COMPREHENSIVE UNITY: ¨We oppose the Covenant because we love the Anglican Communion.”

YES TO COMMUNION – NO TO COVENANT

LONDON – With more than half of English dioceses having voted, leaders of the No Anglican Covenant Coalition are cautiously optimistic. To date, a significant majority of dioceses have rejected the proposed Anglican Covenant. Coalition Moderator, the Revd Dr Lesley Crawley, welcomes the introduction of following motions at several recent synods emphasizing support for the Anglican Communion. Four dioceses have already passed following motions (Bath and Wells; Chelmsford; Worcester; Southwark) and a further six have following motions on the agenda (St Alban’s; Chester; Oxford; Guilford; Exeter; London).


“The more widely the Covenant is read and discussed, the more likely people are to see it as a deeply flawed approach to the challenges of the Anglican Communion in the 21st century,” said Crawley. “The introduction of following motions in several dioceses has emphasized what has been our position from the beginning: we oppose the Covenant because we love the Anglican Communion.”


“The proposed Covenant envisages the possibility that Provinces of the Communion may be barred from representing Anglicanism on certain councils and commissions with the clear implication that they are no longer sufficiently Anglican,” said Coalition Patron Bishop John Saxbee. “It is precisely this dimension of the Covenant which renders the Covenant itself un-Anglican.”


“Some have argued that the Covenant is necessary for ecumenical relations to indicate how Anglicans understand catholicity, even though this is already laid out in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral and the Declaration of Assent,” according to Coalition Patron Bishop Peter Selby. “The Covenant adds nothing to these other than a bureaucratic disciplinary regime which denies to Anglicanism a distinctiveness which ecumenical partners might come to appreciate or even envy.”


“I’m very disappointed that some Covenant supporters have tried to turn this into a contest about who loves the Communion more, like self-centred parents in some ugly divorce drama,” said Canadian Coalition member, the Ven Alan Perry. “Our position has always been that ‘No’ to the Covenant really is ‘Yes’ to the Communion. Companion diocese relationships came into being without the Covenant and will continue to exist, Covenant or no. Anglicans from around the world care about their Anglican brothers and sisters in places like Haiti or Zimbabwe, and we will continue to care about them with or without the proposed Anglican Covenant. Our current ecumenical relationships began long before the idea of an Anglican Covenant, and they will continue whether the Covenant is accepted or rejected. We are a family, and we shall continue to be a family regardless of what happens.”


To date, the proposed Anglican Covenant has been approved by ten dioceses of the Church of England (Lichfield; Durham; Europe; Bristol; Canterbury; Winchester; Sheffield; Bradford; Carlisle; Coventry) and rejected by 17 (Wakefield; St Edmundsbury and Ipswich; Truro; Birmingham; Derby; Gloucester; Portsmouth; Rochester; Salisbury; Leicester; Sodor and Man; Chelmsford; Hereford; Ripon and Leeds; Bath and Wells; Southwark; Worcester). Approval by 23 diocesan synods is required for the Covenant to return to General Synod for further consideration. Rejection by 22 dioceses would effectively derail approval of the Covenant by the Church of England.¨ HERE

ANGLICAN COMPREHENSIVE UNITY: Yes to Communion; No to Covenant

The No Anglican Covenant Coalition was created by a group of people from across the globe who are passionate about the Anglican Communion. We chose a name cast in the negative to make it clear just where we stood, but everyone should know that we are passionate believers in the Communion. Our opposition to the proposed Covenant reflects our sincere belief that its adoption would be a profound mistake and, contrary to its ostensible goal, would divide, rather than unite the churches of the Anglican Communion.


We rejoice in being part of a worldwide communion, rather than a worldwide church. This fact allows each member church to proclaim the gospel in a manner that is most meaningful in that church’s own cultural context, while maintaining recognizably Anglican practices and Anglican ethos. We believe that widespread adoption of the Covenant would take us far down the road of establishing a worldwide church espousing uniform doctrines. Such a church can be maintained only though impractically complex and expensive consultation and decision-making or through rule by an all-powerful elite. The former has never existed and perhaps never could exist. The Roman Catholic Church is an example of the latter. The Church of England chose a different path from the Roman church 500 years ago, and we believe that the wisdom of that decision is still apparent.


Universal adoption of the proposed Covenant seems increasingly unlikely, assuring that our somewhat fractious Communion faces a split into tiers, communions, or what have you. The resulting fragments will invariably become hostile toward each other, and those churches bound by the Covenant will become a tentative and suspicious assemblage, more concerned with policing fellow churches than proclaiming the Gospel. One need only review the history of the Communion over the past decade or so to realize that such a future is likely if the proposed Covenant achieves significant acceptance. It will, after all, change no hearts, but it will facilitate the meting out of punishments to sister churches and the further splintering of our once strong fellowship.


The members of the No Anglican Covenant Coalition, believe that strengthening the Anglican Communion must be done by fully embracing its unique attributes, not by radically redesigning its structure and circumscribing its beliefs. Anglicanism has been characterized by rich liturgical and musical traditions; by acceptance of the ancient creeds and practice of the dominical sacraments; and by the reliance on scripture, tradition, and reason to guide our actions. This has proven to be a formula for creating vibrant and effective churches everywhere on the planet. We have neither a single world culture nor definitive answers to all theological questions to justify a unified world church that we might call Anglican.


We remain, then, enthusiastic Anglicans, delighting in our somewhat messy fellowship of churches united, albeit imperfectly, by bonds of affection and, more importantly, by our desire to proclaim the Good News of Christ’s redeeming work of salvation to all the world. We invite all Anglicans to join with us in saying “Yes” to communion, but “No” to covenant.¨  HERE

¨YES to the Anglican Communion; NO to the Anglican Covenant¨ -- UPDATED DIOCESE VOTING from the Church of England

Four more Church of England dioceses:  No Anglican Covenant

¨Six more Church of England dioceses voted on the Anglican Covenant today. Two voted to support it and four voted against, bringing the total to 10 for and 17 against. If a majority of the dioceses (23 of 44) vote for the Covenant, the motion to adopt it will return to the General Synod in July. If at least half (22) vote against, the motion to adopt cannot return to General Synod in the current quinquennium.

Across all 27 dioceses, the votes by houses look like this:

Bishops: 82.0% for, 10.0% against, 8.0% abstentions

Clergy: 44.6% for, 50.8% against, 4.7% abstentions

Laity: 50.1% for, 45.2% against, 4.7% abstentions

Comparing against last week's figures, one can see that support is dropping in all houses, opposition is growing, and confidence is growing (judging by the declining number of abstentions) except in the House of Bishops.

The bishops seem very much out of touch with the rest of the Church. Clergy and laity are almost evenly split for/against. It's clear that the arguments for the Covenant are not convincing at all. The clergy are decidedly against, and the laity hardly overwhelmingly for.

Overall: 48.4% for, 46.8% against, 4.8% abstentions

Overall (clergy and laity only): 47.6% for, 47.7% against, 4.7% abstentions

·  Thanks to The No Anglican Covenant Coalition, HERE

http://blog.noanglicancovenant.org/

LAY ANGLICANA: ¨Yes to the Anglican Communion; No to the Anglican Covenant¨

‘We don’t want the Covenant. We do want the Communion.’*

¨...So what does the Covenant really say, should you vote yes or should you vote no? Alan Perry (a Canadian archeacon with a background in canon law, in case you do not already know his blog) has written tirelessly about every conceivable aspect of all four sections of the Covenant. Here he writes on ‘A Tale of Two Covenants’ HERE . And  HERE he writes about the frequent problem that those who are in favour of the Covenant often seem to read into its text provisions which sound attractive but are not actually in the printed text.

The Revd Tobias Haller, an American priest, has also blogged at length about the Covenant,  HERE on possible alternatives. He concludes: ‘the proposed Anglican Covenant is not the way forward for the Anglican Communion, either as a Communion, or for the sake of its members, or for our ecumenical relationships.’

Finally, in the words of *Kelvin Holdsworth of the diocese of Glasgow and Galloway HERE  :

‘We don’t want the Covenant. We do want the Communion.’

· Thanks to Lay Anglicana: ¨Yes to the Anglican Communion and no to the Anglican Covenant¨ please read it all,  HERE

ARE YOU IN OR OUT OF THE ANGLICAN FAMILY? A covenant mandated ´house cleaning´ is in order and Bishops Drexel Gomez and Gregory K. Cameron intend for it to be so!



THE WORDS OF ARCHBISHOP DREXEL GOMEZ: The Anglican Covenant Design Group ¨family¨ knows who should stay in the Anglican ¨family¨and who ought go!! 

“...in many families, you remain in the family but you can’t stay in the house because your presence in the home is a bad example to other young people, and so you are forced to move out because what you are doing is an offense to the integrity of the family.”  Archbishop Drexel Gomez, co-Chairperson of the Covenant Design Group (along with Bishop Gegrory K. Cameron)

¨In the most recent St. Andrews Draft of the covenant, provinces would pledge to uphold historic Christian faith inherited by Anglicanism and to promote and proclaim the Biblically-based Gospel through mission.


Archbishop Drexel Gomez, Chairperson of the Anglican Covenant Design Group: ¨...constitutional autonomy of provinces exists within a larger framework of communion that sets limits on that autonomy.¨

Signers of the covenant, Gomez explained, are called on to pledge themselves to the understanding that the Anglican Communion requires mutual accountability among provinces and that the constitutional autonomy of provinces exists within a larger framework of communion that sets limits on that autonomy.

The covenant also would provide a mechanism or process by which provinces, once they have signed the covenant, could be determined to have violated the covenant and, thus, to be deemed to have removed themselves from the Communion...¨ please read it all,  HERE

UPDATE:

Archbishop, I beg to differ

The Archbishop of Canterbury is clearly anxious that the Covenant project is endangered in England. There is still a long way to go and neither side can be confident of victory for a few more weeks.

So, to shore up support, Rowan Williams has had to put out an appeal on YouTube HERE. He has also sent it to those Dioceses which have yet to vote on the Covenant and asked diocesan officers to circulate it.

What's the problem?
What sort of future?

The Archbishop is asking us to accept a vision of the future of the Anglican Communion that I, for one, simply and fundamentally disagree with. I disagree with the diagnosis of the problem that the Covenant is trying to resolve and I disagree with the medicine. I accept I can't offer an alternative blueprint but I also know there are much more creative and constructive alternatives to blueprints.


I think that the immediate problem the Covenant is seeking to resolve is the perceived arrogance and exceptionalism of The Episcopal Church (US) evinced in the decision to officially regard a same-sex relationship as not in itself a bar to ordination or preferment in the Church - and the choice of 'The Episcopal Church' as its official name as symbolically annoying - without consulting the rest of the Communion...¨ please read it all,  by Paul Bagshaw HERE

·  Thanks to Not the same stream, sidebar
·  Thanks to Paul Bagshaw
·  Thanks to The No Anglican Covenant -- Comprehensive Unity

ROWAN WILLIAMS GOES TO ROME TO PRAY WITH THE POPE ON SATURDAY (the rest of Anglicandom will be watching six English diocese synods vote pro Anglican Covenant or Against and praying with one another)

¨The Archbishop of Canterbury saw fit to upload a video on 5 March in which his usual charm is nowhere to be seen.¨

The Right Hon. Gentleman is afraid of an election is he?… Afraid? Frightened? Frit? Couldn’t take it? Couldn’t stand it?*

¨...The most exciting spectator sport on offer this Saturday, 10 March 2012, is the Pro Anglican Covenant v Anti Anglican Covenant encounter being played out in another six diocesan synods across the land. These are exceptional times we live in – it has been said (rather rudely) that a deanery synod is a collection of people waiting to go home, and I have not heard that diocesan synods are any more gripping. But, if you have any imagination at all, this contest should have you on the edge of your seats with excitement.


Let us recap the current state of play (since we seem to be stuck in sporting metaphors). Voting on whether the Church of England should or should not adopt the Anglican Covenant has been rolling out in the dioceses since 12 March 2011 when (we hope prophetically) Wakefield rejected it. Since then, a further 20 dioceses have voted. The tally is currently 13 against the Covenant, 8 in favour.


I think it is probably fair to say that the results so far have been a great surprise to everyone. The Church of England hierarchy has certainly been taken aback by the strength of feeling in the country against it. The Archbishop of Canterbury saw fit to upload a video on 5 March in which his usual charm is nowhere to be seen. This feels like being reprimanded in the headmaster’s study: HERE

·  Thanks to Lay Anglicana, sidebar

http://blog.noanglicancovenant.org/

* ”Prime Minister’s Question Time, House of Commons (19 April, 1983). The use of ‘frit’, an unusual Lincolnshire dialect abbreviation of ‘frightened’ which Mrs Thatcher evidently recalled from childhood, was missed by MPs in a noisy chamber but heard very distinctly on the audio feed from the chamber” (Wikipedia)

PRESS RELEASE -- NO ANGLICAN COVENANT -- NEW PATRONS: ¨ "An Anglican Covenant would impose a legalistic and damaging uniformity on the rich diversity of the autonomous national churches of the Anglican Communion,”

New Patrons from New Zealand, Australia and England

LONDON – No Anglican Covenant Coalition Moderator, the Revd Dr Lesley Crawley, has announced the appointment of three new patrons:

· The Rt Revd James White, Assistant Bishop of Auckland, Anglican Church Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia;


· Dr Muriel Porter, OAM, journalist and author, Anglican Church of Australia; [wikipedia]

· The Revd Canon Dr Sarah Coakley, Norris-Hulse Professor of Divinity, Cambridge University, Church of England. [wikipedia]

“I’m absolutely thrilled to welcome Bishop White, Dr Porter and Prof Coakley into this role with the coalition,” said Crawley. “We now have patrons from four provinces of the Anglican Communion, which indicates the breadth of concern about the centralization involved in the proposed Anglican Covenant.”

The Revd Canon Dr Sarah Coakley

“The future of the Anglican Communion depends on genuine, God given ‘bonds of affection,’ and nothing more or less,” according to Bishop White. “The proposed Anglican Covenant is an attempt to get the toothpaste back in the tube with a spatula, and it won’t work.”

Dr Muriel Porter

"An Anglican Covenant would impose a legalistic and damaging uniformity on the rich diversity of the autonomous national churches of the Anglican Communion,” said Dr Porter. “Those churches would lose the freedom to respond prophetically to the Spirit of God as a sign to other churches, as many did over the issue of women clergy. Further, it would threaten our cherished synodical governance."

“The disturbing theological vacuity of the Covenant document nonetheless comes with a hidden iron fist: do not be misled by its rhetoric of friendly collaboration between national churches,” according to Prof Coakley. “The Covenant bespeaks a quite different ecclesiology from that of Cranmer's ‘blessed company of all faithful people,’ and profoundly alters what it means to be Anglican. The deepest theological challenges of our day cannot be answered by hapless bureaucratic manipulations of our theological tradition.”

Today’s appointments bring the total number of No Anglican Covenant Coalition patrons to seven. The previously appointed patrons are:

· The Rt Revd Peter Selby, retired Bishop of Worcester, Church of England;

· The Rt Revd John Saxbee, retired Bishop of Lincoln, Church of England;

· Dr Diarmaid MacCulloch, Kt, Professor of the History of the Church and Fellow of St Cross College, Oxford University;

· The Revd Dr Marilyn McCord Adams, Distinguished Research Professor of Philosophy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, former Regius Professor of Divinity, Oxford University.

To date, the proposed Anglican Covenant has been approved by eight dioceses of the Church of England (Lichfield; Durham; Europe; Bristol; Canterbury; Winchester; Sheffield; Bradford) and rejected by 13 (Wakefield; St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich; Truro; Birmingham; Derby; Gloucester; Portsmouth; Rochester; Salisbury; Leicester; Sodor and Man; Chelmsford; Hereford). Approval by 23 diocesan synods is required for the Covenant to return to General Synod. Rejection by 22 dioceses would effectively derail approval of the Covenant by the Church of England.

The No Anglican Covenant Coalition is an international group of Anglicans concerned about how the proposed Anglican Covenant will radically change the nature of the Anglican Communion.

COPREHENSIVE UNITY -- NO ANGLICAN COVENANT: ¨ ....conflict prevention and resolution mechanisms are inherently a good thing. But best practice surely entails parties entering into the process voluntarily and with no threat of sanction.¨

¨The fact is we disagree so passionately precisely because all participants in the debate love the Communion.¨

What is not being said about the Covenant?

NOTE: The following is a small segment of a concluding statement taken out of the essay  ¨What is not being said about the Covenant?¨  by Paul Bagshaw. 

The fact is we disagree so passionately precisely because all participants in the debate love the Communion.

¨....We do not want to see the Communion held to ransom by provinces in one part of the world who disagree with what is happening in another. Those opposed to the Covenant value the Communion we have inherited and do not want to see its 'bonds of affection' replaced by a single, centralising, coercive, excommunicatory Anglican constitution.

To the contrary: we wish to reaffirm the Communion's traditional mutual regard, its rich diversity, its varied traditions, its mutual aid and mutual criticism, its awkward dispersed authority and its uneveness of orders.

For all these reasons we reject the Covenant.¨  please read it all, by Paul Bagshaw, HERE

·  Thanks to Not the same stream, sidebar
·  Thanks to Paul Bagshaw

THE ANGLICAN COVENANT: It´s a dangerous and open-ended bamboozlement!

A warning message from the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order (IASCUFO)

·  Thanks to Mail Today

ALL OF OUR BEST ANGELS, BISHOP MARTIN BARAHONA and GRANDMERE MIMI APPROVE THIS MESSAGE: ¨Why do we need another covenant?¨ BREAKING NEWS -- Church of England dioceses of Chelmsford and Hereford vote NO on Covenant!

WHY DO WE NEED ANOTHER COVENANT?

“The Windsor Report,” he said. 

“It’s just a report. When did it become like The Bible?

 The Covenant.

Why do we need another covenant? We have the Baptismal Covenant. We have the creeds. What else do we need?”

Archbishop Martin Barahona, Bishop of El Salvador and Primate Emeritus of Central America

Elizabeth I and Grandmère Mimi endorse this message  (Angels, both seen and unseen, told me)