Mexico has become the first Communion Province to adopt the Anglican Communion Covenant following its VI General Synod in Mexico City on 11 and 12 June.
Secretary General Kenneth Kearon said he was delighted at the decision and labelled The Anglican Church of Mexico’s decision as a “significant step” in the life of the Communion.
The Anglican Communion Covenant, a document that outlines the common life and values of the Communion, was described by Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams as “Something that helps us know where we stand together and also helps us to intensify our fellowship and our trust.” It includes a section that proposes how to address significant disagreements within the Anglican Communion.
The idea of a Covenant was first raised in 2004 and member churches are currently reviewing the latest and final version. “We are delighted to hear that Mexico has agreed to adopt the Covenant,” said Canon Kearon. “Provinces were asked to take their time to seriously consider this document, and we are glad to hear from recent synods that they are doing just that.”
Read the press release here: Mexico adopts the Anglican Communion Covenant.
Would delight have been permissable if Mexico or any province said no ?
Well, bless the Anglican Church of Mexico. I wish they hadn’t, but they are an autonomous national church in the Communion, and must do as they feel called.
Pantycelyn, I don’t recall a public response from Canon Kearon or the Anglican Communion Office when Aotearoa/New Zealand/Polynesia gave an official response of “not as is” (Sections 1-2 acceptable, and Section 4 not). (If I’m incorrect on that, I know someone here will let me know.)
Surprising insofar as Mexico’s primate, Abp. Carlos Touché-Porter, is a patron of Inclusive Church, and hasn’t Mexico been part of the “Global Center” third way?
I wouldn´t misunderstand the Mexicans…their eagle is standing on a prickly pear cactus and holding a serpent for good reason.
Pantycelyn, I don’t recall a public response from Canon Kearon or the Anglican Communion Office when Aotearoa/New Zealand/Polynesia gave an official response of “not as is” (Sections 1-2 acceptable, and Section 4 not). (If I’m incorrect on that, I know someone here will let me know.)
Posted by: Marshall Scott on Wednesday, 30 June 2010 at 3:41pm BST
Me neither. Good point !
I think it will be intolerable to be submitted to a (negative) running commentary
Leonardo, I’m not certain what there is to misunderstand about Mexico’s action. Mexico has acceded to the Covenant, seemingly without protest or reservation regarding Section 4. Not a lot of room for ambiguity there, it seems…
But it would be kind of Mexico and ++Carlos to clarify for the rest of the Communion what exactly they approved, and why. At the moment all we have to go on is the ACO report, yes?
…….And I don’t remember loud huzzahs from the SecGen when the Scottish General Synod voted a fortnight ago to park the thing for several years. We really, really don’t want it (Covenants are bad medicine in Scottish history) but we’re too Anglican to be blunt about it – so we decided that the Faith and Order Board should bring recommendations for a decision-making process to the 2011 Synod. With any luck, by the time those recommendations have been batted about by Diocesan Synods, then shaped into legislation it’ll be 2014-15 – and I reckon by then the duck won’t be… Read more »
“Secretary General Kenneth Kearon said he was delighted at the decision and labelled The Anglican Church of Mexico’s decision as a “significant step” in the life of the Communion.” – Canon Kearon, Sec.Gen. A.C. – Do I hear the sound of one hand clapping here? As has been stated, we in Aotearoa/New Zealand have already rejected section 4 of the Covenant Document, and until the disciplinary powers of the covenant have been clarified, are unlikely to follow Mexico. One wonders what the other Provinces will end up saying (and doing) about the Covenant Process. Some Provinces will not even consider… Read more »
Mexico? That is a surprising move. I’m looking forward to a bit more information on this.
And speaking of “loud huzzahs from the SecGen”: Will no one inform Kearon that he doesn’t work for the ABC and the ABC’s personal agenda, he works for the ACC, which has no official position on the Covenant, making his huzzahs misguided at best and unseemly at worst?
Or do I misunderstand who exactly Kearon’s legal employer is?