1. You write that the Covenant has been “consistently supported by the Global South Leadership.”. Yet on November 24 2010, seven primates [Kenya, Nigeria, Uganda, Rwanda,Tanzania, West Africa, and the Southern Cone of Latin America] representing 40 million Anglicans released a statement that in their view “the covenant was fatally flawed and so support for this initiative is no longer appropriate”. Moreover, the Province of South East Asia itself, led at that time by Archbishop Chew, could only commend the covenant subject to the acceptance of a detailed preamble.
2. You also write that “the Covenant has been consistently supported by the Church of England”. That support has, however, often been qualified. For example, in the General Synod debate of November 24 2010, Dr Philip Giddings, now chair of the House of Laity, spoke for many when he said that he reluctantly supported the covenant because its key part was only quarter of a loaf and half baked at that.
3. Your basic argument is that the covenant is the “only show in town” which can preserve the unity of the Anglican Communion. This looks like: “Something must be done; this is something; therefore, this is what must be done”. To read more, click here.
Friday, January 06, 2012
Chris Sugden: An Open Letter on the Anglican Covenant
Posted by Robin G. Jordan at 6:46 AM