on Tuesday, 19 June 2007 at 11.15 am by Simon Sarmiento
categorised as General Synod
Annex 2 of GS 1661, the paper by the Bishop of Chichester, is now available here.
Subscribe
7 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
badman
17 years ago
This seems to damn the Covenant idea with rather faint praise. And the suggestion that this is all being terribly rushed is a veiled criticism of the process in itself.
Well that didn’t amount to much. He needs to describe how Anglicanism is distinctive, then, and if he cannot then it is stuck with disagreement, unless this is understood too. Here’s a telling point: _Depressing though it is to admit, support for and opposition to the idea of a covenant usually tends to reveal immediately where people stand on some of the more substantive theological and moral questions involved in our present crisis._ This is precisely why the Covenant is adding to division, as if it could cure the gap. He says: _“Nothing” will lead to irreparable damage to the… Read more »
drdanfee
17 years ago
The undertow in the bishop’s discussion reminds me so powerfully of just why we NOW suffer a conservative realignment campaign: The new Anglican conservatives, reinvigorated by the opportunities to denounce homosexuality in no uncertain terms, are also taking this occasion to denounce everybody for not being as serious about following Jesus of Nazareth as they claim they are. We are in deep crisis, because they are serious and everyone else is lacking. What, exactly, is missing from the seriousness of the rest of us? Could it be penalisms of all forms and sorts? Could it be our Anglican Global North-South-Central… Read more »
Curtis
17 years ago
Amen drdanfee.
It would be a huge mistake to enshrine a maladaptive covenant into permanence because of a hasty over-reaction to a created crisis. It would equally mistaken to lose ones way to the graven image of maladaptive dogmatism. A lot of us already have.
“It should indicate those areas of faith (including morals) and order where unanimity of heart and mind belong to the nature of the faith itself and are essential for Eucharistic communion.” My concern is whose morals should we be adopting? Those who worry about the “immorality” of being compassionate to GLBTs but are indifferent or even condone the slandering and bashing of women? There is also an inference that being immoral in once sense means you are unsuitable in all senses. Moses was deemed unfit to enter the Holy Land because he used force when he struck the earth for… Read more »
“I argue for an Anglican Covenant but not for any Anglican Covenant” But members of the GS (and other Provincial legislatures) will not get a look in on the content. The process (except in TEC) is to seek approval in principle now, to get endorsement of a revised draft at Lambeth 2008, and approval of a further revision at the ACC in 2009. Then each Province will be told – here’s the text, it’s not open for amendment because it has the approval of all the international Instruments of Unity. Please endorse it. Legislative bodies will not get the opportunity… Read more »
This seems to damn the Covenant idea with rather faint praise. And the suggestion that this is all being terribly rushed is a veiled criticism of the process in itself.
This is getting interesting.
Well that didn’t amount to much. He needs to describe how Anglicanism is distinctive, then, and if he cannot then it is stuck with disagreement, unless this is understood too. Here’s a telling point: _Depressing though it is to admit, support for and opposition to the idea of a covenant usually tends to reveal immediately where people stand on some of the more substantive theological and moral questions involved in our present crisis._ This is precisely why the Covenant is adding to division, as if it could cure the gap. He says: _“Nothing” will lead to irreparable damage to the… Read more »
The undertow in the bishop’s discussion reminds me so powerfully of just why we NOW suffer a conservative realignment campaign: The new Anglican conservatives, reinvigorated by the opportunities to denounce homosexuality in no uncertain terms, are also taking this occasion to denounce everybody for not being as serious about following Jesus of Nazareth as they claim they are. We are in deep crisis, because they are serious and everyone else is lacking. What, exactly, is missing from the seriousness of the rest of us? Could it be penalisms of all forms and sorts? Could it be our Anglican Global North-South-Central… Read more »
Amen drdanfee.
It would be a huge mistake to enshrine a maladaptive covenant into permanence because of a hasty over-reaction to a created crisis. It would equally mistaken to lose ones way to the graven image of maladaptive dogmatism. A lot of us already have.
“It should indicate those areas of faith (including morals) and order where unanimity of heart and mind belong to the nature of the faith itself and are essential for Eucharistic communion.” My concern is whose morals should we be adopting? Those who worry about the “immorality” of being compassionate to GLBTs but are indifferent or even condone the slandering and bashing of women? There is also an inference that being immoral in once sense means you are unsuitable in all senses. Moses was deemed unfit to enter the Holy Land because he used force when he struck the earth for… Read more »
“I argue for an Anglican Covenant but not for any Anglican Covenant” But members of the GS (and other Provincial legislatures) will not get a look in on the content. The process (except in TEC) is to seek approval in principle now, to get endorsement of a revised draft at Lambeth 2008, and approval of a further revision at the ACC in 2009. Then each Province will be told – here’s the text, it’s not open for amendment because it has the approval of all the international Instruments of Unity. Please endorse it. Legislative bodies will not get the opportunity… Read more »
Yes Paul Bagshaw, the necessity then of rejecting this Covenant comes earlier than it might otherwise have been.