Leave it to someone trained as a lawyer to find and highlight the myriad of problems with this proposed "Anglican" Covenant. This essay by the Honorable Ronald Stevenson, the retired Chancellor of the Anglican Church of Canada, does a nice job of pointing to those parts of the Covenant that the proponents simply refuse to acknowledge are problematic. The biggest objection I have is all contained in Section Four, specifically once you get to reading down to 4.2 etc. etc. which is where the document lays out a very muddy path on what happens to a Church that does something in which there is no "shared mind" in the Communion? An excellent point by Stevenson:
Strangely, nothing in the whole of section 4.2 anticipates the possibility of the Standing Committee making a declaration that an action or decision is compatible with the Covenant.
Perhaps this is because those who have created this document are so focused on our points of contention and have totally lost sight of true common bond of affection (aka God). It reminds me of the quote in the movie, "Doubt" when Sister Aloysius says, "When you take a step to address wrongdoing, you are taking a step away from God." It is clear to me that the Anglican Communion Covenant has taken many steps off that path. You can read Hon. Stevenson's essay at our Comprehensive Unity: The No Anglican Covenant blog.
And I wonder if each diocese or providence added the disclaimer on the end.. that it would not effect their own constitution and cannons.. what would the point be of signing the covenant. I thought the whole point of this document was to make us all the same.
ReplyDeleteYou ask the important question: what IS the point of signing the covenant!
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Mother Phoebe says, and you also, Susan. Why bother to sign something so bad.
ReplyDeletePeggins