As the Church of England's General Synod prepares for a crucial vote on the Anglican Covenant this week, there has been a revealing exchange of views over the weekend between Vinay Samuel and Chris Sugden on the one hand, and Andrew Goddard on the other. Despite having done an excellent job in exposing liberal hysteria in his earlier article "How and Why IC & MCU Mislead Us On The Anglican Covenant", http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=567 he has now produced an equally misleading account of his own in response to Samuel & Sugden.
In "Conservatives' covenant concerns: A critique"http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=568 Goddard argues that Samuel and Sugden's interpretation of the Covenant is as distorted as that of the revisionists. He rightly identifies their chief concern with the Covenant as being that in its present form it will lead to matters of truth being treated as matters of 'conviction' - in other words, as opinion and interpretation, a fear confirmed by the lack of any effective disciplinary mechanism in Section 4 of the Covenant. But Goddard argues that ' No evidence is offered for these central claims which look much more like the forcing of the covenant into the authors' own framework and projection onto it of what they are unhappy about in aspects of the present crisis - the mirror-image of the IC/MCU approach to the covenant'.