The Executive Council said that the comments it received on Section Four were “so interwoven” with comments on the covenant as a whole that “separating the two is difficult.”
“The majority of deputations and individual deputies that responded are not convinced that the covenant in its current form will bring about deeper communion,” the council said. “Several stated that the overall idea of a covenant is ‘un-Anglican.’ One went as far as to say that the ‘document incorporates anxiety.'”
On the other hand, the council noted, another deputy called the covenant “a presentation of the Christian community as a dynamic spiritual body in which God-given freedom is inextricably bound up with God-given accountability.”
Posturing and blather…then lunch. The whole world know what TEC will not do which is to sign an effective covenant.
Intercessor
PB has signed things before she had no intention of honoring.
In other words, we want to do whatever we want and not have any consequences at all, period, ever.
Oh, and it’s now almost axiomatic that the Exec Council and nearly all TEC’s leadership doesn’t know what’s Anglican in the first place. They have been given up to the futility of their own minds, so how could they?
ECUSA, which dictatorially uses and misuses canons in a top-down/pyramidal manner, does not seem to think that the Anglican Communion should become organized in a manner more episcopally fitting to the traditional Church Catholic.
ECUSA, which is constitutionally structured in a manner that is episcopally irregular, has a national leadership that acts in manner that presumes a traditional episcopal structure for its national church, yet that leadership also presumes, as a constituent member of that portion of the Church Catholic called the Anglican Communion, that it should not be constrained by episcopal obligations to the Communion.
Hypocrisy at the highest level of ECUSA!
A Covenant will not bring about “a deeper communion” where there is no agreement on faith and practice. If there were agreement on faith and practice, there would be no need for a Covenant.
Reply to #6.
Katherine,
A very good point.
We have been brought to the point of sensing a need for a covenant because we no longer trust each other as brothers/sisters in Christ.
Who brought about this sense of distrust and the sense of a need for a covenant? It wasn’t the traditional or ‘orthodox’ Anglicans in my opinion.
So, the leadership of ECUSA should ‘take stage center’ and accept the credit for the sense of distrust and its accompanying effects that are now ‘tearing at’ the Anglican Communion.
[i] Comment deleted by elf. Excessive sarcasm. [/i]
Amen, Katherine (#6). Alas, the AC is, and has long been actually, “A house divided against itself.” Whether the cancer of theological liberalism is judged to be cancer at stage 1, 2, or 3 at the international level in the AC isn’t as significant as recognizing that it is in fact a malignant cancer we’re talking about.
Sadly, TEC is in stage 4. It’s terminal.
David Handy+