Forum Thread
The Anglican Covenant: Shared Discernment Recognized By All.

Hello Anglican Hobbits

I suggest you make contact with the CEEC for any clarification of their statement, but as always we are told to ensure that we are building our house on solid rock:

http://www.ceec.info/contact.htm

For your earlier post, I could not possibly comment on what you should do but good advice is always to put all these concerns before God in prayer and thanksgiving and ask for His guidance for you and your family knowing that we can rely on His promises: that he who asks receives; and that He only ever gives good things to His children: Matthew 7:7-12.

And thank you for your prayers for us and our Synod.   Amen indeed.

hello again,

I had a bit more time to follow the links kindly supplied and found them very helpful.  I'm not terribly well versed on all the players within the UK orthodox team, but I was encouraged by the timing and tone of the CEEC meeting.

I did have a question about the CEEC link:

http://www.ceec.info/Resolutions%20at%20High%20Leigh%20October%202009%20.htm

in Section A.2 the council 'welcomes the statement by the Archbishop of Canterbury recognising that ACNA is an authentic expression of Anglicanism'

where could I find that statement?  with warmest thanks for your help.

Pageantmaster,

thank you for such a quick response.  With the constitution of a Covenant-endorsing Anglican body in North America the call to choose between ACNA is becoming more urgent, especially for congregations with youth ministry and building needs.

A few months back, on a different thread, the counsel to wait for the glacial pace of the Covenant was discouraging.  Who will confirm our teenaged daughter?  Who will own any improvements made to the aging fabric of the buildings inherited by our growing congregation?

While we embrace Jesus' invitation to take up our cross and follow him, incarnating God's patient call to repentance, our national church body drifts further away from communion teaching. 

We will pray for your synod in February, that the Holy Spirit will bless you with wisdom, courage and strength.

Canadian Hobbits

I can't give you a definitive answer to your question as we are working it through but you may be interested in the statement of the Church of England Evangelical Council which represents the Evangelical organisations and colleges which comprise a major part of our church [including Fulcrum according to Anglican Mainstream]:

http://www.ceec.info/Resolutions%20at%20High%20Leigh%20October%202009%20.htm

It calls for the recognition of ACNA as a province of the Anglican Communion

There is a proposal before our Synod in February which calls for the same.

The purported removal from ordained ministry of Bishop Ackerman by the leader of TEC overnight demonstrates the urgency:

http://www.episcopal-life.org/81803_115631_ENG_HTM.htm

I would like to pick up on Neil L's contribution.

As a member of a currently conservative Canadian diocese I would also be interested in the response to ACNA from England. 

While the ACI document recognizes that cross border interventions are not morally equivalent to violations of the moratorium on same-sex blessings it does not set out an acceptable response.

will signing the covenant be enough to ensure our communion?

It is not that people have been open to certain changes and are not open to certain others.....people are open to change if persuasive arguments are put forward..... but not when arguments have not persuaded many and failed to change "the mind of the Communion".

What we have seen in the AC is certain changes have been made because "the mind of the Communion" has been persuaded by arguments from scripture and, to their credit,  "conservatives" have lived with those changes even when they have not always agreed with them e.g. Reform churches are still part of the CofE despite certain changes which it may not have supported....possibly because they can see the thinking behind some of those changes and the justification for them.  

Some other changes have had to be considered at length and for many, many years given some going ahead with their own views regardless of the mind of the Communion, that is why there is Lambeth resolutions on certain subjects, but those changes have not been made because few have been persuaded..... it is not that people are not open to change, it is just that they want a strong case to be made before changing their views. 

Well said, Andrew.

Junius, it’s so strange that you are hearing me say things I haven’t said. I haven’t accused you of being disingenuous and I’m trying to work out why you think I’ve distorted what you’ve said. Substantively all I’ve said is that you have been making assumptions about another person’s views without any evidence.

We clearly differ on whether to change one’s position on one thing is to leave the door open to further changes on other issues. Regardless of that, for change to commend itself to the church, the case is nevertheless going to have to be argued and not simply from a negative.

Martin, if someone disagrees with you theologically and you see this as a 'threat' and a 'danger' to your children, how are we ever to have any sort of discourse in the Church? Do you just want those of us who disagree with you to be silent?

I find it remarkable that you can characterise ACI/Fulcrum as 'extremist' and 'schismatic'. It makes no sense at all. The major weakness in your argument is that the statement from the CP bishops says that they will campaign for adoption of the Anglican Covenant by TEC, not that TEC can/will sign it. In other words, the Communion Partners believe that the event of TEC signing the Covenant will represent a change of heart. It may be a strategy doomed to failure but it hardly represents a rift with ACI/Fulcrum.

Furthermore, in what way does seeking to support those who remain within the structures of the Communion become 'schismatic'? I interpret this as an area where Fulcrum and ACI have common ground.  What is your view of their position?

Hello Martin ..... talking of danger to children and extremist positions being taken seems to be aimed at closing down opposition to your views without you addressing the issues-  but are you able to refute the arguments of the AC being discussed on this threadI?    

Do you think it is fair to describe as "extremist"  or "schismatic"  the positions taken by groups like the ACI  and the Fulcrum leadership?   Rather middle-of-the-road  would seem more accurate given they are in tune with what is what the ABC calls "the mind of the Communion" and they are quite far from the GAFCON position in terms of strategy to repair the tear in the fabric of the Communion.....the ABC certainly does not seem to treat the ACI or Fulcrum leaders as extremists or schismatics, does he?    Is it  really that "mind of the Communion" which you would like to dismiss by using words such as "extremist"?

It was the ABC who correctly described the diocese as being the more important grouping in the church when compared to the "abstract" idea of the national church...... why is it wrong to argue that dioceses should be free to sign up to the covenant?

As for TEC(USA), are people not free to express a view about whether it can sign up given its record in the last decade or so?  I know there is quite a strong "liberal" tendency to censor free speech sometimes (funnily enough, when it does not fit with certain views) but I see no problem with the ACI or anyone else expressing a view on TEC(USA) signing up to the covenant....and if anyone cannot in good conscience sign up, then there remains the position of not signing and that has integrity, of course.

The problem with your response  below, Martin,  is that across the AC, the positoin of the ACI is going to be seen as "extremist" or "schismatic" by very few Anglicans.....and debate is not going to be shut down by mis-labelling the ACI without dealing with their arguments.  Perhaps groups like CA are disappointed with the ABC because he is not being moved by emotional pressure but, correctly, wants the mind of the Communion to be persuaded before any changes are made  -  that position has integrity.... but dealing with the issues, not emotional pressure or attacking opponents, is essential if that mind is ever to change. 

I am pleased the ACI is dealing with the AC issues and that various responses from around the world to their latest piece have not shown up any major flaws in their arguments.

This is not a disingenuous pose, I am genuinely puzzled by Andrew Carey's assertion that: 'The separate issues of women's ordination, remarriage of divorcees, and human sexuality are simply different. They each have to be approached on their own merit.'

Of course, each of these is different from the other. My point is that there is a stance which has been taken in the past on each of these and that there is an alternative stance which some people take now, which is different. In each case the former stance says, 'you can't do it', and the latter stance says, 'you can do it'.

Now, each of these issues is divisive in the Church. In every case, the same arguments are made about whether or not a change may be made, and these arguments use the same body of evidence (reason, tradition, the Bible). In each case claims and counter claims are made about the interpretation and authority of the various elements.

The common thread is that in order to accept change in any one of these areas it has been necessary to adapt the view of authority and interpretation. Of course, once you have done that for any one of them the door is open to do the same for the other two. So, although they are different issues, they all pose the same problem for the Church in terms of interpretation, exegesis and authority.

That's my point, and I don't understand why Andrew Carey seems to want to distort it.

Although I disagree with them in their conclusions, it's for this reason that I agree with Forward in Faith when they say that this is the three-legged stool for the Anglican Communion. Ordination of women, remarriage of divorced persons, ordination of LGBT people who are in sexual relationships. Take away any leg of the stool and it will fall over. They have indentified what Andrew Carey seems to have missed.