2020_010_A
Support the Café
Search our site

The ABC wants you to support the proposed Anglican Covenant

The ABC wants you to support the proposed Anglican Covenant

There is no clearer sign that the proposed Anglican Covenant is in some trouble than the fact that Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, feels the need to release a video in an attempt to enlist support.


0 0 vote
Article Rating
Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

16 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
E Sinkula

It is important, in any case, I think, to ask the question about mutual accountability. Perhaps the Covenant will not be the instrument by which we will be able to accomplish that. The following question would need to be, “what instead?”

What about Indaba? At least Indaba involves study and communicating directly with those who you may not agree with. To me that seems more likely to have the Holy Spirit present than a written document.

Eric

tobias haller

Fr. Robinson, for me the difference is between mutual accountability and mutual love. Accountability operates from a negative pole, a pole of critique and fault, and seeks the submission of one criticized to the one making the critique. Love, on the other hand, puts up with the other no matter what, bears all things, does not find fault — or if it finds a fault, accepts it as part of who the other beloved is. We see both strands in the Pauline Corpus, but it seems to me that the “better way” is that described in 1 Cor 13.

There has to be more to the Communion than “dispute resolution” and “fault-finding” — towards which, in Section 4, the present Covenant is explicitly geared. Many of us who do not accept it — and many in the “broad consultation” to which the Archbishop refers, but whose input was essentially ignored on this essential problem — would be perfectly happy with the Covenant sans section 4, or at least the most problematical bits of it.

The real issue is that the consultation was not complete prior to sending this out for a vote.

www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1290683760

Although I’ve been a supporter of the Covenant, it may be that the way it is going to be helpful for us right now is by inviting us into a conversation about what we understand about our own place in the body–about whether we truly wish, as the Archbishop says, “to accept that in the body of Christ we are all obliged to one another. We’re all responsible to, and for, and with one another.”

I’m often curious about people who say that they are fine living together, and “who needs the piece of paper?” Maybe so.

Nonetheless, perhaps in not endorsing the Covenant we will be invited meaningfully to ask deeper questions about our sustaining ecclesiology.

If not Covenant, then what?

I’m reminded that at the end of the first chapter of the Rule St. Benedict has a worried word about those monks who “live in twos or threes, or even singly, without a shepherd, in their own sheepfolds and not in the Lord’s. Their law is the desire for self-gratification; whatever enters their mind or appeals to them, that they call holy; what they dislike they regard as unlawful.”

It is important, in any case, I think, to ask the question about mutual accountability. Perhaps the Covenant will not be the instrument by which we will be able to accomplish that. The following question would need to be, “what instead?”

Bruce Robison

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

E B

I like the whole “engage them in conversation,” argument. We need a covenant to engage in dialogue?

As to the bit about the fourth section not being about discipline, if one has to argue that to be the case, then one wonders why the section isn’t written so as to make that clear.

I wish the ABC would wander off and do something useful. Maybe a nice long stint in some quiet corner of Scotland would work well–where the ABC can reflect on the Scottish non-juring bishops’ role in maintaining apostolic succession in TEC. 😉

Eric Bonetti

E B

I like the whole “engage them in conversation,” argument. We need a covenant to engage in dialogue?

As to the bit about the fourth section not being about discipline, if one has to argue that to be the case, then one wonders why the section isn’t written so as to make that clear.

I wish the ABC would wander off and do something useful. Maybe a nice long stint in some quiet corner of Scotland would work well–where the ABC can reflect on the Scottish non-juring bishop’s role in maintaining apostolic succession in TEC. 😉

Eric Bonetti

Facebooktwitterrss
Support the Café
Past Posts

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café