So we are now in a situation where (1) the proposed Covenant establishes a process for suspending Churches from full communion, and (2) Archbishop Rowan has stated that adherence to the traditional position on same-sex unions will be the basis for avoiding such suspension. The Archbishop foreshadows the potential for a “twofold ecclesial reality” (#22). Each Anglican province faces four options:
1. Not to sign the Covenant because it opposes a procedure that will judge and divide, and/or opposes having to affirm only one of two conscientiously held positions. Failure to sign will see a Church suspended from full communion.
2. To sign the Covenant but to face suspension from the Communion if it permits any steps on same-sex unions contrary to the traditional position.
3. To sign the Covenant and adhere exclusively to the traditional position on same-sex unions. This will disenfranchise all who conscientiously hold the other viewpoint, and separate a Church from full communion with any Church that does not sign the Covenant, or transgresses it.
4. To engage with other provinces to collectively abstain from a process which could split the Communion, and to reinvigorate the Anglican way of dialogue in diversity.
Heaven forbid that Anglicanism have a common belief. I am truly sick of this nonsense. These people are not shy about imposing their own brand of uniformity and required belief when they get the opportunity. And their continued assertions that Anglicanism was always about free-for-all theology and belief is truly the big lie.
Has the Anglican Communion replaced the Trinity with diversity?
I normally do not comment regarding Anglican internal structural questions, as I know little about the issues. However, based on the quoted article (which has a horrifically one-sided slant), I believe #1 and #2 hit the mark.
I agree with their boiling the Covenant response down to 4 choices (despite the non-partial wording), but completely disagree with their result. Signing ANY Covenant means a willing submission of certain acts to the will of the larger body.
If they feel like they need to take either 1 or 4, they should have the intellectual fortitude to take that path. They do leave out a 5th choice which I feel may be foisted on this:
5. Sign the Covenant then do everything behind the scenes to change opinion or manipulate process so that Lambeth 1.10 is either a. removed or b. ignored.
I guess we should only consider the effect of the Covenant on those Provinces that have conscientiously held (liberal) positions.
How about the effect of decisions that Provinces have taken to jam these conscientiously held (liberal) positions down the throats of the orthodox in those Provinces, put lives at risk in Global South Anglican Provinces and threatened/or ended ecumenical relations with the Catholic and Orthodox Churches?
It takes a great deal of moxie to write this kind of tripe.
Amen. The Anglican concept of “broad church” was about accomodating those who had different interpretations of scripture in relation to certain matters of practice.
It never encompassed those who reject the authority of Scripture, the Creeds, the Council, the Articles (and indeed anything else that is more than 50 years old).