Nov 4, 2010

The ill-conceived Anglican Covenant: Favors coercion over the hard work of reconciliation

¨Anglican churches are being asked to adopt a so-called Anglican Covenant that seeks to bind them more tightly to one another and to codify procedures by which future disputes within the Anglican Communion will be resolved.

We believe that this covenant is ill-conceived. In response to the reputed “crisis” in the Communion, drafters of the covenant have favoured coercion over the hard work of reconciliation. The covenant seeks to narrow the range of acceptable belief within Anglicanism and to prevent further development of Anglican thought. Rather than bringing peace to the Communion, we predict that the covenant text itself could become the cause of future bickering and that its centralized dispute-resolution mechanisms could beget interminable quarrels and resentments.

We believe in an Anglicanism based on a shared heritage of worship, not on a set of doctrines to which all must subscribe. Our understanding of Anglicanism leads us to view the covenant as profoundly un-Anglican.

At No Anglican Covenant, we present the case against the Anglican Covenant and useful material for those studying the covenant or looking for arguments to support their opposition to its adoption. We also provide background material and track the status of the adoption (or rejection) of the covenant across the Communion.

We hope you will find No Anglican Covenant both interesting and useful, and we welcome your comments.¨ read all about the opposition to the Anglican Covenant,

· Thanks to Lionel Deimel, Logo
· Thanks to Sara Wagner, Photo
· Thanks to The Pluralist, sidebar

UPDATE FROM THE PLURALIST:  ¨ Good: Against the Covenant, but er...¨

It is late in the day, but the anti-Covenant forces are building and another has been launched. Supporters include the retired Bishop Peter Selby. The recent article by Andrew Goddard in favour of the Covenant, in regarding the Modern Church/ Inclusive Church advert as disingenuous, has been shown to be itself disingenuous because he wrote:HERE

No comments: