The Blog of the Provost of St Mary's Cathedral, Glasgow
+David says he is aware of people who have an inbuilt resistance to covenant. Such people point to the Chicago Quadrilateral.
Also speaks of a second view which arises out of our heritage too. Notes that our consecration of S Seabury was a defining point in the Communion.
Says that in our reflection on the Covenant asks us how we can be part of a new beginning for Anglicanism. (Sounds like he is in favour of it).
Motion 3 asks the Synod to pass consideration of how to address the Covenant to the Faith and Order Board. It will be proposed shortly.
Michael Fuller emphasises that the SEC was very engaged in comment and converation regarding the covenant in 2005-2007.
We are currently learning about the various drafts of the Covenant.
Synod reconvenes for Session 2 – and begins talking about the Anglican Covenant.
Michael Fuller of TISEC speaks about The Anglican Covnenant (the story so far)
Having made rather a fuss about the lack of internet access in the General Synod Hall (aka Palmerston Place Chuch), I was delighted to find that wifi access had been enabled this year. However, it soon transpired that my own computer was the only one in the room which refused to connect to the wifi system. Thus, this post comes courtesy of the computer of Fr Kirsten of East Kilbride.
From my point of view, the most interesting thing in yesterday’s synod was the way we dealt with Motion 3 – that is the one which asked us to affirm that it agreed in principle with the idea of a Covenant in the Anglican Communion. It was a close run thing, but synod chose not to affirm this, but rather, amended the motion to affirm that we wanted to remain a part of the discussions instead. Having been asked to affirm the Covenant, synod chose to do something else.
It was exactly the kind of compromise I was hoping for and which I referred to in an earlier post.
The Scottish Episcopal Church now has a published response to the draft Anglican covenant. Although I have one strong reservation about something that it says, I do broadly welcome it.
My reservation is over the phrase, “There is much in the Draft Covenant which we wish to commend: we appreciate its rootedness in Scripture, …” It has always seemed to me that the Draft Covenant was littered with scriptural texts rather than rooted in Scripture. There is quite a difference. There is no-one I respect on either side of the covenant controversy who would be happy to treat the bible in as cavalier fashion as those who have drafted the covenant. The “proof texts” which are scattered through it show a lack of conviction and are one of the worst examples of taking the biblical texts out of context. Those of us who love the word of God, liberal and evangelical alike should not be commending that – we should be condemning it.
The Scottish response makes it pretty clear that the covenant is not really what we are looking for and proposes an alternative name and an alternative way of responding to the Anglican “crisis” to that which the covenant proposes. This is nothing new, of course. At last year’s General Synod, Bishop Brian said something to the effect that the covenant was “not the only show in town” and there were other speakers who wanted to find other ways of allowing the Anglican communion to hold together with diversity rather than be whipped into order by a central curia.
Of course, Rowan Williams has let us down. In his Advent Letter, he said, “I have underlined in my letter of invitation that acceptance of the invitation must be taken as implying willingness to work with those aspects of the Conference’s agenda that relate to implementing the recommendations of Windsor, including the development of a Covenant. ” (His italics, not mine).
I cannot read that in any other way than him saying that those taking the line that Bishop Brian took at the General Synod and anyone who is supportive of this new Scottish response to the Draft Covenant should stay away from Lambeth. Will he enforce that?
In Scotland as a church, we have never accepted or supported the Windsor Report in any forum to my knowledge. Nor Lambeth 1.10. Nor this Draft Covenant.
Wonder what will happen next.
UPDATE
Some comments on the response are available on Thinking Anglicans.
Recent Comments