December 18, 2009

Changes to Section 4 of the Covenant Draft

The “Final Text”of the Anglican covenant was released today. It is, of course, a draft; there may never be an Anglican covenant, much less this one, but we shall see. The new version can be found here. Presumably, only Section 4 is changed from the Ridley Cambridge Draft. An explanation of why changes were made to Section 4 can be found here.

I haven’t really had time to read any of the new material, but it did strike me that it would be helpful to show the changes to Section 4 in a more perspicuous way. Therefore, I offer a PDF version of a Microsoft Word comparison between the Section 4 of the Ridley Cambridge Draft and that of the “Final Version.”

I apologize for not incorporating the comparison document into this post, but the required HTML simply got too complicated to fix in a hurry. I trust the formatting of the PDF file will be self-evident. (Black text is unchanged; red text is deleted; slate text is new.)

9 comments:

  1. Thanks very much for this. Knowing the changes are in Section 4 (the most controversial part) saves a lot of time and the color code is very helpful. On first reading, it doesn't have any "teeth," which is fine. What's proposed is not a constitution; it's a covenant for a fellowship. It makes an extra layer of communication for a "global fellowship" which I think is very helpful. Perhaps others disagree, and maybe when I've read it a few more times I'll find fault with it. But right now I hope it flies.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you for this gift to us, Lionel.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks for this... I will point the appropriate people in this direction.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Anglican Communion Web site now has a side-by-side comparison of the two versions of Section 4. It shows the same information as my document in a different format. You can find it here.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks. I used your comparison in my blog post - with credit:
    http://www.liturgy.co.nz/blog/anglican-covenant/2171

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree with the revised Section 4.2.8. As long as TEC is in the process, we're in! I look forward to the Missionary Bishop to Mars to voting for further review.
    In Texas, Bishop Garrett did a remarkable job.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oh, by the way: Thanks for your support of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth and to the Diocese of Kentucky for Bishop Gulick!

    ReplyDelete

Anonymous comments are not allowed. Gratuitous profanity or libelous statements will be removed. Comments will also be removed that include gratuitous links to commercial Web sites. Please stay on topic.