Many, particularly within the Episcopal Church, have already argued that the very idea of an Anglican Covenant, and all the more the St Andrew’s Draft, is inherently alien to the Anglican tradition and ethos. We do not share this perception. We have tried to note several points in the documents of Anglican history which reveal a developmental arc that would lead us to this place even absent the present crisis. The formal embrace of an Anglican Covenant is an organic and natural next step in the growth to maturity of a Christian tradition that we believe God yet wills to use as a vehicle of great blessing on behalf of “all who profess and call themselves Christians.”
The ’06 GenCon pledged to pursue the covenant process because they wanted “a place at the table” where it would be created.
Personally, I think if the next TEC GenCon rejects the AC it would be the best thing to happen to the orthodox that could possibly happen, because we would be free to join it on our own, separate from those who are truly demonstrably Apostate.
This is why the AC must be truly, and not just apparently, orthodox.
This sounds like the work of Christopher Wells, a diehard institutionalist, although his name isn’t given. The part of this which surprises me most:
[blockquote]Granting a final adjudicatory role to the Joint Standing Committee of ACC and Primates at Appendix §8. The JSC is a much smaller group than either the Primates’ Meeting or the ACC, and possesses the strengths of each Instrument of
Communion. [/blockquote]
The ACC and the Joint Standing Committee are a major part of the problem in the communion at present, since the ACC is controlled by ECUSA and ECUSA money. Mr. Wells, if indeed this is his work, proposes setting the fox to watch the henhouse.
If TEC agrees to the Covenant, it will be because it suits their purposes. Quite frankly, if they participate in the creation of that covenant, it will be watered down to suit THEM.
Not an honest bone in TEC’s body, is there?