[Bishop Matthews]…stressed that it was not the work of IASCUFO to promote the Covenant, but rather to monitor its reception.
“As we have sought to do that,” she told delegates in Auckland, “I have often thought that the document people discuss and the actual Anglican Covenant are two different documents.
“One is the document that people have in their mind and the other is the Anglican Communion Covenant on paper….”
So, what she’s now saying is that there are two covenants: One for those who’ve agreed to abide by the rules, and another for those who won’t, right?
No, #1, what she is saying is that there’s the actual Covenant, in writing, and then there’s the spin from the fearmongers purporting what they say the covenant is and does. The latter is a false and exaggerated portrayal of what the spinmeisters say is in the Covenant but really isn’t.
For instance, I’ve read libs’ repors claiming that the covenant is a step toward creating an Anglican pope, per se. That’s total rubbish but many people are too lazy to read the Covenant themselves so they believe it.
That’s what she means. There’s the real document and then there’s covenant of people’s fears and imaginations.
Perhaps she should be talking about the two Communions, how they came about, and what should be done with them, rather than a dead on arrival document.
Yes, for good or ill, I don’t think the covenant is going anywhere.
Teatime2, my impression is that Ms Matthews acknowledges that some of the issues are within the wording of the covenant itself. She doesn’t seem to be blaming anyone for this, just pointing it out as a real hurdle to acceptance. E.g. this bit:
[blockquote] “I believe that in the original idea of the Anglican Covenant, there was a desire to allow the Anglican Communion to be a safe place for conversation and the sharing of new ideas,†she said.
“The actual document of the Anglican Covenant does not achieve that for all the churches of the Anglican Communion, and that is why some churches have declined to adopt it.” [/blockquote]
The problem as I see it with the new ideas is that PB Jefferts Schori prefers that they be acceptable to TEC and their allies, when she knows very well that they may not be acceptable to their opposites in the Communion, but she wants to go ahead with them anyway. Otherwise, her Church won’t accept the covenant unless it conforms to their standards……which it won’t, and it is therefore dead.