church Times claiming that the plan represented a move to install an “authoritarian leadership” and “the biggest change to the Church since the Reformation”.
However, the Bishop of St Asaph, the Rt Rev Gregory Cameron, who was on the committee that drew up the covenant, described the opponents as “latter-day little Englanders”.
In a letter to the Church Times, he said the two groups had “turned themselves into the nearest to an ecclesiastical BNP that I have encountered”.
He continued: “They resort to the old tactics of misinformation and scaremongering about foreigners and outside influences to whip up a campaign against the Anglican Covenant and replace reasoned argument with a ‘Man the barricades!’ mentality that is little short of breathtaking”…
Meanwhile Ekklesia has published these two articles relating to the Covenant:
And Bishop Alan Wilson has written Encouraging what engagement? How?
Note: There is a particularly good comments thread on this article.
Looking at the Covenant documentation for General Synod, it seems one laudable aim is to promote closer engagement between Churches.
Institutional structures can assist as well as impede strong and fruitful relationships, of course. Having a formal marriage certificate doesn’t stop marriage partners loving each other — indeed it ought to help, all other things being equal. What it cannot do is make people love one another.
Direct meeting is a gospel value. And if this is the aim, one way to judge the Covenant proposal will be to ask “How might it deliver what kind of closer engagement between Churches?” A new refereeing institution could bring churches together when they make decisions others abhor. That‘s the theory, rather like requiring divorcing couples to seek counselling…