Why?
In forming a "tighter" Anglican Communion, whether on the basis of a Covenant or any other process, it is good to remember that there is always a danger of creating or further instituting an "us / them" regime. Even the Chicago / Lambeth Quadrilateral, for all its impulse towards breadth and inclusion, created clear boundaries. (A "quadrilateral" as Huntington used the word meant an area defended by four fortresses!) If our institutional reality is an incarnation of "us against the world" I'm not so sure it is a Gospel institution. To model the love of Christ — and his Incarnation — surely it must be "us for the world."
Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG
inspired by Christopher's comment on the previous post
Posts
6 comments:
Question: Why?
Answer: Power.
Fear.
I continue to think that a tighter communion based on the Marks of Mission (which have now been incorporated into the Covenant) could be a positive force for good.
The fact is that a blade can be a scalpel or a dagger depending on how it is used, and who is using it.
Tobias, your post reminds me of a sculpture which I saw while I was in Leeds, England, a couple of years ago. The sculpture is a large, domino-shape with the words "NO THEM ONLY US" painted on both sides. The art work and the words stuck with me, and I did a couple of posts on the sculpture and on the words, one relating the piece to the situation in the Anglican Communion inspired by Bishop Alan Wilson.
Of course, the words on the sculpture, which are taken from a speech by Bill Clinton, may be understood as a double entendre, with the intention either to include or to exclude.
"NO THEM ONLY US" ... may be understood as a double entendre, with the intention either to include or to exclude.
No "Them", Only "Us": inclusive.
No Them (allowed), Only Us (here): exclusive.
My 2c. [But which is the Covenant? With Rowan at the helm, the tendency is more towards the latter, it seems to me.]
JCF, I'd need to do some serious mind-bending to view the covenant as inclusive.
Post a Comment