Overnight news, first spotted here by Bosco Peters at Liturgy, is that three English dioceses have voted against the Covenant. With another three voting for, the tally is 15 - 23 (out of 44) meaning that a majority cannot be reached in this GS period (closing 2015) to bring the Covenant to GS for consideration.
Naturally one may be tempted make wild statements so it is important to hear the voice of the Secretary-General of the Anglican Communion who has made a sensible 'keep calm and carry on' statement.
Two quick points before heading off for morning service:
- there is no reason at all for my own diocese not to proceed to its own consideration of the Covenant on 21 April and to make a determination whether as an episcopal unit of the church of God we believe the Covenant is a good thing re being part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church or not.
- without the C of E being part of the Covenant process the Covenant is "dead in the water" but that does not mean that supporters should stop believing in its resurrection! Yes, if sufficient other churches join the C of E and reduce possible support below the 80% of the Communion mark I think it is going to be ineffective and unresurrectable. But suppose it turned out that the Cof E, TEC and ACANZP were the only churches rejecting it ... wouldn't these churches in due course reconsider?
4 comments:
Thanks for the H/T, Peter.
It cannot "turn out" as you suggest as The Episcopal Church in the Philippines has already also rejected it.
Other churches on the Secretary-General's list have hedged their "acceptance" with all sorts of qualifications.
The CofE rejecting the Covenant had not entered my head early on. It had not entered the heads of the Covenant drafters. I don't remember if you blogged about the possibility - and if so, how early on. It will make some people think again.
Blessings
Bosco
Peter, if you were at Church this morning, and followed the Lectionary, you would have read these words: (Jer. 31: 31- 40)
"The days are surely coming, says the Lord when I will make a NEW Covenant with (them). It will not be like the Covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them OUT OF the land of Egypt...
"..I will put my law within them and I will write it on their hearts
(rather than leave it in their Holy Book): and I shall be their God and they shall be my people!
"No longer shall they teach one another (Jerusalem declaration?), or say to each other 'Know the Lord!' for they shall ALL know me (not just the self-righteous), from the least of them (LGBT?) to the greatest (the Sinless Ones?), says the Lord; FOR I WILL FORGIVE THEIR INIQUITY, AND REMEMBER THEIR SIN NO MORE!"
In other words, man-made Covenants may just not serve God's purpose!
Salvation comes from God alone - not from any deed of man.
Peter, Do I understand you to suggest that, if the Diocese of Christchurch were to say YES to the Covenant, we could form our own association with Covenanting parties in the Communion, but without the Church of England?
That sounds just a little odd, and hardly the sort of collegial body you seem to be advocating yourself.
Ron decides that Scripture is suddenly relevant and quotes,
"No longer shall they teach one another (Jerusalem declaration?), or say to each other 'Know the Lord!' for they shall ALL know me (not just the self-righteous),"
In that case, according to your own argument, we should also reject the Creeds, which is of course, silly, as is your argument.
The Jerusalem Declaration is an accurate statement of Reformed/Biblical Christianity, and thus while the document itself may be man made, the doctrine it represents is from God.
Salvation and revelation come from God alone, not from cultural Marxism and not from the minority of self-righteous and sectarian liberals claiming a brand new revelation and spreading hatred against anyone who disagrees with them, thus causing division and conflict within God's Church.
Post a Comment