October 25, 2010

Thought for 10.25.10

If the Anglican Covenant would work (in keeping things together) we wouldn't need it. If it wouldn't work (in keeping things together) why have it?

It is a tissue of aspirations barely cloaking a pessimistic mistrust.

It is a relatively pointless (v. supra) exercise in ecclesiastical self-absorption.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG
back from London


susan s. said...

As I agree with you, further comment would be pointless.

Welcome home.

Closed said...

At a time when we need to be thinking flexibility, network, and contextuality as catholicity, it would seem that the AC is thinking of preserving structures and ways of thinking structurally that will no longer serve God's mission in post-Christendom catholicism. Less on top and more dispersal is a strength Anglicans can bring to this if we dare to honor our present ecclesiological untidiness.

June Butler said...

Welcome back, Tobias. Is your thought for the day inspired by your visit to London?

Yes, yes, and yes to your thought.

Unknown said...

Your comment understates the matter. About a year ago, I heard Ephraim Radner give a lecture on the proposed Covenant. In answer to the question, why is this thought to be necessary now (since we have had plenty of disagreements in the past and managed to survive them)?, he answered that we need a Covenant because the bishops of the communion don't trust one another anymore. Right from the horse's mouth.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG said...

Thanks for the comments. Good to be back.

Susan, why yes! ;-)

Christopher, my sentiments echo this. Top down "managed" church seems unfruitful. Anglican variety is a gift of the Spirit.

Mimi, only in part... more from a post at TA, t'wards which I neglected to tip the hat.

Nous, fortunately Ephraim is not a bishop, and is projecting his own mistrust, or rather distrust. He incarnates the very dilemma he seeks to solve. Ultimately, as I say, law will not engender trust, but is a prerequisite for having law. The problem now is that, for instance, TEC is charged with breaking a law that is not in fact a law (but an advisory resolution of a non-governing assembly), while the Global South is actually breaking laws that are laws (re the Canons of the church concerning exercise of episcopal jurisdiction in another's diocese). The real lawbreakers are calling for "more law"! If there is anyone I don't trust, it is them.