1) Do you think an Anglican Covenant is necessary and/or will help to strengthen the interdependent life of the Anglican Communion? Why or why not?
v No ? I am not persuaded that we need a Covenant, nor is it clear how such a Covenant will be interpreted and employed. Is it to be a gesture of renewal of our interdependence, or is it to be a binding contract that will be cited as law? It gives the appearance of attempting to centralize and control the Communion, of policing the process of discernment and implementing conformity in the name of clarity. It seems to depart from the unique witness of the Anglican style, by which we have inherited a spirituality, polity and theological methodology that resists uniformity for the sake of unity, and is grounded instead on gracious invitation.
It is truly amazing how clear bishops in the church formerly known as ECUSA can be when they put their mind to it.
Translation: Covenant would cramp our style in the ECUSA/TEC. We cannot have that.
You really have to admire the way they managed to lose the Articles and the BCP when they rewrote the Anglican history books.
Translation: A covenant would fundamentally change the nature of the Anglican Communion and invalidate the Chicago/Lambeth Quadrilateral. The Communion would change to one-sided majority rule under the heavy-handed leadership of ++Akinola and his minions.
I am curious. Just what is wrong with a covenant? Or a confession of faith for that matter? Are we afraid to confess Jesus Christ and Him crucified? Are we afraid to boldly state what we believe? Are we afraid to find out that many who call themselves Christians don’t have same fundamental faith as others and by their own admission too?
#5 – We have a confession of faith; the historic creeds of the undivided church, the Apostles, the Nicean, and the Athanasian.
#3 – when did you last hear anyone preach from the Book of Homilies? The 39 Articles are dead letters on all sides. Go dig up and read “Against Rebellion” if you want a reminder of why.
“I am not persuaded that we need a Covenant…”
And I am not persuaded that we need Bishops and Deputies, given that we are no longer a Catholic or catholic body.
for #6. A google search provides multiple answers. Could you better iedntify “Against Rebellion” ?
#8 – It’s the 21st Homily of the second book and the text is online. It’s effectively a discourse on the divine right of kings; and the key argument is this:
Let me note that the Scots rejected this in the 14th century; arguably the English did earlier at Runnymede.
I challenge any preacher in the US to preach this one; especially on the first Sunday in July.
#6 and #9. thanks. not a preacher, just an avid reader and a former member of the Protestant Episcopal Church who has been left behind by TEC or ECUSA or whatever it is now called in polite circles.
6, and we have had people on this blog, who claim to be Christians, deny everyone of them. But the creeds are the Reader’s Digest of Scripture and the Church has never limited itself to just those alone.