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:
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.
Thank you for this gift to us, Lionel.
Thanks for this... I will point the appropriate people in this direction.
Thank you.
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.
Tank you for this! Very interesting.
Thanks. I used your comparison in my blog post - with credit:
http://www.liturgy.co.nz/blog/anglican-covenant/2171
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.
Oh, by the way: Thanks for your support of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth and to the Diocese of Kentucky for Bishop Gulick!
Post a Comment