Southern Africa poised to accept Anglican Covenant
The Anglican Church of Southern Africa is one vote away from ratifying the Anglican Covenant. That vote will take place at its next general synod in three years. If the Episcopal Church is to accept the covenant, a similar process seems wise. Currently our Church must pass constitutional amendments at two successive conventions. Signing on to the covenant would be every bit as momentous as passing a constitutional amendment, and the ramifications might be further reaching. If we are to pass the covenant, we should give the matter full consideration, just as the Southern Africans are doing.
From Anglican Communion News Service:
The Anglican Church of Southern Africa voted on Friday October 1st to adopt "The Anglican Covenant", the document setting out a statement of common "affirmations and commitments" by churches of the worldwide Anglican Communion which has been drawn up in response to disagreements over issues around human sexuality.A resolution adopting the Covenant was proposed at the triennial meeting of the church’s Provincial Synod by the Archbishop of Cape Town, the Most Revd Thabo Makgoba, and seconded by the Dean of the Province, the Right Revd Paddy Glover, Bishop of the Free State. The decision will need to be ratified by the next session of the Synod in three years’ time.
Motivating the resolution, Archbishop Makgoba said he believed the church in southern Africa needed to try to "play a reconciling role" amid the current disputes over human sexuality in the Communion. He said the Covenant "is not a guarantee of an easy solution to the problems we face in the Communion" but hoped it would be a way of "healing and moving the Communion forward…" It was a document which, although not a complete statement on the nature of the Anglican Communion, sought to "describe our common identity in the Anglican Church… What is at stake here is to try to articulate our relationship in words."
I also noted this news item. I have two thoughts: first, I would be interested in hearing if possible the debate of this resolution, and particularly what might have been said about Section 4. While their understanding of that is only one opinion, it would be an opinion meaningful to us. After all, the Church in Southern Africa has been in what we might call a "moderate progressive" position: also addressing inclusion of LGBT souls, and committed to communion with the Episcopal Church, if not quite as progressive as we are.
Second, I certainly agree that we need to give the Covenant-as-proposed full consideration. Even though I expect we will not be able to accept it, giving it full consideration shows respect for folks like Southern Africa. Yes, we will have disagreed with them on this one point, but only after due process.
Marshall Scott
Posted by Execute![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
October 4, 2010 1:01 PM
Look, the Covenant is already dead. The so called orthodox are already rejecting it because of the Standing Committee and their general view that the Primates, not the ACC should be the driving authority.
So it will not stay in this form. The Anglican Communion Institute and others said at first that this was it the FINAL document and almost instantly proceeded to demand it be amended.
If it can be amended by provinces unhappy with its implementation then lets amend it and send it back..... My guess is that we can keeo this worthless Un-Anglican document bouncing around the WWAC for ten years!
Posted by Michael Russell![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
October 4, 2010 3:38 PM
Accepting Section 4 would be suicidal. Accepting the rest simply gives the Communion words to fight over. The General Convention should consider each paragraph separately. They are mostly the kind of gratuitous statements that the General Convention has refused to pass in the past. Why would we pass them now?
Posted by Lionel Deimel![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
October 6, 2010 8:04 AM