The Anglican Covenant ignores the problem of evil?
Writing in Ekklesia Savi Hensman makes the observation that in addition to the often-stated criticisms of the Anglican Covenant, it also appears to ignore the problem of evil:
Anglican Covenant ignores the problem of evil
From Ekklesia (UK)
There have been many criticisms of the proposed Covenant currently being considered by the various churches in the Anglican Communion. Critics have pointed out that this Covenant sets out to replace a theologically diverse fellowship, in which provinces are autonomous but seek to grow in understanding together, with a centralised structure which may discipline or exclude those who do not conform.The importance of being open to the Holy Spirit and seeking the truth on controversial matters is not adequately recognised. The role of lay people and parish clergy is downplayed. Moreover the Covenant is widely seen as one-sided, aimed at punishing certain provinces for supposed failings while allowing all kinds of other concerns to go unheeded.
Less attention has been given to the disturbing approach to unity which ignores the problem of evil.
I think the proposed Covenant confuses conformity with unity. The two are far from the same: enforced conformity will always lead eventually to division. I suggest the proposers review the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral and reflect on the fact the Church has found it sufficient until now.
Posted by Peggy Blanchard +![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
November 3, 2010 8:43 PM
Savi's thoughts may be way over my head theologically. But I wonder if what she's saying is what we mean to be saying when we say an action (say, of The Episcopal Church) is "prophetic"? In our baptismal vows we don't promise to be prophetic (that is, claim we know what God wants), rather we promise to resist evil (even at the cost of being excluded).
Posted by John B. Chilton![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
November 3, 2010 10:20 PM
John, I think you have nailed the nail right on the head!
Good stuff,
Peter Carey+
Posted by Peter![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
November 3, 2010 10:35 PM
Savi Hensman's essay offers a theologically insightful critique of an aspect of the Anglican Covenant by inviting readers to consider whether the document makes proper provision for the means by which we as baptized Christians resist evil.
In 2007, the Rev Dr Louis Weil lectured that the baptismal commitment - "to continue in the apostles' teaching and fellowship; to continue in the breaking of bread, and in the prayers; to persevere in resisting evil, and if we sin to repent and return to the Lord; to proclaim by word and example the Good News of God in Christ; to seek and serve Christ in all persons; to strive for justice and peace among all people; and to respect the dignity of every human being,” - was meant to become a constant basis for reflection and a reference point for catechetical instruction. He further explained that "the final commitment, to strive for justice and peace and to respect the dignity of every human being, was for us on the Commission the fulfillment of Paul's wonderful words that "there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither bond nor free, neither male nor female,” in its extensive implication that there must be neither black nor white, neither gay nor straight … and the list will continue as long as human beings struggle for justice in the name of Christ."
What Savi Hensman urges us to consider is whether the Anglican Covenant makes adequate provision for ways in which we live out our Baptismal vows to resist evil both in the world and within our Christian communities. After all, as Dr Weil points out, both Hitler and Stalin were baptized. Savi Hensman's provocative essay deserves serious reflection and I thank her for giving us this opportunity.
Posted by deirdregood![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
November 4, 2010 8:14 AM