The serious and sometimes satirical reflections of a priest, poet, and pilgrim —
who knowing he has not obtained the goal, presses on in a Godward direction.
“a clear-sighted companion.... If you are passionate about the vitality of today’s church, I encourage you to accompany him on his mystagogical excursion into the liturgical landscape. You will rediscover a familiar place rife with fresh provisions planted by the God who longs to feed our deepest hungers and hopes.” —Jay Koyle, chair, Faith, Worship and Ministry of The Anglican Church of Canada
Your words are yours but I reserve the right to cite them or refer to them in other contexts
I will not post comments that are irrelevant or offensive.Note that Blogger limits comments to 4,096 characters.
Posts
9 comments:
Exactly. Imagine the wasteful ¨footprint¨ this Anglican Covenant has left already--nothing but costly, money and emotion, striving for ¨acceptable appearing¨ rejecting and punishing--a political movement at various provinces that ought be met with flat out rejection. There is nothing ¨loving¨ about rewarding abuse.
The "Anglican" Covenant is the perfect document for nurturing the co-dependency of our dysfunctional Anglican family.
It is so important that we do all we can to keep dad from drinking, because we all know that dad's drinking is our fault. We must be on our best behavior all the time. Dad will not love us otherwise.
Another play? More casting? Who's wants to try out for role of a tattler?
A good many of us who don't see the need for a covenant at all would be willing to live with the first 3 sections. In Section 4, tattlers rule. Do we want to live our lives together in the Anglican Communion under the rule of tattlers?
I've played the role of a parent trying to arbitrate between my children and their tattle tales. Who's at fault? What is justice in this situation? Most often, I'd come to a point of exasperation and say, "I don't want to hear any more tales. Work it out amongst yourselves."
What I could not say to my children is, "You are no longer part of the family."
I was reading through the Damn Thing once more today, continuing to be baffled by its incoherence -- especially in section 4. Is this for the Anglican Communion, or any church who wants to sign up? And in signing up they aren't necessarily part of the Instruments (4.1.4-5), and those Anglicans who don't sign up or who leave are not necessarily hit with "automatic" disengagement by or through the Instruments? (4.3)
It struck me, however, that the Introduction -- which is defined as an essential addition though not a part of the Covenant, might do on its own if we jettison the rest! If it is in fact the lens through which the Covenant is to be understood, (4.4.1) then let it be the Covenant. It actually sounds more like one than the rest.
Tobias, your comments on the Covenant get better and better. Leonardo, Charlie, and Mimi are right on target too.
Particularly while the Church of England is working her way through her present massive dysfunctionality on a number of levels, I think any Covenant, even a passably decent one, should be put on the back burner for a decade or two.
It struck me, however, that the Introduction -- which is defined as an essential addition though not a part of the Covenant, might do on its own if we jettison the rest!
Tobias, I just reread the introduction, and I believe your idea is brilliant. Let the introduction be the covenant!
Amen, Bill. The last thing I'd advise an engaged couple going through difficulties to do is get married "so as to work the problems out."
Mimi, I think I'll promote this idea; with your approval I realize I'm not totally out of my mind!
Tobias, thank you for reprinting the Introduction. (I have the text on my computer somewhere, but hadn't reread it for awhile until just now. I think you're quite right -- "Let the Introduction be the Covenant"!
"We recognise the wonder, beauty and challenge of maintaining communion in this family of churches" -- Yes!
I see problems also with Section 3's legitimization of the "Four Instruments" as being anything other than manifestations deriving from the Anglican Communion rather than (as the Vinginia and Windsor Reports claim) constitutive of the Communion.
It has been pointed out (I don't recall where) that the Primates' Meeting is more an Instrument of Disunity than one of either Unity or Communion.
Post a Comment