Go for it, oh Canada!

As written, the Covenant is a prescription for a new, lowest common denominator form of Anglicanism, in which the least progressive provinces would call the tune for everyone else. Had such a contract been in force four decades ago, it's unlikely that women would be priests today, far less bishops. And we'd still be laboring over a universally accepted Book of Common Prayer

My only regret is that Canada gets to bat more than two years before the Episcopal Church. I'd be so proud if TEC could be the first to say, "Thank you, no!"
Robert Dodd

This is the Radner-Fulcrum-Tom Wright argument dressed up to fool lefties. Having bet all their horses on the Covenant, these folks now realize the TEC and the Church of Canada may well approve the Covenant, in which case their grand scheme to have a church all of their without having to foment schism to get it will be dashed.

"It has declared scripture and the church’s teaching on marriage to be oppressive and outdated."

I think this is an unfortunate statement (and untrue, or at least vastly simplistic). "Scripture" and "the church's teaching on marriage [or on anything else]" are very complex, much more so than the selective-literalists in Anglican and other Christian churches are willing to face up to. It would be helpful if Canon Mercer and the Rev. Ms. Sider-Hamilton could clarify this statement before the S-Ls hurl eggs at them. (Does Wycliffe College permit its faculty to egg its graduate students?)

Absolutely, Jim. This is the "Briar Patch" argument in ecclesiastical terms.

Obviously they've not considered Phil Turner's strange read (in TLC) of the HoB Theology Cttee's pro-GL marriage, where he wonders at length why they don't make an argument on the basis of "justice" but instead appeal to tradition and Scripture!

There is no pleasing some people...

Rarely have I seen more clearly an approach of "damning by faint praise." If it weren't in print, the tone of bitterness and contempt could hardly be more clear.

Certainly, I hope the General Synod will not affirm the Covenant as it is. However, I trust my Canadian siblings to act as they think best, whatever I might think. And, I trust we will still be in communion with ACoC however they may choose.

Marshall Scott

Do Canadians "do" irony? I'm puzzled.

Could those of us NOT "in w/ the In-Crowd" get a translation?

My initial reaction, was like Robert Dodd's: Right On!

...but---if I'm reading the rest of the comments correctly (I may well not be!)---y'all are saying that the published piece is actually disingenous? That it's written by ANTI-inclusion Anglicans, to trap Anglican Church of Canada?

Me of little brain would like some help here...

JC Fisher

JC- The argument of the essay is that the Covenant is a litmus test of faith and practice. To sign on means to believe and do certain things, to not sign on is to believe and do something else. For them the tool is very binary.

This is not the intent of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who, along with Covenant proponents, believes a covenant would allow people of varying practices within the same faith (see the difference there, too?) to have a framework within which to work and live together.

My problem with the Covenant is that by imposing a mechanism of discipline like the one in section 4, the Covenant works against itself and encourages precisely this kind of thinking.

By saying to Canadian Anglicans and American Episcopalians, go ahead, be honest, don't sign the covenant, the authors are trying to get us to agree that we not only follow a different pastoral practice but gives them cover to say that we are admitting that no longer follow the Gospel.

These folks can't wrap their arms around the idea that there are Anglicans who read and believe the same Gospel and come to different conclusions as to the Gospel's implications.

These folks want to the Covenant to be a litmus test, and want nothing to do with any mechanism that acknowledges our common life and mission--even with differing pastoral practices--around the same Christ.

Maybe the way to kill the covenant is the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church in Canada to approve it first? Then the ones who want their new-model Communion will run away screaming.