I’ve got behind with reporting on the Anglican Covenant – been so poorly and a bit preoccupied with other things – I have about 5 or 6 posts that I’ll put up each afternoon this week. This is the first, from the comments in the Liturgy Blog ‘Anglican Covenant meaningless’:
I’m a member of the Synod of the Diocese of Gippsland, which is a part of the Anglican Church of Australia. Our diocesan synod finished yesterday.
One of the motions at the Synod was the following:
“That this Synod receives the final draft of the Anglican Communion Covenant and encourages the General Synod to adopt the Covenant by resolution at its next session.”
The motion was passed.
Before the vote on the Covenant we had a presentation from the Primate, Archbishop Phillip Aspinall. The Archbishop, not surprisingly, presented the Covenant as a Good Thing, for a few reasons. Bishop John McIntyre, the Bishop of Gippsland, also presented the Covenant as a Good Thing, as did the mover of the motion, the Hon Robert Fordham (until recently a member of the Anglican Consultative Council). All three really suggested that the Covenant is a way of ‘solidifying’ Anglican identity, and maintaining relationships.
There were not many who voted against the motion (which was passed on the voices), but I was one. I’m a homosexual Anglican, and all I can see in the Covenant is a means of clobbering those who disagree with the majority, whatever that might be on the issue that presents (that there is no clear mechanism for that to happen, is beside the point, in my view).
Looking at the Province of South East Asia’s document leaves me in no doubt as to their understanding of the Covenant. That our Diocese’s understanding is quite different is interesting, and speaks to the vagueness of the process.
In short, I see little hope in this process, but I wanted to note that the process of reception has started in the church in Australia.