Well -  Unitarians can do what they like as they slip soon into zero attendance in England....not sure the CofE should follow that particular model....   Setting some ground rules with the Covenant is a good idea........ given only very few in the CofE and the AC find anything in the Covenant difficult.   MCU and IC  (same membership?) object because they know the actions of TEC(usa) from 2003 would not have got much support in any council of  the AC.... and stil would not because decades of trying various political tactics (and sometimes even theological arguments) has not persuaded the mind of the Communion to change and  break with the teaching of  the church catholic.

Pluralist's contribution is one of the most  sensible I have read on this topic and I wholly agree with him.  i have read the Covenant most carefully several times.  Read in Canada by a resident of Lancashire, it seems to me to be disingenuous to suggest that the document is not disciplinary.  No matter what commentators have said, it is designed to impose a measure of uniformity.  If churches do not conform to the prevailing majority and iinovate at the speed of the slowest, they will be cast out to an outer tier.  The reference to 'relational consequences' is a threat, the more damaging because it is so ill-defined.  It seems to me that this is a deeply divisive document, designed to divide, and will do little to promote unity.  The proponets consistently gloss over the disciplinary nature of the document.  They have overlooked the law of unintended consequences.  I'm agin it.

Bishop Cameron's letter was deeply offensive and unhelpful.  Living in Lancashire where BNP has had a baleful effect and read in Toronto where there is a sizable Jewish population, many of whose fobears suffered in the Holocaust, to smear the opponents of the Covenant with accusations of racism and fascism is unaccaptable and wrong.  If the Covenant needs defending in such a way, it is not worth having.

Daniel

I hold to the view that students who write long essays when shorter ones will do gain no extra marks and have wasted much of their time. Why these pieces have to be so long beats me.

Relational consequences are built in to this Covenant. Now what something becomes is often not what the authors intended, but this Covenant could certainly become a central arena for stopping culturally sensitive innovations in one Anglican Church from another, via a process of do nothing until conversation is exhausted, and if you do something there may be a removal to the outer ring of Anglicanism.

Church discipline presumably is within the Churches. There is no worldwide Anglican Church, so why should there be any form of Church discipline worldwide or from a new international centre? What Andrew Goddard discusses is innovatory: MCU and IC do not have to justify an absence of international Church discipline!

Women's ordination exists now, and is within Anglican Churches, but would this have got off the ground and been introduced when, culturally, there were very strong objections (including in England) to female ministers. The talk without action could have been endless, while non-conformists introduced female ministers throughout.

Quietness isn't just a matter of lack of presence, but that of 'well it will have little effect so may as well ignore it' and that of passing it bit by bit as it goes along. Just pass it on the nod so the dioceses can discuss it. Dioceses - do pass it because the General Synod passed it. General Synod again - do pass it because the dioceses approved it. That is what I understand as quietness -  a hush hush as it moves with stealth, under the radar, instead of taking the thing on with its relational consequences and how it can be used.

Here is a thought. If Sydney Anglicans think that deacons or even lay people can preside at a Eucharist, who is to say that they are not Anglicans? The Australian Church might have something to say about it, but the Church remains Australian and Anglican. Why should some international body state that these should undergo relational consequences? Some Anglicans elsewhere might be very pleased at the development, given that people have the skill to preside, whereas others might want to reserve the act to the specifically ordained. That one place does this is a form of testing it out, and other Anglicans will develop relationships with this and others not. All the Covenant does is stultify movements and centralises their progress, adding a frustration to existing Church decisions.
 

Andrew

Thankyou very much for this very clear and concise breakdown of the introduction and development of the covenant. But what i really want to know is how on earth do you find the time for this stuff with other commitments.I read them and get lost in the maze of words , but some mazes are not as easy to negotiate linguistically speaking. I wish we had had this post first, it does not matter so much about whether people agree or disagree on one level, first they have to understand what they are agreeing or disagreeing with in detail. I often understand the wrapping or bullet points but it is true the devil is always in the detail. I can see why you started another thread , possibly so it did not get lost in the maze of debate. I have still got to read it a few more times though, if only i could remember everything i read, i would be a definate genius and give you all a run for your money. But you know what the say, its not what you know but how what you know is implemented.  God bless confusion lol

Waterangel

Hi Andrew. There is already a discussion going on this. Do we really need yet another thread, or do you just want to force the other thread off the top of the list?

Dear Friends

Following the initial short response to the IC/MCU advertisement - Framing the Covenant: Trick or Treat? - we have just published a much more detailed analysis of their claims in six parts - How & Why IC & MCU Mislead Us on the Anglican Covenant.

Please use this thread for discussion.

All the best,

Andrew.