AMEN!

AND ... the "Chevy/General Motors" quote won you the Inch At A Time Quote of the Week Award this week.

Congratulations! :)

Susan Russell

It´s so hard to identify WHICH of the preachers teaching ¨Bull¨ (while rampaging around in Anglican Communion China Shop) are the most destructive...the enraged, red-eyed Bulls or the casterated bull who simply turns and turns around trying to figure out where he is, why is there so much brokeness and just how was it that he became the impotent black sheep in the herd instead of the head eyebrow?

Taking responsibility for the well-being of the ENTIRE flock will save innocent sheep from the drewling predators who attempt to ravage our pasture at The Anglican Communion.

May all stampeding and fire-billowing bulls be reminded it is the lamb of God who taketh away the SINS of the world...bigoted ¨strays¨ best be rounded up and shipped back to their corrupt breeding ground until they get the REAL message.

The question I have is: What organization are they going to start in six months? First it was AAC, CANA, the Common Cause partnership, Anglican District of Virginia (I'm sure I'm missing some). Then GAFCON. Then ACNA. Now there's FCA to add to the alphabet soup. How many organizations to they need? None of them seem to go away and they seem to be only in the business of starting more organizations with boards, meetings, mission statements, press releases, and top-heavy hierarchy. The players never seem to change but the acronyms do.

The wording of the communique is changing before our eyes.

“While we support the concept of an Anglican Covenant, we understand that its adequacy depends on the willingness to address the crisis that has ‘torn the fabric’ of the Communion. If those who have left the standards of the Bible are able to enter the Covenant with a good conscience, it seems to be of little use.”

Now it says,

"While we support the concept of an Anglican Covenant, we understand that its adequacy depends on the willingness to address the crisis that has “torn the fabric” of the Communion. We welcome the Ridley Cambridge Draft Covenant and call for principled response from the Provinces."

Proof: http://tinyurl.com/cmghf3

Here's the poop:

http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/21903/#355031

QUOTE:

In a similar article in Christianity Today the Communiqué was quoted earlier in the morning as saying:

Anglican Covenant– It is too soon for us to comment at depth on the latest version of the Covenant. While we support the concept of an Anglican Covenant, we understand that its adequacy depends on the willingness to address the crisis that has “torn the fabric” of the Communion. If those who have left the standards of the Bible are able to enter the covenant with a good conscience, it seems to be of little use. This is one of the questions to be resolved. It is also important to recognize the reality that the success of a covenant is related to genuine accountability.

Later, this was changed (without any explanation) to:

Anglican Covenant– As the Jerusalem Declaration insists we believe that the existing theological formularies of Anglicanism provide an adequate basis for the restoration of the relationships within the Anglican Communion. While we support the concept of an Anglican Covenant, we understand that its adequacy depends on the willingness to address the crisis that has “torn the fabric” of the Communion. We welcome the Ridley Cambridge Draft Covenant and call for principled response from the Provinces.

What is going on here with these two rather different versions of the Communiqué?

Bill Ghrist
April 16, 2:17 pm | [comment link]

9. Karen B. wrote:

Bill (#8) I’m on an e-mail list which Peter Frank (communications director for ACNA) contributes to. Apparently the first copy of the communique which was published this morning in various places was the DRAFT version, not the final version. I haven’t compared them.

Go to the Common Cause or the ACNA websites and you’ll find the final version.
April 16, 2:25 pm | [comment link]
_______

The "draft" was uploaded to the Gafcon site first, and later replaced. The "draft" is the version printed in Church Times,
http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=73596