|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
Permalink: http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/703
Fulcrum Subjects: Anglicanism, General / Anglicanism, Windsor Process Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum See the 43 comments on this article Five Reasons FOR the Covenant by Rt Revd Gregory Cameron Bishop of St Asaph Church in Wales
(numbers in brackets refer to the clauses of the covenant text)
Now is the moment to reaffirm the life of the Communion, and the Covenant is the way to do this by making explicit our commitment to one another.
1. A covenant is the way we say we belong together. There are many covenants in Christian life. In the Bible, God constantly affirms his covenant with his people. In Baptism, we are brought into the baptismal covenant with God and with each other. In marriage we make a covenant with our life partner. In ecumenism, we make covenants as a sign of commitment to other Churches. The Anglican Communion Covenant shows commitment to the Communion.
2. The Covenant would restore trust. A lot of the problems arise because Christians in some parts of the world fail to recognise faithful discipleship of other parts of the Communion. The Covenant demonstrates that Anglicans are remarkably united in the wells that feed their faith, in their mission, and how we do things together.
3. The Covenant sets out our common ground. Despite the tensions, there is much more that unites us than divides us. The covenant reminds us of the facts:
1. Scripture (1.1.3) 2. Creeds (1.1.4) 3. Sacraments (1.1.5) 4. Episcopacy (1.1.6) (These four are known as the Lambeth Quadrilateral, adopted in 1888) 5. Common Prayer (1.1.7) 6. Reason, Scripture and Tradition as the Anglican way of doing theology. (1.2.2)
4. Anglicanism has always sought out the middle way (the Via Media) to find a centre around which people can gather. The Covenant avoids the mistake of being able to say nothing about what holds us together, but doesn’t turn into a long attempt to define what is right and what is wrong (Compare the Covenant text with the Jerusalem Declaration of 2008)
5. The Covenant offers a better way of doing business.
All these actions were done without conversation, consultation, or co-operation. The covenant asks churches to commit to all three of these things. (3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.6)
So why the opposition?
There has been some hysterical language from the “No to the Covenant” campaign, saying such things as the Covenant is institutionalised homophobia (It isn’t actually mentioned in the Covenant, which is designed to facilitate conversation on this subject among others) and that no cleric could feel safe in his or her own pulpit, but the objections seem to boil down to:
"It’s UnAnglican!" In the seventeenth century there was an unAnglican Covenant, but in the twentieth, successful covenants have abounded – the Anglican-Methodist Covenant in England, the Ecumenical Covenant in Wales, the Anglican Roman Catholic Covenant in Papua New Guinea, not to mention numerous diocesan covenants. The Episcopal Church (USA) has at least five existing covenants with other Anglican Churches.
"It subordinates everyone to a centralised international authority!" The Covenant creates not one single new institution, and does not confer a single new power. No-one is authorised to do anything more than they can already do, and the covenant explicitly says: Such mutual commitment does not represent submission to any external ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Nothing in this Covenant shall be deemed to alter any provision of the Constitution and Canons of any Church of the Communion, or limit its autonomy of governance. The Covenant does not grant to any one Church or any agency of the Communion control or direction over any Church of the Anglican Communion. (4.1.3)
"It gives other Churches a veto over the Church of England!" Absolutely not. It does ask the Church of England to consult, co-operate and to sustain communion. The Standing Committee may offer advice where a development threatens unity, but
"It’s a bully’s charter!" On the contrary, it asks churches to be patient with one another (3.2.3), to sustain communion (3.2.7), and to maintain face to face communication (3.2.6). Far from encouraging bad behaviour, it will actually rein it in by specifying how the Churches of the Communion can address disputes.
"It’s a plot to exclude the Episcopal Church!" There is a lot of anti-US feeling in parts of the Communion, but the Covenant wasn’t produced to take sides, but to get both sides to commit to the common ground, to honour one another, and enter into conversation. As a weapon, the covenant is pretty hopeless – there are no effective anathemas, and no effective sanctions. It is long on requests and short on answers. But that’s the point! It is not designed to be a weapon for one side or the other; it is designed to draw us back to the common ground and a commitment to working together.
The Bottom Line
Do we value the Communion? Do we care enough to work together with our sister Churches? Do we think that it is possible to describe what holds us together as Anglicans? A “yes” to these questions is surely a “yes” to the Covenant. A “No” to the Covenant says: We can’t say what it means to be an Anglican, we want to be able to ignore our sister Churches when it suits us, and we won’t mind if up to half the Communion walks away.
In 2003 Bishop Gregory was appointed by the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion as Director of Ecumenical Affairs at the Anglican Communion Office, becoming Deputy Secretary General a year later. In this role, he has been involved in the ecumenical relations of the Anglican Communion at global level, and responsible for staffing the Lambeth Commission, which produced the Windsor Report. Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum Forum Posts About This Article:Posted by: Rogelio Thursday 29 March 2012 - 02:27pm Without the sociological support of establishment, how long would the Church of England last as a communion of saints? The rest of what used to be the Anglican Communion does not enjoy that ecclesiological anomaly. Posted by: Oliver Thursday 29 March 2012 - 01:23am I was a non-supporter of the covenant. Not because I disagreed particularly with anything in it, but I thought the whole idea of trying to improve church relations through a quasi-legal process was ill conceived from the start. The church has a rich history of disagreement and it will, I'm fairly confident, continue. The covenant tried to put into words a consensus which didn't exist, so it wasn't adopted. The more words it had, the less likely a consensus could have been be found. God knows, we can't even agree on the text of the bible, let alone it's interpretation. But perhaps the main reason the covenant failed was that it had the form and nature of a legal contract; a legal contract binds people to keep to it's terms on pain of punishment - that is the whole purpose of contracts: to force people to keep them if they don't otherwise. Contracts are unneccesary with people you trust. I believe in... the communion of saints... :-) Posted by: Kevin Ellis Wednesday 28 March 2012 - 09:00pm I am afraid I do not and did not find the Covenant offensive; I voted for it; and will press those in authority over me to continue to look for the good of Christians in other parts of our Anglican Communion. Posted by: Rogelio Tuesday 27 March 2012 - 06:24pm The Anglican Covenant is almost certainly dead, the Anglican Communion certainly is. TEC can carry on putting the rest of the world to rights and the Church of England can carry on being a happy island. Posted by: Neil Monday 26 March 2012 - 04:03pm Thanks John. You're of course right that Rowan is Welsh, while still not making the point you were seeking to make. So, is Anglicanism not imperialist? I don't mind what you call the Archbishop of Canterbury - is someone from outside of the UK going to be appointed to succeed Rowan? And is the Church of England not dominant in Anglicanism? By what measure does the Church of England not dominate? Posted by: DavidW Monday 26 March 2012 - 01:07pm "The homophobic covenant is dead, kaput, finito. I can hardly express my joy ;)" Feel the hate from the LGBT movement Posted by: DavidW Monday 26 March 2012 - 01:06pm Origen Adam, Whilst the perverted detestable covenant is being pushed for by certain elements, God’s covenants are not finished. Jesus Christ will return to judge. The Church of England amongst many ministries and other denominations, not least the Roman church, have been playing significant roles in the community helping the poor and disadvantaged, probably proportionally to a greater extent than any other non-government organisation. What we have expressed here in your remark and the Guardian’s is certain element of society in a bondage and idolotry of LGBT above everything else. For example, not content to let the RC adoption agencies refer same sex couples to other agencies, it demands they accept and doesnt mind if the agenies close and the number of children in care rises because of it. Posted by: Deleted user 2383 Monday 26 March 2012 - 11:08am The homophobic covenant is dead, kaput, finito. I can hardly express my joy ;) "So now Anglicanism needs to move forward and forget this sorry diversion, into which many perfectly well-meaning people poured a huge amount of energy over a decade when they might have been doing something useful." http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/25/anglican-covenant-bishops-division Posted by: DavidW Monday 26 March 2012 - 09:37am Very good points nersenpaul, Vows have been taken yet are cast aside. Not that that is necessarily wrong if there was a vow to obedience to the church and the church become apostate. Probably the correct thing to do would be to leave that church organisation. But I cant understand the mentality of those who cling to church rules when the NT has plenty of instances where the churches are warned that God may vomit them out. Afterall the epistles are full of encouragment and correction to churches; it seems to me to believers to stick to the faith once delivered and avoid the false teaching that today's revisionism. I find the covenant a difficult topic. When I see how gay rights within the church has ignored the requests of the communion as a whole, it is bad enough, but when it ignores the word of God I cant see how it wont simply ignore any covenants. Posted by: John Martin Monday 26 March 2012 - 08:37am Neil. I may not have expressed myself well. You cannot say the Covenant is dead because the CofE (alone at this stage) has rejected it. That would be to say the CofE has a veto and now that it has voted no, other churches need not consider it. I don't quite get your question about the 'head' of the Communion not being required to be English. The current incumbent came from Wales, you will remember, and the post is open to anyone who can swear loyalty to the English monarch. To get to a position where the 'head' was someone other that Archbishop of Canterbury is another thing altogether. Posted by: Deleted user 4293 Sunday 25 March 2012 - 11:13pm John, that is no doubt interesting, and I shall read it with interest. But what concerns me somewhat is that Andrew has to have a stab at answering them at all. If the whole thing had been properly thought through - including the "what if it doesn't come off as we imagine it should" question - and the nuclear question "what if it really doesn't seem to be going to take off" - then the progenitors of this effort would have had a Plan B which would have helped us all know what on earth was going to happen in a number of imaginable circumstances. No risk analysis and no contingency planning. But this kind of vagueness has bedevilled the project, I think. I have read and re-read the thing, and I am still not clear as to what the processes that Section 4 dealt with would amount to. There are no published protocols that go with it, so that everyone could see just how juruducal (or not, according to ++Rowan) it was going to end up being. So, while +Graham and others want us all to feel ok about it, and offer a lot of reassuances, I think many people will need just this kind of detail if it is ever to be revived in England. And that is before we even rejoin the argument about whether such things are a good idea at al. Posted by: Neil Sunday 25 March 2012 - 10:26pm John: "You say The Covenant is dead. This can only be true if Anglicanism is imperialist and the Church of England the dominant factor in this empire." Are you serious? Anglicanism is NOT imperialist and the Church of England is not dominant? lolol Which parallel Anglican universe are you in? So the head of the Communion is not required to be English? Oh well then, let's appoint an Archbishop from the developing world to lead the Communion. Posted by: John Martin Sunday 25 March 2012 - 10:04pm JeremyP As you will see Fulcrum has posted the article by Andrew Goddard which makes a fair and honest stab at the questions you raise. Posted by: Deleted user 4293 Saturday 24 March 2012 - 10:36pm So, John, How does it work? The C of E is headed by the ABC, in a Church that is not part of the Covenant and so prima facie is in the "second tier" of the Anglican Communion. So that must mean either that the ABC is in "impaired communion" with the church of which he is the senior primate - and if so then how can he be its ecclesiastical leader? Or else he is the head of the Church of England and the Covenanting bit of the former Anglican Communion is going to be in "impaired communion" with the Archbishop who is meant to be one of the "Instruments of Communion". Either way it looks like a complete horlicks, and rather makes one suspect that while the Covenant was Plan A (remember all that rather arrogant talk about this being the only solution, the only way for us to go etc), no one in the AC Office, nor yet in Lambeth, expected the C of E for goodness' sake, to say no to the Covenant, and none of them has much idea (and if they have, they have yet to indicate) what is Plan B. Now they need it. Posted by: Deleted user 2359 Saturday 24 March 2012 - 10:31pm Dead in the Church of England. A huge problem, therefore, for others. But dead in the Church of England. Posted by: John Martin Saturday 24 March 2012 - 09:47pm Sorry to rumble you Pluralist. You say The Covenant is dead. This can only be true if Anglicanism is imperialist and the Church of England the dominant factor in this empire. So far the CofE has voted no, but seven have voted yes. Many more are still deliberating. So not dead yet. Posted by: nersenpaul Saturday 24 March 2012 - 05:19pm Jeremy, covenant or none, it is only what God thinks which matters.....what He blesses, He blesses .....what He has revealed he does not bless, I don't feel 'safe' telling anyone that it's just fine...by God. Lambeth 1.10 stands, of course..... But some lack the integrity to respect it, even while being housed and paid and despite vows taken.... Quite amazing and tragic, but no surprise in the light of 2 Tim 4:3 etc Posted by: Deleted user 2359 Saturday 24 March 2012 - 03:22pm Good for you, Jeremy, and all the best. Yes, time for the leadership to end the 'sacrificing of others'. Posted by: Deleted user 2359 Saturday 24 March 2012 - 03:21pm Yes that tiny, declining, revisionist minority... The Covenant is dead, and that's years of campaigning too. Back in some dark days there was Madpriest and me blogging against it from the off, and others gave it some room. It has been the overwhelming one subject on my blog. But as what it meant dawned on more people, it became a broad Church movement against from below - the body of the Church it might be said - that the leadership has completely misjudged. Posted by: Deleted user 4293 Saturday 24 March 2012 - 12:40pm Now the Covenant is defeated, it feels just a tiny bit safer to be a gay member of the Church of England in a loving, committed, monogamous relationship. That may seem an odd thing to say, but it is how it feels. Posted by: Deleted user 4293 Saturday 24 March 2012 - 12:37pm Nersen - thankfully I no longer need to. The Covenant is dead in the church of England. Posted by: nersenpaul Wednesday 21 March 2012 - 12:12pm Yes, Jeremy.... Glad you know that! But you cannot say anything more useful.... Eg anything to support the fantasy that Anglicanism was always meant to incorporate all and sundry views.....? Not only is that inconsistent with Anglican history, it is incompatible with scripture eg re who is fit to be a church leader in apostolic writings to Timothy and Titus, and who is not, and those with whom we should not be united eg 1 Cor 5-7. Who was it who said that a house divided will not stand? Posted by: Bowman Wednesday 21 March 2012 - 07:06am Greetings, Jeremy. Our colleague Nersen cherishes the unity of the Church, despite those divisions occasioned by the errors of (usually) other churches. He seems to believe that Archbishop Cranmer preceded him in this. And indeed, in his own time, ABC Cranmer was as eager for an alliance of Protestant churches in the north of Europe as ABC Williams is for a covenant among Anglican churches of balanced views. Then, as now, domestic political agendas confused the issue in many English minds whilst the urgent need of those farther away hung in the balance. (Would the Waldensians have been slaughtered in Mérindol and the Piedmont if there had been a stronger alliance of Protestants?) Today, however, there are many churches, Anglicans everywhere are social creatures, and so a covenant or two will form, with or without England. Even if the future that emerges is not emerge as his ideal-- is it ever? for any of us?-- Williams, like Cranmer, will have pointed beyond himself to the way forward. Posted by: Deleted user 4293 Monday 19 March 2012 - 04:16pm Nersen, Cranmer lived several centuries before the Anglican Communion. Posted by: nersenpaul Monday 19 March 2012 - 11:22am Jeremyp - so the 'barrage of propaganda' from those against the covenant is being more successful. Still not convinced Cranmer intended the Anglican church to be a heterodox grouping ....but can see why a small and shrinking no of revisionists must argue for the inclusion of contradictory ideas, even at the cost of unity.... not in the interests of the AC or the CofE but certainly a 'last throw of the dice' for revisionists as they disappear Posted by: Deleted user 4293 Saturday 17 March 2012 - 11:56am I don't think the barrage of propaganda that Fulcrum unleashed in favour of the Covenant is getting through. Two more votes already today and both St Albans and Liverpool reject it. Both Liverpool bishops vote against. I think the message 'against the Covenant but for the Communion' is winning the day. Only three (or is it four) more needed and it won't come back to General Synod. I had wondered about the timing of Rowan's video. Events yesterday make it look rather like a last throw of the dice before the election at Magdalene, which he knew was likely to go his way. Or am I being too cynical? Posted by: Bowman Friday 16 March 2012 - 04:58am Angela, you excel at both hearing and listening, and you may find that you have seen some things long before others were able. Have a blessed Lent! Posted by: David Baker Wednesday 14 March 2012 - 12:47pm There's an interesting item here on this issue: http://ugleyvicar.blogspot.com/2012/03/my-would-be-no-to-covenant.html Posted by: WATERANGEL Tuesday 13 March 2012 - 04:23pm Bowman I agree with you on all counts, although there is still one slight anomaly. "Those who listen to others are usually heard themselves".. Firstly I hope you feel i have listened? and heard? i cannot promice though that i always understand entirely at first hearing..It is this that concerns me with all the issues that are shared on fulcrum, I would hope sincerely that anyone using the forum to establish a concensus of opinion realize and accept that the concensus of opinion is also evolving, and so it takes some time to get an overall picture,,to understand Of course you are right that the majority are not always right,it is quite a frightening place to be in the minority, especially if you are a minority of one, like many of our great spiritual leaders and Christ himself have been.. When i was a teenager i was introduced to the YOYO concept thats "your on your own" actually all evangelism is a bit like that practically as the string is thrown out unwinds further and further to reach quite a distance and then rewinds and returns untill the next time..But it only works with careful guidance and if it is on a quick straight line. Angela Posted by: Bowman Tuesday 13 March 2012 - 04:27am Angela, as I read it, the Covenant favors consensus over majoritarianism. In such arrangements, one gives up the luxury of simply ignoring or outcampaigning those of different views. Thus there is far less danger of one hotheaded faction getting an ephemeral majority that leaves others spiritually stranded. Instead, it is wisest to try first what all can accept, and then, after something has been tried, learn from it and seek to modify it. One does not give up on one's convictions, but one does not abandon others in pursuing them blindly. In general, those who listen best are themselves best heard. Evolution continues as solidarity deepens. Posted by: WATERANGEL Sunday 11 March 2012 - 08:18pm Some say the covenant is about divide and rule, I have a concern which i want to share with you.. On the face of it Unity of the churches under the anglican umbrella, looks like an excellent idea, and indeed if there really was unity it would be. However cultural differences and misinterpretation of basic principles, could lead to confusion and resentment. Resentment will lead to patchy implementation of the current Anglican stance on the current issues, yes it is possible to force uniformity, but one of the dangers in my experience is that uniformity can lead to "a bullying culture" alongside the weak being left to their own devices..Its the old saying keep your friends close and your enemies closer, if what comes to pass in this country or globally is a rogue clergyman then what will happen is many weaker people will be harmed, or alternatively left unsupported and harmed themselves..Unity is usually achieved by a shared vision to be achieved in a shared way, if there is say only 10% not willing to share they can undermine from within..In this place in some cultures this will lead to the death of clergy and in other cultures to years of bullying untill the transition is complete.. It does seem strange that it is the church i am talking about. but we all know it happens..So what is in place to cross the divide, how does the covenant affect the current issues in the Anglican church such as WO and Homosexuality. It just seems to me that there always have to be some who object, even if there does not appear to be reasons to do so.. I pray that the covenant will be possible but that people will not be lulled into a false sense of security as that agreement with each other does not always translate into the right thing being done.. Angela Posted by: Bowman Sunday 11 March 2012 - 05:50am Martin and Simon: One of the appealing things about Part 4 of the Anglican Communion Covenant is that it clarifies what does and does not count as consultation. Confusion about that, sometimes willful and sometimes honest, has led to some disastrous miscalculations on these western shores of the Atlantic. If Martin wishes the Church of England to belong to some larger Anglican communion, how does he suggest that consultations among a global family of churches can actually work with no agreed due process for them? Posted by: Deleted user 2359 Saturday 10 March 2012 - 06:25pm Five more no votes are needed from the remaining 17 and it is dead. It shows at least the strength still of the broad Church in the Church of England and that fact that the Covenant has been associated with remote high-ups and the bureaucracy, people who dream of 'empires' while people on the ground look at the range of people who make up their churches. People here have questioned whether there is any such thing as the Mind of the Communion, as indeed it was divided at a high level, but where it matters the Covenant has no consent at all, no mind for it being present. 
Posted by: Simon Cawdell
Saturday 10 March 2012 - 12:29pm
Martin, Thank you for your response. On your first point it is fair to say that assertions that something, anything will or won't restore trust in future is always going to be an assertion, and can only be an assertion. The same is true for an argument that it won't, as only time will tell. I believe that it will, but thats my opinion and I think we must agree to differ. On your second I think it would stnad fairly for you to lay your understanding of the undisputed facts here on this forum, as you have been doing. I think that there is a fair difference regarding whether it represented consultation or statement of intent, but the trouble is that we are now over a decade beyond, and at that point history can become more vague in people's minds. I don't recall it, but that does not mean it did not happen! You clearly have a strong memory of it, and I would like to be pointed in the direction of the facts as evidenced. Posted by: Martin Reynolds Saturday 10 March 2012 - 12:47am My dear Simon, I am so happy you wish to have a conversation with me, and it may be that we do have some differences and it might be lovely to talk about them at length over a cup of tea. But I think in all the excitement over the fate of the Covenant in England you still seem to be missing my points, dear man. They are precise points and they are: Gregory gives as his second of five points the claim that The Covenant would restore trust. Two sentances follow but neither can be said to justify this claim. Just to be sure I repeat - There is no evidence to support this claim. (By way of evidence to the contrary I gave my own experience) I think that something less than rather poor rhetoric. Secondly the erstwhile Deputy Secretary General said: All these actions were done without conversation, consultation, or co-operation. That is - just - not - true. It's not my opinion, the undisputed facts tell a different story. Now while I am more than happy to have a detailed debate about Covenants and this one in particular - I would want to start with simple things!
Posted by: Simon Cawdell
Friday 9 March 2012 - 09:27pm
Martin, Thank you for your response. I have reread your original post carefully, and having one so I would want to acknowledge that trust is never something that can be imposed, but I also want to sy that that is not the point at issue here. The Covenant is not trying to impose trust, it is attempting to create a framework for dialogue that I am sure ou will agree has been sadly lacking in the last decade. I am truly delighted to be discussing the issue with you, out of what I hope is mutual respect and a desire to understand your viewpoint, whether or nor I can ultimately agree with you or not, and for me that is crucial. I am not amongst those who would wish to anathametise those with whom I disagree, but on the other hand I do want to say they is a proper order to doctrine and praxis, and there needs to be a mechanism by which we work these out. As I understand it that is the point of the Covenant. My view is more clearly explained in the published speech to Hereford Diocesan Synod last weekend. (I lost but by rather less than I expected, to be honest.) Yes ultimately there are always relational consequences if we cannot disagree. That is not a novel idea imposed by a covenant. If I disagree with my wife Sarah, or you with your partner there are relational consequences or varying severity. That is a simple reality we cannot understand. So I appreciate the diocese of New Westminster may well have spent all the money in its bank account, but that cannot impose agreement on the rest of the Communion. It is simply not a relevant fact. I appreciate they tried, and I appreciate them trying, but agreement was not forthcoming. The same is true for New Hampshire, or Los Angeles. The fact they then went ahead without agreement is their choice, but they should not be surprised at the relational consequences which followed. The Covenant simply codifies realities in this, and attempts to bring order to it so that fuure disagreements, inevitable as they will be do not have quite such chaotic consequences. Does that help in understanding my view, even if you cannot agree? 
Posted by: Jody
Friday 9 March 2012 - 07:29pm
Dear Friends We have just published Simon Cawdell's speech to Hereford Diocesan Synod: The Body of Christ or A Body Bag of Parts? please use this thread to continue discussion on the Covenant. blessings, Jody Posted by: Martin Reynolds Thursday 8 March 2012 - 09:15pm No, I said that the Covenant would not replace lost trust simply because my dear friend Gregory said it would. I went on to give a personal example of how the Covenant would fail MY trust test. Simon, you have made no attempt to answer my first point and, with respect, you are failing to understand that trust is a deeply held feeling and you you are not listening to MY experience at all. Sadly that's a common failing. As far as I understand this Simon - it is the Covenant itself that transforms consultation into a process that REQUIRES approval and imposes consequences - in fact we are told that this is why we need the Covenant because people thought before you could consult, listen to advice and disregard that advice without consequences. I find it strange that Gregory should complain like this. My point is clear and true. New Westminster, in particular, went to huge expense and great trouble to consult. It should be acknowledged. This account disguises the truth.
Posted by: Simon Cawdell
Thursday 8 March 2012 - 02:20pm
Martin, Good to hear from you. You raise the point that the Covenant cannot restore trust for oyu as you perceive it as something that will deny you access to some of the sacraments.That is simply an inaccuracy. Gay people are simply not denied access to sacraments. I appreciate that Anglican doctrine at present upholds the doctrine of wholesome sexual activity being circumscribed by marriage but I think that is a different issue. I suspect we will disagree on that, but for you then to extrapolate a current doctrine on to the Covenant, which decribes an overview of theology and present structures, and from that goes on to describe the ordering of our mutual responsibilities and conversations is an utter no sequitur. Sadly you are not the only person making this mistake. I take your point about consultations, but consultation that results in a request not to proceed which is then ignored is hardly consultation, it is a proclamation of intent regardless. Posted by: Bowman Thursday 8 March 2012 - 08:38am In 1054, the exchange of anathemas between the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople was a quarrel of the moment, not intended to be the schism in the whole Church that it became. 200 bishops refused the Archbishop of Canterbury’s invitation to the 2008 Lambeth Conference, and many attended the Global Anglicanism Conference in Jerusalem instead. At least 7 Primates refused the Archbishop of Canterbury’s invitation to the Primates Meeting in January 2011. 3 members of the Communion’s Standing Committee have resigned on principle. As Gregory Cameron's article points out, the Anglican world has changed. Did these events, however unintentionally, begin the irreversible breakup of the Anglican Communion? Probably so. I'd like to be wrong about that. For now, however, it really seems as though the two sides of the debate about the Covenant are heatedly debating who knows what's best for the sick man whose doctor has just closed his eyelids. Neither side will get what it wants, and neither has come to terms with a real loss. Perhaps it is too soon for the widow to be courted. From the vantage point of the United States, I have considered the Anglican Communion Covenant on its merits as a wholly new thing, rather than as a preservative for the older order that has already slipped away. Something new will come of the remnants that remain, or maybe only of the idea of it, much as some faithful Jews long ago became a mission to Gentiles who had never before been seen as the heirs of a covenant. Posted by: Martin Reynolds Wednesday 7 March 2012 - 05:52pm It is also not accurate to say that New Westminster acted without consultation. As I recall the Michael Ingham took a team to ACC 12 HongKong, the year before he approved gay blessings in a few parishes where there was a strong pastoral need. The welsh ACC rep recounted to me how rude people were discussing whether they would attend. She said the New Wesdtminster presentation was first class. And as I remember there was an emergency Primates Meeting before the consecration of Gene Robinson where the then Presiding bishop gave an account of the how the election came about and how he was constrained by the polity of his church to be the chief consecrator. It doesn't help the arguments when there are such clear inaccuracies. Posted by: Martin Reynolds Wednesday 7 March 2012 - 10:46am I am at a loss to understand why bishop Gregory should believe the Covenant will restore trust. Just saying so is hardly an argument. Being based on the understanding that gay people are to be denied access to some of the sacraments, it fails to restore trust for me and all those with whom I commune. Your short CV fails to tell us that Gregory was foremost amongst those who helped draft the Covenant, a significant detail in this context. I am amongst those who are happy with the principle of Covenants but who believe that this document is tainted by its context (some of that mentioned by Gregory himself) and that it comes as part of a wider package that remains undisclosed, undiscussed and undeveloped and that before accepting the trajectory implied by the Covenant the whole Communion should engage in a debate on what we want to see as "the future" or as "possible futures". I have not been impressed with the way the Covenant has been "received" and discussed in many parts of the Communion. I think this document is premature and requires our Provinces to develope to a greater degree before they commit themselves to this form of union. Posted by: John Watson Wednesday 7 March 2012 - 09:35am Dear Friends We publish an article by Bishop Gregory Cameron in which he lists five reasons why the Church of England and the Anglican Communion should adopt the Anglican Communion Covenant. He also tackles some of the misunderstandings around the Covenant in general. Grace and Peace John Watson |
LATEST
|
The Anglican Communion is a family of 43 Churches across the globe, which have close ties to the Church of England. Recently, there have been huge tensions surrounding human sexuality, with women bishops and lay presidency at the Eucharist as other issues in the background. The Anglican Communion’s life has been dented: