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?
It would be helpful at this point in time for the Anglican Communion to make up its mind whether the needs of the world and the mission of the church in response to those needs will be better served by a more strictly and centrally regulated structure, or by a more open model deployed for ministry. We favor the latter as more in keeping with Christ?s commission to the church, which is focused not on itself and its structures but on the proclamation of the saving message to a wounded world. It appears that the more we attempt to secure our inner agreements the more we focus on the things that divide us. The Anglican Communion has been known until recently as a body governed not by statute but by bonds of affection, and a Covenant, if needed, should, unlike the present proposal, focus on the affection rather than the bondage. Such a Covenant would be tolerant of diversity and encourage bilateral cooperation in meeting local and global needs through partnerships rather than promoting more complex and rigid structures, as the present proposal seems to advise.
“It would be helpful at this point in time for the Anglican Communion to make up its mind whether the needs of the world and the mission of the church in response to those needs will be better served by a more strictly and centrally regulated structure, or by a more open model deployed for ministry. We favor the latter as more in keeping with Christ?s commission to the church, which is focused not on itself and its structures but on the proclamation of the saving message to a wounded world. It appears that the more we attempt to secure our inner agreements the more we focus on the things that divide us.”
Wait a moment.
Aren’t ECUSA’s leadership, Schori, Beers and revisionist bishops, using “a more strictly and centrally regulated structure” to persecute orthodox parishes and clergy?
How far we have come. When the Church recognized the heresy of Marcion he was thrown out of the Church, and his money refunded. In response the canon was solidified and the Apostles Creed came into existence all for the precise ppurpose of defining who was a Christian or not. It was a unity of common belief.
Today all we get is:
[blockquote]Such a Covenant would be tolerant of diversity and encourage bilateral cooperation in meeting local and global needs through partnerships rather than promoting more complex and rigid structures, as the present proposal seems to advise.[/blockquote]
Even athiests and pagans do that.
(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?
An Anglican Covenant is necessary due to the actions of ECUSA/TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada in matters well known and in contradiction to the clearly stated teaching of the Church Catholic and specifically the Lambeth Conference of 1998. As both these Provinces have rejected the brotherly advice of their fellow bishops and have declared as adiaphora that which the teaching of the Lambeth Conference states is the standard of the Communion, there is no recourse but to make articulate and plain and a matter of written subscription what had hitherto been the common ground of the Communion.
The election of the current bishop of New Hampshire against the express teaching of the Communion and his further consecration despite the frank warning of the effects upon the Communion are clear evidence that ECUSA/TEC has abandoned the mutuality, subsidiarity, consiliarity,interdependence and agreed teaching of the Communion. This was elucidated in the Windsor Report. It has 22 of 38 Provinces of the Anglican Communion in broken or impaired communion with ECUSA/TEC. The mind of the Communion is consistently ignored in the actions of the ECUSA/TEC by bishops, clergy and laity despite the Scriptural path of admonition privately, with witnesses, and before the whole Church pursued by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Primates, and the Anglican Consultative Council.
There only remains the option of a Covenant to which those adherent to the interdependent life of the Anglican Communion as articulated and elucidated and practiced before the actions of the ECUSA/TEC and ACCanada pursued their agendas broke the historic interdependence. Those not wishing to act within the parameters so understood will refuse to enter the Covenant as they have hitherto refused to acknowledge their responsibility to the Communion. This will be a clear signal of their desire for autonomy above all else as the previous actions have demonstrated. Those willing to engage in being part of the Body of Christ known as the Anglican Communion will be able to engage in the mission of the Body to the world without the disruptive effects of unilateral and imperialistic actions imposed upon the Communion by the autonomous and provincial actions of those unwilling to be Anglican other than on their own terms.
This was the formal response to the question. Since submitted and the consequent actions of the ECUSA/TEC/GCC/E)-PAC in disregarding the Communion structures of unity, I think it unlikely to the point of zero that the ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC would abide by any convenant. The disregard for the plain language of its own Constitution and canons and the cavalier manner it employs what suits it is the best indication of what its signatory status to any covenant would actually mean.
#3 above, my brother, you have nailed it! My question is: how much are we in the pews paying for all these people to jet off to conferences, write committee reports, etc.? What a waste of time and effort!
I think you’ll see a covenant, but it will be between the orthodox provinces.