The Anglican Covenant just will not go away. Here is the latest from Tobias Haller and In a Godward direction. His latest is Capacity and Potentiality. One of the drawbacks of the three-legged stool approach is rational people can disagree and must discuss. Tobias says we should support the covenant because it does not mean what it set out to mean and because it is better to be a part of the process where a process is inevitable. (Sure hope I got that right). I think Tobias Haller is a clear, rational, logical thinker who explores all avenues and comes to well-thought out conclusions. This time, he is just wrong.
The Anglican Covenant is a bad idea. If the Anglican Communion wants to stay together it has all the wherewithal right now. Been together since 1878 or so been functioning just fine for lo these many years. Did I mention that the Anglican Covenant is a bad idea? We can put lipstick on that pig but whose gonna kiss the pig? A bad idea is a bad idea and no amount of ribbons and bows is going to make it more attractive. You want a covenant? See the baptismal covenant? You want a covenant, see the two great commandments? You want to use and abuse people? See GAFCON/FCA/CANA and the rest of the alphabet soup.
Being a part of the process merely legitimizes the process, especially for those that look to The Episcopal Church of the Untied States for Leadership? Being a part of the process compromises the Episcopal Church's stance on inclusivity. Being a part of the process sounds a little like 1939, especially as it involves the LGBT community.
Sometimes a little rebellion is a good idea, just ask Thomas Jefferson. If the only choice is the Anglican Covenant with the Anglican Communion or no Anglican Communion. Well, to the Anglican Communion I will say, "Don't let the door hit you on the way out."
H/T Tobias Haller
A Place for Discussion
2 comments:
Fred,
NOte what SE Asia says in their preamble. As Bosco Peters says
The issue is homosexuals. The Covenant is not about homosexuals but is the touted solution. So we will sign the Covenant, which says absolutely nothing about homosexuals, on the now-public understanding that in signing it we are actually signing not what the Covenant says but our own “solution” to the homosexual issue. And for good measure: part (d) in contradiction to what the Covenant actually does say.
who knew Teh gay had so much power? Get over it people!
I just cannot believe that we should back the Anglican Covenant. I am quite disappointed in those who think such a "compromise" is necessary. It would be disingenuous to subscribe to such an idea at this stage.
Just my humble opinion.
Post a Comment