Reacting to Bishop Cameron’s statement, the lay delegate of the Anglican Church of Canada, Suzanne Lawson said, “Interesting.” She added, “I think that would be difficult for the Canadian church. I actually spend a good deal of time thinking about how change comes about and time is an important element in that. If we are to be looking in Canada at something that will take seriously the Covenant and reframe our thinking, we need some time to talk about it at General Synod in Nova Scotia and we may need more time three years from then.” General Synod, the Canadian Anglican church’s governing body, which gathers every triennium, is scheduled to meet in Halifax in 2010.
Ms. Lawson said, “We need to respect the provinces where that is a required amount of time.”
2010 is a year from now. That’s plenty of time for Canada to consider this. It’s not as if this just popped up out of the blue and no one ever heard about it before.
2012 would be more than enough time for TEC, also. No need to string this out any longer than it already has been.
[blockquote]Earlier, Bishop Cameron and Canon Kenneth Kearon, secretary general of the Anglican Communion, gave conflicting statements about whether there was any connection between adoption of the covenant and participation in the life and Instruments of the Communion.[/blockquote]
It seems like after the third draft of the covenant, this would be clear. This aspect may be one of the most important points for signing or not signing on to the covenant. Why are we this far down the road and lack clarity here?
It didn’t take 3 years for ACC to approve SSBs.
It didn’t take Marc Andrus 3 years to discern whether or not to ride in bawdy Gay Pride parades.
It didn’t take John Chane and Sam Lloyd at the Nat Cat 3 years to decide to use readings from the Koran in services there.
It didn’t take Thew Forrester 3 years to decide to change the Baptismal Service to fit his theology.
It didn’t take GC delegates 3 years to decide to approve of Gene Robinson.
Seems to me that we have people who can think on their feet when they want to…and sit on their hands when they want to.
The call for respect rings very hollow given the lack of respect shown by both TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada to the instruments of, and the theological center of the Anglican Communion.
I agree Katherine. This process has been ongoing since the Windsor Report was released (perhaps even the Virginia Report). The Canadian Church has responded to each and every draft of the Covenant and the Canadian Church has been asked to discuss the Covenant Agreement amongst its dioceses. If bishops have chosen not to make their flock aware of the Covenant and its call to communion thus far, they have a year to do it. They have plenty of resources in Canada to draw upon to help guide their thinking and teaching on the matter, including two members of the Covenant Design Group and Bishop Stephen Andrews (an ACC delegate) who I’m quite sure is more than qualified to speak to the issue.
What would be an atrocity for the Anglican Church of Canada however, is if it decided to stall the process of decision making and to continue to defy the ban on blessing same sex unions, or in fact to change its marriage canons. I hope and pray this will not occur. This Church, whose membership is both rapidly declining and aging, cannot afford to lose any members – let alone the evangelical and evangelical catholics who drive the church planting, reboot, and growth initiatives in the Church.
In the hands of the powers that control the AC, the Covenant could be turned an instrument of coercion and punishment and exclusion of the orthodox, rather the correction of the perpetrators of heresy and apostasy. It is foolish to make a covenant with people who are untrustworthy and do not have a history of respecting and abiding by the laws and rules that already exist. It is beyond foolish to trust or give power to people who are currently disregarding rules and abusing power.
Moreover, having KJS or any member of TEC and the other perpetrators, sitting at the table of decision and a full participant in Anglican Communion affairs, is like having the plaintiff act as captain of the jury in her own trial.
Watching the AC in action has been like reading Alice in Wonderland, no, it’s like actually living in Wonderland. The Anglican Communion has become a surrealistic environment, separate from reality and truth. There is no law, order, meaning. Nothing fits. Nothing makes sense.
There is only chaos and futility.
This is what happens when people rebel against God and do not repent and return.
#6. GA/FL,
[blockquote]Watching the AC in action has been like reading Alice in Wonderland, no, it’s like actually living in Wonderland. The Anglican Communion has become a surrealistic environment, separate from reality and truth.[/blockquote] I borrowed this from Wikipedia and can see the cast of characters in real life played by the various characters in Alice in Wonderland.
“The Hatter explains to Alice that he and the March Hare are always having tea because, when he tried to sing for the Queen of Hearts at a celebration of hers, she sentenced him to death for “murdering the time,” but escaped decapitation. He comes to the conclusion that time itself was indeed “murdered,” he and the March Hare continue to have tea as though the clock had truly stopped. His tea party, when Alice arrives, is characterised by switching places on the table at any given time, making (along with the March Hare) somewhat short, personal remarks, asking unanswerable riddles and reciting nonsensical poetry, all of which eventually drive Alice away.”
It would be embarrassing for the ACoC to have to consider adhering to the Covenant at the same GS at which they formally approve SSBs.
Yes, can you imagine how embarrassing it would be to hang virtually naked, beaten and abandoned on a Cross. Mind you, I suppose it is our conviction that doing so offered life to the world. Imagine the jealousy it would create amongst one party should another actually be joined in Christ’s suffering and in his promise of redemption by giving up their own self righteous justification of current ecclesial practices for the sake of seeking deeper communion? Ah the humiliation that would require eh?
The time between Robinson’s election and election approval was about 5 weeks.
I’m sure there was a misprint. Surely they meant approval by 2100, not 2010! No undue haste in such a momentous “decision”. The farce continues – the decision has already been made by years of inaction – the torrent of words notwithstanding the floods of cultural assimilation.