(Center Aisle) Speakers Divided on Anglican Covenant

Lionel Deimel of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, and founder and Episcopal Church convener of the No Anglican Covenant Coalition, had no issue with strongly urging the rejection of the covenant.

“The Anglican Covenant is a reaction to developments in church understandings in a fast-paced world,” Deimel said. “Coming from Pittsburgh, I see in the Anglican Covenant the same dynamics that nearly destroyed my own diocese. ”¦ The underlying purpose of the covenant is not to explicate Anglican theology nor to manage change, but to suppress change and preserve a mythical ”˜biblical Anglicanism’ that never was.”

Read it all.


Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, --Gen. Con. 2012, Anglican Covenant, Episcopal Church (TEC), General Convention

4 comments on “(Center Aisle) Speakers Divided on Anglican Covenant

  1. William Witt says:

    [blockquote]preserve a mythical ‘biblical Anglicanism’ that never was.”[/blockquote]
    That whirring sound you’re hearing is coming from Anglican Divines from Thomas Cranmer, John Jewel, Richard Hooker, and countless others, right up through Archbishops William Temple and Michael Ramsey, spinning so rapidly in their graves that significant Richter scale readings are being noted throughout England.

  2. William Witt says:

    BTW, there is a direct correlation between Diemlel’s implicit ecclesiology and the charges being brought against the nine bishops. When the church no longer answers to biblical authority, and the convictions of fellow Christians throughout the world and the historical interpretations of canon law don’t mean anything either, then sheer power and intimidation is all that’s left. And the desire to exercise it becomes more and more tempting as every disagreement has no other means of settlement, and there is no way of distinguishing between primary and secondary disagreements. Every difference becomes a political struggle with winner takes all, and no one else left standing.

  3. c.r.seitz says:

    I like the way Diemel so carefully deals in facts.

  4. MichaelA says:

    This is short-sighted of the liberals. The covenant was as much a means of protecting them as of disciplining them.

    Without the covenant, orthodox provinces are free to combine and take action as they see fit. In particular, they can give endorsements and alternative oversight ti dissident elements across provincial boundaries.