This item has been superseded by the item Confusion reigns over Covenant at ACC meeting.
Does anybody else ever wonder what on earth all this has to do with the hope of a baby in a manger and the promise of the empty tomb?
May 8, 2009 2:59 PM
I'm grateful for the efforts of Ian Douglas, which might enable the Communion to refocus on such important things as you name. I fear that with the present leadership of the Communion sensible proposals like this won't be heeded.
But that fear is not ultimate, precisely because of the baby in the manger and the empty tomb. God will keep on doing God's thing, even if we are behaving badly.
Bill Carroll |
May 8, 2009 3:42 PM
The Archbishop of Canterbury has manipulated this loaded ¨Covenant Design¨ and ¨Windsor Continuation¨ process from the start (obviously and spitefully in my opinion)...now, he sees he must take charge outwardly and speak against ANY changes (some have the nerve to question/change/amend his plans, plottings).
He may get the Covenant approved after lunch and it may be sent out ¨as directed¨...but, we all just got another CLEAR VIEW of the level of his insistance, arrogance, covert conniving and desperation.
It IS about ¨appearances¨ and HIM...silly me.
Leonardo Ricardo |
May 8, 2009 3:43 PM
If they pass section 4 as currently written with the back door for other churches and the cherry picking of Instruments for membership and "discipline" we should refuse to adopt it.
Those are reasons enough.
Michael Russell |
May 8, 2009 4:26 PM
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by
requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real
names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.
Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)