It is truly amazing how clear bishops in the church formerly known as ECUSA can be when they put their mind to it.

Translation: Covenant would cramp our style in the ECUSA/TEC.  We cannot have that.

You really have to admire the way they managed to lose the Articles and the BCP when they rewrote the Anglican history books.

Translation:  A covenant would fundamentally change the nature of the Anglican Communion and invalidate the Chicago/Lambeth Quadrilateral.  The Communion would change to one-sided majority rule under the heavy-handed leadership of ++Akinola and his minions.

I am curious.  Just what is wrong with a covenant?  Or a confession of faith for that matter?  Are we afraid to confess Jesus Christ and Him crucified?  Are we afraid to boldly state what we believe?  Are we afraid to find out that many who call themselves Christians don’t have same fundamental faith as others and by their own admission too?

#5 - We have a confession of faith; the historic creeds of the undivided church, the Apostles, the Nicean, and the Athanasian.

#3 - when did you last hear anyone preach from the Book of Homilies? The 39 Articles are dead letters on all sides.  Go dig up and read “Against Rebellion” if you want a reminder of why.

“I am not persuaded that we need a Covenant…”

And I am not persuaded that we need Bishops and Deputies, given that we are no longer a Catholic or catholic body.

for #6.  A google search provides multiple answers.  Could you better iedntify “Against Rebellion” ?

#8 - It’s the 21st Homily of the second book and the text is online.  It’s effectively a discourse on the divine right of kings; and the key argument is this:

What shall Subiects doe then? shall they obey valiant, stout, wise, and good Princes, and contemne, disobey, and rebell against children being their Princes, or against vndiscreet and euill gouernours? God forbid: For first what a perilous thing were it to commit vnto the Subiects the iudgement which Prince is wise and godly, and his gouernement good, and which is otherwise: as though the foot must iudge of the head: an enterprise very heinous, and must needs breed rebellion.

Let me note that the Scots rejected this in the 14th century; arguably the English did earlier at Runnymede.
I challenge any preacher in the US to preach this one; especially on the first Sunday in July.

#6 and #9.  thanks.  not a preacher, just an avid reader and a former member of the Protestant Episcopal Church who has been left behind by TEC or ECUSA or whatever it is now called in polite circles.

6, and we have had people on this blog, who claim to be Christians,  deny everyone of them.  But the creeds are the Reader’s Digest of Scripture and the Church has never limited itself to just those alone.