VOTERS on last week’s Question of the Week in the Church Times have overwhelmingly called for the Church of England to reject the Anglican Covenant. A total of 83 per cent of the 947 people who voted said that the Covenant should be rejected, while just 17 per cent voted in favour of it. The poll is not necessarily a representative sample of the Church of England.Church Times 12 Nov 2010. That's a lot more voters than usual: heartening, but not cake.
Check out the cartoon at an inch at a time; spot on.
Fr Jake has a important reminder and summary of the actions of the Institute for Religion and Democracy (IRD). From a British perspective they sound barmy - but their money and fanaticism mean they need to be taken seriously and seriously opposed. Let us hope the General Convention take the resolution of the New York Diocese to heart.
Fred Swartz at Off-Topic Allowed comments from the experience of a parish discussing the covenant as encouraged by TEC. They don't seem to be coming to blows but,
This covenant thingy is NOT of the Episcopal Church in the United States. It comes from those outside who have already carved up some of the diocese here in the United States and would like nothing more than to carve up ALL the diocese of the Episcopal Church of the Untied States. ....
So, the real issue for the covenant, or the reason for studying the covenant is to once again drive a wedge between those who know and understand the Anglican Communion and those who do not. See, the folks out there know we still have not improved our education system and are gambling on our need to be obedient and study the Anglican Covenant. The folks that do not understand are now given a chance to once again reconsider moving to the southern cone, or at a minimum the discussion is re-opening all those old wounds once again, not directly, not with intent to teach and study but rather as an oblique attempt to foment revolution. So the folks in ACNA, AMiA, GAFCON/FCA and all the alphabet soup win one way or the other.You may enjoy Giles Fraser' observations on 'creative disharmony' in the Church Times. And it's well worth resurrecting his comments from the beginning of the year:
And no amount of Lambeth Palace spin is going to persuade me that, like the pre-nuptial agreement, this Covenant isn’t a way of arranging, in advance, the terms of some future divorce. The only people who are going to love this document are the lawyers.
So what is to be done? Maybe nothing. I can’t quite believe I think this, and it may be an expression of my utter despair at the seeming inevitability of the whole thing.
But if you shout “crisis” and “collapse” long enough, people will panic and welcome the imposition of martial law as if it were salvation itself. ....
So I have talked myself back from the edge. There must be no down hearted fatalism about the inevit ability of the Covenant. We must fight it on the beaches. . .It's NOT inevitable - TAAA.