Way to go, Fr. Dan! Way to go, Northern Indiana and the Covenant blog gang. By all means, the General Convention should be pressed to give a thumbs up or thumbs down on this long awaited document, at least in a tentative or provisional way.
After all, this is the THIRD draft of the Covenant we’re talking about. It’s not like it’s totally different from anything we’ve ever see before. There’s been plenty of time to study the first two drafts, so the PB’s claim that there just hasn’t been time to study it adequately rings hollow and false. It’s a lame excuse, as everyone knows. After all, the ACC will be acting on the matter very soon, in early May. And GenCon has a whole month longer to respond to it.
As the recent admirable ACI/CP bishops’ statement on the polity of TEC rightly pointed out, the PB has no power to decide this matter. The autonomous dioceses of TEC, gathered in convention in Anaheim in June, are free to decide for themselves how to respond to the Covenant. And regardless of what the GEnCon decides to do, each diocese can then decide whether or not to embrace the Covenant. And I certainly hope that Fr. Dan’s diocese, Northern Indiana (as a CP diocese), signs on to the Covenant, no matter GenCon does or doesn’t do.
Although I myself (as an ACNA supporter) put no trust whatsoever in the whole Covenant process, I think it’s all to the good to put all the pressure ossible on GenCon to respond honestly to this proposed Coveant.
#2. NRA,
[blockquote]I hope Northern Indiana signs on to the Covenant no matter what GenCon does or doesn’t do in Anaheim.[/blockquote]
They better sign pretty fast since there will probably be a resolution at GenCon09 that the Covenant can only be signed onto at the Provincial level.
I would think that the PB has shot herself again in the foot on the matter. She has said the Covenant would not be considered at GC due to a lack of time. Logical representative government cannot decree a response to what it has not studied, can it? But, then again, this is GC of the ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC, so that’s not a rational position to take. One could supposedly thank God that no one General Convention can bind subsequent GCs such that no GC resolution of any sort has any binding force. That seems to be the ticket!
Way to go, Fr. Dan! Way to go, Northern Indiana and the Covenant blog gang. By all means, the General Convention should be pressed to give a thumbs up or thumbs down on this long awaited document, at least in a tentative or provisional way.
After all, this is the THIRD draft of the Covenant we’re talking about. It’s not like it’s totally different from anything we’ve ever see before. There’s been plenty of time to study the first two drafts, so the PB’s claim that there just hasn’t been time to study it adequately rings hollow and false. It’s a lame excuse, as everyone knows. After all, the ACC will be acting on the matter very soon, in early May. And GenCon has a whole month longer to respond to it.
As the recent admirable ACI/CP bishops’ statement on the polity of TEC rightly pointed out, the PB has no power to decide this matter. The autonomous dioceses of TEC, gathered in convention in Anaheim in June, are free to decide for themselves how to respond to the Covenant. And regardless of what the GEnCon decides to do, each diocese can then decide whether or not to embrace the Covenant. And I certainly hope that Fr. Dan’s diocese, Northern Indiana (as a CP diocese), signs on to the Covenant, no matter GenCon does or doesn’t do.
Although I myself (as an ACNA supporter) put no trust whatsoever in the whole Covenant process, I think it’s all to the good to put all the pressure ossible on GenCon to respond honestly to this proposed Coveant.
David Handy+
Oops, that’s supposed to be, I hope Northern Indiana signs on to the Covenant no matter what GenCon does or doesn’t do in Anaheim.
David Handy+
#2. NRA,
[blockquote]I hope Northern Indiana signs on to the Covenant no matter what GenCon does or doesn’t do in Anaheim.[/blockquote]
They better sign pretty fast since there will probably be a resolution at GenCon09 that the Covenant can only be signed onto at the Provincial level.
I would think that the PB has shot herself again in the foot on the matter. She has said the Covenant would not be considered at GC due to a lack of time. Logical representative government cannot decree a response to what it has not studied, can it? But, then again, this is GC of the ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC, so that’s not a rational position to take. One could supposedly thank God that no one General Convention can bind subsequent GCs such that no GC resolution of any sort has any binding force. That seems to be the ticket!