Saturday, March 10, 2012

Archbishop of Canterbury speaks on the Anglican Covenant



The transcript is here.

10 comments:

BabyBlue said...

Before you post, please imagine that the Archbishop of Canterbury is sitting at your table - not across the room, not outside waiting for a bus, not even at his own table nearby - but at yours.

bb

RalphM said...

There are two groups in the Anglican Communion. One group already functions within the principles of the Covenant. The second group sees their actions as visionary, bringing "justice" to all and doing a new thing.

The second group fears the Covenant because they see it threatening their franchise as Anglicans. The fact that other parts of the Communion suffer because of their actions is secondary to the implementation of their vision. They may sign the Covenant, but they will never adhere to its spirit.

This is why the Covenant, though well intended, is irrelevant.

Daniel Weir said...

I find it interesting that so far the diocesan synods have voted roughly 2 to 1 against having the CofE's synod consider approving the covenant. Does this put those who voted no in Ralph's assumed camp of those who are fearful about losing the franchise?

I find unsupported by data the assertion that TEC's position on same sexuality causes suffering for Anglicans elsewhere. If is an oft-repeated assertion, but I see no evidence that the very real sufferings of Anglicans and other Christians in some countries has been increased because of TEC's actions. Having read about the conflicts between Christians and Muslims in Africa and Asia, I see ample evidence that these conflicts would exist and be just as intense had TEC taken a more conservative path.

RalphM said...

For the record, I did not mention TEC.

Daniel Weir said...

RsplhM,

I apologize for jumping to a conclusion for which there was no evidence in your post. I would be interested in knowing who you see as acting without regard for the suffering their actions cause others. It is a serious charge to make against any Christian and I trust you are not making it without justification

RalphM said...

For the record, I did not mention TEC's position on sexuality, nor did I blame conflicts between Christians and Muslims on the actions of TEC.

Daniel Weir said...

RalphM,
For the record you have left a very damning comment hanging here and seem unwilling to defend it with substance. I am left thinking that my original suspicion may have been right and that you were taking a swipe at TEC. If you care to leave it there, that is fine with me.

RalphM said...

Father Wier

Sorry to leave your questions and assertions hanging. It's been a busy few days.

If what I have said amounts to “taking a swipe at TEC”, I can only reply that I stated what I believe to be true.

There are several provinces that have caused suffering within the communion - TEC being prominent.
When TEC elected Bp. Robinson, primates representing at least half the AC pleaded with TEC not to consecrate him, warning that it would “tear the fabric” at the deepest levels. TEC, of course, ignored the pleading and proceeded. Now, more than half the AC is in impaired or broken communion with TEC. Do you not believe we all suffer when families are torn apart by one who has ignored the cries of pain they cause to other family members?

We are very fortunate to live in a society where we do not have to fear being targeted for death based on our beliefs or associations. However, the violent reaction to homosexual behavior in Islam is pervasive. Given the global reach of the internet, do you not suspect that what we do here is used as justification by those seeking to destroy Christians?

With the warning that many of these websites are pretty ugly, take the time to read and consider whether TEC's, CoE's and others public endorsements of homosexual behavior may be putting other Anglicans at risk. Some discuss the impact of other actions that put our troops in danger – relevant because they show the global impact of our actions.

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Homosexuality

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/religion-today/election-of-homosexual-bishop-could-fuel-anti-christian-persecution-1213774.html

http://archive.episcopalchurch.org/80050_124380_ENG_HTM.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_isla2.htm

http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_341_30396.php

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/026-homosexuality.htm

If you are seeking a body count as proof of what I said, I cannot provide that. I will only ask that you consider the possibility that what we do here can endanger others half a world away.

Daniel Weir said...

RalphM

Thank you for the response. I am aware of the conflict between Christians and Muslims and I suspect that the acceptance of same sex relationships here and elsewhere makes matters somewhat worse. It is only one of several factors that contribute to those conflicts and I suspect it is one of the least important, with economic factors and past history playing a greater role. The broken relationships within the Communion have hurt all of us, but TEC's actions are not the only cause. In fact there have been many attempts by people in TEC to repair relationships, some successful, some rejected by those who want to have nothing to do with TEC. It was not Bishops from TEC ago boycotted the Lambeth Conference, even though there was talk of a boycott because the Bishop of NH was not invited.

I think there is room for repentance in all quarters. Making TEC the villian is not supported by the facts.

ettu said...

Is it fair to assume a linkage between the contentiousness of the covenant and the ABC's decision to retire? His departure certainly seems to weaken the base - the push - to a covenant.