Here’s how the Living Church reports the debate and outcome of the CoE General Synod resolution on the Anglican Covenant.
Here’s how the Living Church reports the debate and outcome of the CoE General Synod resolution on the Anglican Covenant.
re: “Kevin Ward warned that a written agreement would “destroy the [Anglican] Communion’s tradition of inclusivity and tolerance.”
These objections amount to sentimentalism without substance.
Has the CoE really been inclusive and tolerant? If you did not conform to the state church in the 16th, 17th and 18thh centuries you had lots of trouble. I think it eased up in the 19th century.
It is really about mutuality, subsidiarity, interdependence and trust. That some Provinces exhibit they cannot and will not adhere to the same principles merely happens to be around issues of homosexuality due to the polity invoked. That will not be acceptable behaviour as it is not now acceptable behaviour.
But what does this vote mean? Does it mean there is a stronger strain of conservatism in the C of E, or that the fear of division is greater than other fears?
Or has TEC really ticked off the Cof E so badly by its intransigence, that the bishops have decided to send out the Correctioner and his Kneecapper? L
Re: #4– I would say it means that, in spite of the criticism he takes from all different sides, Archbishop Rowan is doing a darn good job navigating the Communion through these difficult times.
#5 If only.
#4 is way nearer the truth when wondering about the fear of division being greater than other fears.
If there had been something more concrete to debate than a first draft, there would have been much more heated debate. That’s now been deferred – in Rowan’s absence, Tom Wright’s ‘loyalty to absent friends’ card has won the Communion a tad more time.
Be under no illusions, it is a huge assumption that the CofE GS will be able to agree the final text, whatever it says. Even if the GS agree it because the fear of division continues to drive people to compromise their principles, in practice there will be a significant number of Bishops and Clergy who – whatever it says – will demur from it and it will become unenforceable in the CofE and discredited everywhere.
Anyone who thinks that the imposition of a conservative covenant will make the liberals stop believing in their alternative god is in cloud cuckoo land. Likewise anyone who thinks that the imposition of a liberal covenant will make the conservatives stop believing in the One True and Living God is also in cloud cuckoo land.
This is another device for procrastination and delay and it will resolve nothing.
naab00: restrain your optomism
Thanks Jeff, yes I am a ‘glass is half empty’ man on this subject. I would truly love to be proved wrong. Please pray that I am. Well please pray that a conservative covenant will make the liberals stop believing in their alternative god (not the other!)……. 😉
“a written agreement would destroy the [Anglican] Communion’s tradition of inclusivity and tolerance”
Here in the United States, TEC already destroyed that tradition. TEC is increasingly NON-inclusive, as evidenced by the fact that every week TEC no longer includes a growing number of ex-Episcopalians. TEC is also viciously intolerant of traditional orthodox catholic Christians. A written agreement coudn’t do much worse.
“Kevin Ward warned that a written agreement would ‘destroy the [Anglican] Communion’s tradition of inclusivity and tolerance.'”
Another reappraiser erroneously equating the Anglican Via Media with Latitudinarianism.
_ _ _ _ _ _
From Irenaeus’ forthcoming Revisionist Dictionary:
VIA MEDIA
(1) Anglicanism as a middle way between Roman Catholicism and Calvinism
(2) Anglicanism as a middle way between Christian doctrine and secular humanism
(3) Anglicanism as a way of loving God together without the desire to incinerate one another.
What does the vote mean? It’s a very good question. I don’t think that it means orthodoxy has won (or that the Holy Spirit is helping along the Truth). I think it means that people (most people) are trying to keep the show on the road/playing for time. Tom Wright’s plea was one thing (his usual), John Sentamu’s quite another (something to the effect: don’t think that Rowan or I will sign anything detrimental to our church life in this country). I think this means: you liberals/inclusive types (gay or not), do not fear that we will sell you out. If so, it’s temporising.