Malcolm French who blogs at Simple Massing Priest has written about Aesop on the Anglican Covenant.
Paul Bagshaw at Not the same stream has written The legal fiction at the heart of the Covenant and earlier he also wrote How to mount a successful coup in Anglicanism, and even earlier there was Two conversations not talking to one another.
Lesley’s Blog has some thoughts from Jonathan Clatworthy at Is the Anglican Covenant Innocuous or a Serious Threat?
Earlier Lesley herself wrote What to write about the covenant?
And there is media coverage of the IC/MC advert:
Guardian Liberal Anglicans challenge ‘dogmatic’ Church of England covenant
ENS ENGLAND: Church groups campaign against Anglican Covenant
Ekklesia Campaign launched in C of E against ‘backward-looking’ Anglican Covenant
Love the application by Malcolm of the Fable. It really says it all. Sadly, I think we are about to do make the story come true.
There are those who are advocating the Covenant on the basis that with the Windsor Report paragraph 146 in place, the Dromantine Anathema established as quasi-law, the Listening/indaba process on the way to re-education – that centralised interventions in the activities of the more venomous Churches, at the behest of gay affirming provinces in the, will – over the next 30 years, transform the situation. I understand that at a London meeting last week a former employee of the ACO was saying that with a Covenant in place and the fulfillment of the Canon Law project taking a further two… Read more »
“Outside organisations are also allowed to sign up to the covenant, a move that could lead to official recognition of breakway conservative factions that dislike liberal churches in the US and Canada.” – Riazat Butt, in ‘The Guardian’ – This is just one of the effects that would emerge from the affirmation of The Covenant – affirmation for the schismatic movements in North America and the Global South Provinces, which have already withdrawn from association with TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada, thereby creating a culture of disunity even before any covenantal relationship could have been secured. Schism is… Read more »
The only sentiment worth promoting is NO COVENANT!
“Schism is not the best basis for achieving unity -especially when the schismatics have their own agenda – …”
And especially when that agenda includes border violations and attempted theft. Sheeesh!
@Martin Reynolds: The former employee of the ACO, whose name I would not even wish to guess at, may be indulging in wishful thinking. However, even if he (I presume “he”) is correct, and the Covenant’s edge has been turned against its earliest and most vocal advocates, it really doesn’t help matters. GAFCON, ACNA and their supporters will still want the Covenant to be a bill of attainder against TEC. They will still see it as enabling a procedure to remove TEC from the Communion. So while one faction will be attempting to use the Covenant process against anti-gay and… Read more »
An interesting and revealing contribution from Charlotte. Her analysis here gives an interesting perspective, though I would encourage her not to presume ….. With Kenneth Kearon’s declaration that TEC no longer shares the faith and order of the rest of the Communion one has to wonder just what further loss of status those who belong to that Church are anticipating might come from at the end of the Covenant. I can only guess, but if the governing body of my Church received THAT message from the Archbishop of Canterbury’s emissary then we might already feel ourselves condemned by extra-judicial process.… Read more »
An article by Andrew Goddard in favour of the Covenant has been published at Fulcrum.
What Martin Reynolds said — (or what General Omar Bradley said about Korea, “The wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.”)
I don’t feel I belong to ‘a family of churches’.
Unless it is one so dysfunctional ..,..