Updated
Andrew Goddard has written another briefing document, now available at Fulcrum The Anglican Covenant: Background and Resources. It now includes many links, including to a few articles that Thinking Anglicans has not mentioned previously. Reading this document is strongly recommended.
As a slight side-point, the interesting thing with Andrew Goddard is that it seems his correspondence with Giles Goddard went nowhere.
Can’t understand this attempt to summarise document, but somehow Fulcrum is trying to position itself in an overlap with the intentions of the Archbishop of Canterbury, almost like adopting him. I may be wrong here; it is interesting how the positioning is going on.
Very helpful work from Dr Goddard. It is obvious some would prefer chaos and ambiguity to reign in the AC as they seek to promote a minority agenda – but that does not provide strong foundations for the future of the AC. The AC is on the brink of collapsing because some have taken advantage of the current loose, “unwritten constitution” to push their own agenda despite the clear, repeatedly stated objections of most of the AC around the world…..it is obvious to anyone who does not want the chaos to continue and the AC to collapse that a covenant… Read more »
NP, the Anglican Communion is full of gays who have the capacity to from committed, loving relationships; this is particularly the case in the USA and Canada. To call acceptance and recognition of them an “agenda” is rather demeaning. Lambeth talked of “listening” — something the Global South has shown no sign of being able to do.
“a covenant is desperately needed”
Depends if you want key decision-making to involve the laity and clergy, or something approaching the Roman Catholic model. Seems odd for Evangelicals to want the latter.
It is not odd, Hugh….it is common sense.
When we see a situation in which we can agree positions (eg Lambeth 1.10) but people decide for themselves that they can completely ignore the agreed position, we need to state more clearly that some respect for the said agreed positions is necessary – if we are to be a credible “Communion”
Pluralist – I am impressed with Graham Kings even though I do not agree with him. Politically he is very well informed and I cannot work out where he gets his information from – except to say he is himself a rising star and well connected, and certainly listened to by the ABC. I imagine he has strong links to the likes of +Durham and ++York but wonder where his journalistic tips come from. Andrew Carey? He has so often been right in his comment and analysis – though mistaken re the Covenant I hope.
“The AC is on the brink of collapsing because some have taken advantage of the current loose, “unwritten constitution” to push their own agenda.”
Can’t deny the truth of that one.
Neil, I’m lost on the Graham Kings reference – seems my old eyes are letting me down on this one – would you give me a pointer? Thanks.
“if we are to be a credible “Communion””
NP, I’m sure you know by now it will take more than this to regain any credibility. Uniformity in hypocrisy will not exactly buy us any cred “out there”, except with those who are most comfortable with their heads in the sand.
More Autocracy than Communion, I fear NP. Not something I want to be associated with if it happens. No assurances in the Draft that basic human rights will be asserted. Not even the forgotten Lambeth 1998 Resolution 1.1 “that its members urge compliance with the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the nations in which our various member Churches are located, and all others over whom we may exercise any influence”, conveniently ignored in relation to The Church of Nigeria’s support for repressive anti-gay legislation. The commitment in Section 4-5-4, “The Life we share with others”, to “seek… Read more »
Neil – my brain cells finally kicked in on Graham Kings – no need to explain.
With Neil, I can equally say: I am impressed with Graham Kings even though I do not agree with him. I see it as this. Fulcrum has a “problem” with the clobber passages of the Bible, in that it is open to debate and listening to gay and lesbian experience, but so far its “hermeneutical” wanderings and loyalty to the straight read (both senses) of given texts means it can take this pro-Covenant position as it is not primarily interested in inclusion. It does not though take the Anglican Mainstream position, say, that therefore gay people should give up being… Read more »
Pluralist – it is not “unhealthy” for an organisation to have a common agreed position….it is common-sense. It is “unhealthy” for the AC to try and hold contradictory views together…..we have all been feeling the pain for years. It would be healthy for liberals to set up their own liberal church….but there has never been the confidence to do that – not even in the Carey years….but now you have a liberal ABC to do “backflips” and impose discipline…because the only way the AC can be healthy is if it gets to an agreed position which everyone is happy with… Read more »
I’m Canadian. I think there’s a cultural difference going on here – the Anglican Church of Canada has been largely liberal for quite some time, possibly because it is not an “established” church in this country. It is with considerable bemusement that I read comments such as “liberals should set up their own liberal church”. Um, this is my own liberal church, thank you very much. I’m not going anywhere. If we’re cut off from the Anglican Communion, and then told that it’s all our fault and it’s really us that’s walking apart, not the other way around, AND don’t… Read more »
“It would be healthy for liberals to set up their own liberal church”
It would be even healthier for the Evos to set up their own sect. You clearly don’t understand the Church as I do.
“It is “unhealthy” for the AC to try and hold contradictory views together…..we have all been feeling the pain for years.”
So all those years of Evos being accepted in the Church, that was “painful” for you, was it? We should have gotten rid of you when we had the chance?
Brian, Props to you! “And in fifty years time, everyone will wonder what the fuss was about.” My 74 year old mother, a little on the conservative side, only gave it twenty years, the quote, “you know, Ford, ’tis* just like the ordination of women, in twenty years we’ll wonder what all the fuss was about.” And besides, the Anglican Church came into being because the King was a whoremongering son of a usurper who needed a male heir to his throne, can’t get much more sinful than that. England was weak, and the most powerful nations in Europe sided… Read more »
NP likes to assert that the “liberals” are a dwindling minority everywhere. His evidence seems largely to be that he says so. I’m not sure I’d necessarily agree that our Anglican Church of Canada is and has been “largely liberal for some time.” Actually, I find the terms “liberal” and “conservative” to be rather dubious descriptions of the two “sides” on this – although useful in the sense that we all know who we mean by them. At the time of the schism between Rome and England, the Church of England certainly saw the issue as a national church rejecting… Read more »
“Depends if you want key decision-making to involve the laity and clergy, or something approaching the Roman Catholic model. Seems odd for Evangelicals to want the latter.”
Actually, I don;t think it’s odd at all. While evangelicals were reformers, they campaigned for increased role of the laity because the laity could be swayed in a decade or two while entrenched bishops took much, much longer to turn around to a new position.
Now, however, evangelicals are generally conservatives disinterested in any change in doctrine or practice and so they naturally favor the institution which is least susceptible ton change.
“they naturally favor the institution which is least susceptible ton change.”
Apart from radical institutional reform you and NP favour, ruidh? Once this is done, there’ll be no need for the laity in Synod or ACC.
“Pluralist – it is not “unhealthy” for an organisation to have a common agreed position….it is common-sense.” And the Anglican Communion does indeed have a common agreed position — the Christian Faith as expounded in Scripture and the Creeds. One the other hand it is unhealthy for any organization to insist on agreement inopportunely, to close off debate that could lead to the upgrading of the organization. NP is making agreement on the highly volatile issue of sexual ethics as regards people of homosexual orientation a condition of Anglican unity. Since such agreement does not currently exist he is in… Read more »
FJOL asserts that the nast NP “maintains that the disagreement is sustained only by a dwindling minority of liberals — but it seems to me clear that this is not the case, even in Nigeria.” So, why have we had Lambeth 1.10, Dromantine, TWR, the Tanzania Communique and the proposed covenant?? It really does not look like my view that Lambeth 1.10 is right from scripture and should be upheld by AC members is only held by a minority in the AC – and the ABC certainly does not believe he can keep the AC together by ditching 1.10, does… Read more »
“should be upheld by AC members”
Why do you not think it important for AC members to uphold ALL of the Lambeth statement, NP, why is it only the one part that you like the rest of us have to uphold, and you are free to ignore the rest?
It does seem counter-intuitive that evangelicals should seem to be advocating such an heirarchical model of authority, given that historical evangelicalism was about empowering the laity and constraining the power of heirarchs.
That said, the internal rationale of evangelicalism is not always apparent in its practical manifestation. Often, those who propose the most egalitarian ecclesiology present in fact the most heirarchical – consider the role of “the pastor” in the most conservative American evangelical denominations.
Ford – for the thousandth time…..I accept all of Lambeth 1.10 including the bit about listening….and I define listening to mean listening and do not accept the “revision” of its meaning to mean “agreeing” or “agreeing to disagree” etc
Malcolm – it ain’t about power, the covenant is about getting some sort of order and unity…..remember it is the liberal ABC driving the idea (not me) ……because even he can see that a free for all on actions (eg TEC’s attitude in 2003) does not work – if you want unity, that is
“I accept all of Lambeth 1.10” For the thousandth time, it’s not Lambeth 1.10. That is only one part of a much longer report that contained things you obviously don’t even bother with, much less accept. You can’t pick one part of the Lambeth statement and ignore the bits you don’t like just because that’s the way you treat Scripture. “Bible mining” is bad enough, you don’t get to go “Lambeth mining” too! “I define listening to mean listening” Which is what you were asked to do. The only ones defining “listening” as “agreeing” are Evos who are so afraid… Read more »
And Lambeth V.13 (“Diocesan Boundaries”)?
NP said, “it ain’t about power.”
Now you’ve done it. I laughed so hard that coffee came out my nose and blew all over the keyboard. I’m lucky I didn’t short it out.
When I was a kid, that was called the “Elephant Trick”, Malcolm.
You have to meet someone in order to get close enough to listen.