Giles Fraser doesn\u2019t like the Anglican Covenant because it attempts to define what an Anglican is by asserting what an Anglican must believe. Since being a Christian is defined by what one believes, this doesn\u2019t seem like a particularly unreasonable limitation \u2013 but, then, for the anti-Covenant anti-confessional muddled middle ground brigade, Christianity may well not be a prerequisite for Anglicanism.<\/p>\n
What is important to Fraser and his ilk is to eschew all things binary \u2013 a perversely obtuse eccentricity in the digital age. There must be no Either\/Or, no Black or White no certainties, no definitiveness. No truth; instead, let there be Common Ground.<\/p>\n
From here<\/a>:<\/p>\n The reason why the Covenant is such a terrible idea is that it replaces the search for common ground with a fear that the Other is out to get me. It gives the Other a means of my exclusion, and thus turns the Other into the enemy.<\/p>\n The Covenant contains the idea of a two-tier Communion \u2014 those who signed up being on the inner tier; those who do not being on the outer tier \u2014 which is not quite the ecclesiastical equivalent of outer darkness. The idea that the C of E itself might be in the outer tier makes a nonsense of the whole Covenant idea. Communion with the see of Canterbury has always been the defining feature of what it means to be an Anglican.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Giles Fraser doesn\u2019t like the Anglican Covenant because it attempts to define what an Anglican is by asserting what an Anglican must believe. Since being a Christian is defined by what one believes, this doesn\u2019t seem like a particularly unreasonable … Continue reading