My mum is staying at the moment, and as she attends an Anglican Church, I asked her if she had heard about the Covenant. Of course she hadn't - it seems to have been very little talk about it, perhaps because if people knew about it, they wouldn't like it (see post here). I then somehow got on to explaining about the upcoming primates meeting:
By the end of it my mum looked incredulous, and I felt ashamed. How childish it really is. How can i hold my head up high and say I am a priest in the Anglican Communion when this is going on?
8 comments:
Not to say it isn't a bad thing, but surely there has always been a 'student union politics' side to organised religion. It normally seems to be associated with the Roman Catholic Church - not, I think, because they are necessarily worse than other denominations, but because they do it with such panache (and period costume).
I mean, go and look at Damian Thompson's blog. When he is not predicting the demise of the C of E, he's always telling us about back-room deals, political scheming and fluctuations in the balance of power between evil 'Eccleston Square' liberals and heroic ultramontanists as they battle over red hats, the fate of the world and the number of candles one should really have on the high altar.
Reading about the history of the papacy on Wikipedia suggests 'twas ever thus.
I suppose true religion is what goes on in spite of all this. Perhaps it is the problem with an hierarchical model of the church: political sorts can float to the top, and wield disproportionate influence from there. IIRC Ignatius of Loyola demanded of his Jesuits that they refrain from pursuing higher office. I also recall a Lord Justice of Appeal muttering that the higher up one gets, the more rareified the air of common sense becomes...
Anyway, I am not an expert on the workings of the Anglican machine so this is just a suggestion, but: look what the Reform and F-i-F anglo-catholics are now saying: "we always thought General Synod was a jolly good show, rules of cricket sort of thing, but now we realise that the Other Side are treating it like parliament, and voting in politicised blocks, so we will too." And, according to their last press release (about having a blocking third), it seems to be working.
So why not drum up some support for an anti-Covenant party (if it's not already too late)? At the very least, the pro-Covenanters would then have to explain in greater detail why it is A Good Thing.
Or have I misunderstood the way things work?
Lesley, there's nothing like trying to explain something to someone who may not share your own assumptions to make you see what it looks like to an outsider.
As I hope you will have realised from earlier comments, I am not a supporter of the Anglican Covenant. But I still think it is worth asking (and I mean really asking and trying to understand) what the world looks like to those who have drafted it and support it. What is it that seems under threat? What is it in or about the Covenant that challenges my own world-view, and might any of it actually be justified?
One of the reasons I dislike labels and parties (of the political kind in Synod or elsewhere) is the tendency that then develops to close down questions and to begin to judge and devalue others who do not belong to the party or agree with the party line. Of course it is (at least from one perspective) much easier to toe a party line and devlop knee-jerk responses. But when were we ever called to an easy path?
On the gay marriage angle, this popped up through a twitter route:
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2004/02/20/i-am-married/
Lesley, certain conservative primates object to Bishop Katharine's presence simply because she is a woman, and thus, to them, not a real bishop. That she supports the ordination of openly gay and partnered persons and same sex marriage is the icing on the cake.
It is indeed embarrassing to start from scratch to explain the conflict to someone who has not been following along.
thanks for your comments.. I quite like politics, in the good sense of the word, but pettiness I find tough.
Ron, I almost wrote a blog post starting 'how does gay marriage affect my marriage..?' and then remembered that I'm not. I was a bit stuck at that point!
Lesley
Thanks (on behalf of those of us who think the Anglican Covenant is a bad thing but don't really know what to do about that)for keeping going with this issue.
One suggestion is to attack the Covenant on grounds expressly designed to resonate with its supporters/opponents alike. I.e. that it is unbiblical.
Can't you muster the odd proof verse to demonstrate it unbiblicality? Or better still some theoretical reflection. Perhaps you've done this before and I've missed it?
One thing I don't understand is the term 'Covenant'. Is it really a covenant or is it a covenant masquaerading as a contract? If its really a contract then surely this is just the sort of deal Jesus eschews in the Wilderness when being tempted.
Just rambling really but you see where I am going?
I would like to write to my synod reps – but I’m not exactly sure how to word my letter. – Is there a draft letter anywhere that individuals could adapt – or a list of key points? – If not would it be worth producing one?
I suppose I should attempt something myself and then offer it for comment.
My own concerns include the fact that this covenant will significantly change the nature of the Anglican Communion yet it is being slipped through with a minimal amount of debate.
Of course it is only relatively recently that the CofE became effectively self- determining – having previously been subject to Parliament. – But members of Parliament were accountable to the British electorate so it made some sense that they should determine the direction of the nation’s church. – Under the terms of the covenant, however, I read that it will be a standing committee (is that of the Anglican Consultative Council?) who will effectively exercise a determining role. – So how are they accountable and to whom? And how well placed are they to determine what is right for the cultural setting in which the CofE lives?
And then there’s the question of cost. – Could there be costly legal disputes between provinces? – Who will pay?
Anyway, if anyone already has a draft letter, or is planning to write one, or can answer my questions, I would be keen to see what they have to say.
And thank you Lesley for providing these posts and this space.
Mike, great thoughts - still working on them.
DaviGoss, is this any help?
Post a Comment