Fighting off Covenant fatalism
Our friend Giles Fraser writes in the Church Times:
I think I have partly resigned myself to the fact that this Anglican Covenant thing is going to happen. Published in its final form last week, it reminds me of that awful statement of belief that Christian Unions force their speakers to sign before they are allowed to say a word to their students.In both cases, it is not so much the content that I object to. I object to the Covenant’s very existence. I’d object to it even if I agreed with every word.
Let me be clear. There is nothing wrong with the expression of mutual commitment, and for this mutuality to have a formal aspect. The marriage service, for instance, is precisely that. But the Anglican Covenant isn’t at all like the commitments of a marriage service. It is more like the anxious and untrusting legalism of that thoroughly distasteful feature of modern life, the pre-nuptial agreement.
But he isn't resigned. So read it all.

No linky thing appears here.
[Fixed. Thanks. - eds.]
Posted by susan s.
|
January 2, 2010 3:00 PM
Calling this catastrophe of a document a covenant, is partly resigning to it.
I admit to resigning to the fact that TEC should, out of respect, evaluate (and hopefully thoroughly repudiate), this document ... something I think is a profound waste of our precious resources. But budging on making this document sound somehow holy by calling it a covenant is, quite simply, blaspheme.
It was crafted in the hopes of holding our communion together but ironically it will be the thing that destroys any fibers of affection that remain between many parts of the communion.
I liken it to putting a leash on a wild animal. That doesn't tame the animal, it only makes it more wild, anxious and desperate. Only kind, patient, nurturing will have any calming effect on any wild animal OR our chaotic communion.
-Jadvar Johnson
Posted by jj
|
January 2, 2010 4:10 PM