Post by angli_fan on Dec 14, 2006 18:24:07 GMT -5
ABC Williams warned of Church anarchy
[from the Telegraph (UK)]
The Church of England was plunged into a fresh crisis yesterday after evangelical leaders representing 2,000 churches told the Archbishop of Canterbury to allow them to bypass liberal bishops or face widespread anarchy.
The group, whose supporters include the Bishop of Rochester, the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, warned Dr Rowan Williams that the crisis over issues such as gay clerics was escalating fast and could descend into schism.
At a confidential meeting at Lambeth Palace on Tuesday, they urged Dr Williams to create a parallel structure to free them from the interference of liberal bishops or risk a revolt against his authority.
...Group members presented Dr Williams with a "covenant" making clear they would not accept the authority of liberal bishops regarded as having abandoned Biblical teaching by accepting gay priests or blocking evangelical growth.
The covenant makes clear that the whole group will support individual members who break their ties with their bishops, refuse to allow them into their churches, or who cut their quotas, the "taxes" they voluntarily pay into central Church funds.
As part of a growing resistance movement, retired or foreign bishops from abroad could be parachuted into evangelical parishes in defiance of the diocesan bishops.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/14/nchurch14.xml
You can read the full text of the above-mentioned covenant proposal at:
www.reform.org.uk/restore.php?page=http%3A//www.reform.org.uk/pages/press/press.html
Inclusive Church responds:
Conservative Evangelicals are clearly trying to create a defining moment for the Anglican Communion. The declaration by the Anglican Church of Tanzania separating itself from all who ordain, who are, or who support homosexual people, together with Reform’s "Covenant" are the next stages in the rolling out of a strategy which will, if allowed to proceed destroy the Anglican Communion.
We are seeing the development of a long term plan developed by various people on various continents which is intended to bring the Anglican Communion out of its historically generous and open position, into a narrowly defined, confessional group of churches rooted in the religious right of the United States and extending from there across the world.
It is probable that the Tanzania declaration was produced at the behest of others with the specific aims of undermining the Presiding Bishop of the United States, challenging the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and derailing the moves towards an inclusive Covenant which the Communion is beginning to make. It is a deliberately incendiary move. The intention is to pre-empt any decisions the Primates’ Meeting in February might make so that elements from the Global South and disaffected elements of the Episcopal Church rebels can proceed with their plan to set up an alternative Communion.
More at:
www.inclusivechurch.net/press/details.html?id=15 and
www.inclusivechurch.net/press/details.html?id=16
Mark Harris says:
When the small group who presented it left, it is my fervent hope and prayer that the Archbishop filed it in the deep recesses of the “not to be opened on the pain of death” drawer, there to dry to a crisp and eventually crumble in dust.
This is not in any sense a “Covenant” of the sort sought by those who are speaking of an Anglican Covenant. This is an agreement to become a narrow and disagreeable cult.
The only value in bringing it up is that it is indicative of the fact that the Elizabethan settlement never actually took hold in England and that the Puritans are alive and well. King, Archbishop, Bishop and every other secular and religious power beware. And, to be honest, every Christian given to thinking freely ought to be on guard.
anglicanfuture.blogspot.com/2006/12/giving-covenant-bad-name.html
Brad Drell says:
A number of Episcopalians, even some who aren’t stark raving liberals, have problems with the idea of a covenant. They believe it is un-Anglican. That may be, but it is becoming necessary simply to restore the trust once held that the people sitting next to you in the pew, and, more importantly, your priest, your bishop, and other church leaders, were authentically Christian. Of course, many folks take offense at the idea of a covenant because implicit in the covenant is a questioning of one’s faith and beliefs. In short, some folks reject any sort of religious litmus test for membership in the church. However, without one, the trust that has been broken will not be restored.
I frankly hate that a covenant is necessary. But, liberal theology and actions that are so against the grain of Christianity now require it.
descant.classicalanglican.net/?p=2442
Tobias Haller Says:
I commend [the covenant proposal] to a careful reading, but I am far from optimistic of its adoption beyond a fairly narrow Evangelical circle.
For at base there is a problem with covenants that focus on doctrines rather than upon unity in Christ, pure and simple: the Spirit gives life and the letter kills. Christ unites, but doctrines divide. The genius of Anglicanism was to have "as few doctrines as possible while yet insisting on those doctrines." (W. R. Huntington).
The effort here to enshrine as doctrine a traditional teaching on sexual morality, now no longer the consensus, is left a bit late in the game; the arguments against this teaching have proven too persuasive to too many to pretend that there is universal consensus. So the only options are division over this issue, or patient continued dialogue in mutual admission that one side or the other is mistaken until a new consensus emerges.
jintoku.blogspot.com/2006/12/problem-with-covenants.html
[from the Telegraph (UK)]
The Church of England was plunged into a fresh crisis yesterday after evangelical leaders representing 2,000 churches told the Archbishop of Canterbury to allow them to bypass liberal bishops or face widespread anarchy.
The group, whose supporters include the Bishop of Rochester, the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, warned Dr Rowan Williams that the crisis over issues such as gay clerics was escalating fast and could descend into schism.
At a confidential meeting at Lambeth Palace on Tuesday, they urged Dr Williams to create a parallel structure to free them from the interference of liberal bishops or risk a revolt against his authority.
...Group members presented Dr Williams with a "covenant" making clear they would not accept the authority of liberal bishops regarded as having abandoned Biblical teaching by accepting gay priests or blocking evangelical growth.
The covenant makes clear that the whole group will support individual members who break their ties with their bishops, refuse to allow them into their churches, or who cut their quotas, the "taxes" they voluntarily pay into central Church funds.
As part of a growing resistance movement, retired or foreign bishops from abroad could be parachuted into evangelical parishes in defiance of the diocesan bishops.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/14/nchurch14.xml
You can read the full text of the above-mentioned covenant proposal at:
www.reform.org.uk/restore.php?page=http%3A//www.reform.org.uk/pages/press/press.html
Inclusive Church responds:
Conservative Evangelicals are clearly trying to create a defining moment for the Anglican Communion. The declaration by the Anglican Church of Tanzania separating itself from all who ordain, who are, or who support homosexual people, together with Reform’s "Covenant" are the next stages in the rolling out of a strategy which will, if allowed to proceed destroy the Anglican Communion.
We are seeing the development of a long term plan developed by various people on various continents which is intended to bring the Anglican Communion out of its historically generous and open position, into a narrowly defined, confessional group of churches rooted in the religious right of the United States and extending from there across the world.
It is probable that the Tanzania declaration was produced at the behest of others with the specific aims of undermining the Presiding Bishop of the United States, challenging the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and derailing the moves towards an inclusive Covenant which the Communion is beginning to make. It is a deliberately incendiary move. The intention is to pre-empt any decisions the Primates’ Meeting in February might make so that elements from the Global South and disaffected elements of the Episcopal Church rebels can proceed with their plan to set up an alternative Communion.
More at:
www.inclusivechurch.net/press/details.html?id=15 and
www.inclusivechurch.net/press/details.html?id=16
Mark Harris says:
When the small group who presented it left, it is my fervent hope and prayer that the Archbishop filed it in the deep recesses of the “not to be opened on the pain of death” drawer, there to dry to a crisp and eventually crumble in dust.
This is not in any sense a “Covenant” of the sort sought by those who are speaking of an Anglican Covenant. This is an agreement to become a narrow and disagreeable cult.
The only value in bringing it up is that it is indicative of the fact that the Elizabethan settlement never actually took hold in England and that the Puritans are alive and well. King, Archbishop, Bishop and every other secular and religious power beware. And, to be honest, every Christian given to thinking freely ought to be on guard.
anglicanfuture.blogspot.com/2006/12/giving-covenant-bad-name.html
Brad Drell says:
A number of Episcopalians, even some who aren’t stark raving liberals, have problems with the idea of a covenant. They believe it is un-Anglican. That may be, but it is becoming necessary simply to restore the trust once held that the people sitting next to you in the pew, and, more importantly, your priest, your bishop, and other church leaders, were authentically Christian. Of course, many folks take offense at the idea of a covenant because implicit in the covenant is a questioning of one’s faith and beliefs. In short, some folks reject any sort of religious litmus test for membership in the church. However, without one, the trust that has been broken will not be restored.
I frankly hate that a covenant is necessary. But, liberal theology and actions that are so against the grain of Christianity now require it.
descant.classicalanglican.net/?p=2442
Tobias Haller Says:
I commend [the covenant proposal] to a careful reading, but I am far from optimistic of its adoption beyond a fairly narrow Evangelical circle.
For at base there is a problem with covenants that focus on doctrines rather than upon unity in Christ, pure and simple: the Spirit gives life and the letter kills. Christ unites, but doctrines divide. The genius of Anglicanism was to have "as few doctrines as possible while yet insisting on those doctrines." (W. R. Huntington).
The effort here to enshrine as doctrine a traditional teaching on sexual morality, now no longer the consensus, is left a bit late in the game; the arguments against this teaching have proven too persuasive to too many to pretend that there is universal consensus. So the only options are division over this issue, or patient continued dialogue in mutual admission that one side or the other is mistaken until a new consensus emerges.
jintoku.blogspot.com/2006/12/problem-with-covenants.html
. Okay, that is provocative, but clearly they are thinking like congregationlists which would be fine if we were. 