tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post6537676535943709227..comments2024-03-28T22:29:52.666+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: Stating an Anglican position is tricky businessPeter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-4694109813166402702009-11-19T08:19:40.374+13:002009-11-19T08:19:40.374+13:00I think that Fr. Harris would agree that the punit...I think that Fr. Harris would agree that the punitive aspects of any proposed Anglican Covenant would have to go before it would be acceptable to a majority of Americans and Canadians. Minus the punitive aspects, a Covenant might well gather even my support.<br /><br />I agree with you, Fr. Carrell, that one must be careful about “innovation.” Change, in and of itself, is neither bad nor good. Being an Anglo Catholic (of the politically liberal, modern persuasion), I often times find myself on the liturgically “conservative” end of the stick. “Innovations,” such as PowerPoint presentations during services, bother me. <br /><br />Kurt Hill<br />Brooklyn USAKurthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10032216707367304535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-42073716861264940202009-11-19T07:48:59.519+13:002009-11-19T07:48:59.519+13:00Hi Kurt
The Covenant may be DOA in North America (...Hi Kurt<br />The Covenant may be DOA in North America (though Mark Harris of Preludium frequently asserts otherwise); and there may be 'reactionary' forces at work driving it forward (though I note that the most conservative grouping in the Communion, GAFCON, sit pretty light to the Covenant and whether it comes into being or not).<br /><br />Nevertheless I think the Covenant valuable and worth working towards. Take, for instance, the MCU claim that it will stifle 'innovation'. In my view 'innovation' is an ambiguous word. It attracts a sense (on the one hand) that a new something is a valuable something, and thus anti-innovation forces are bad. On the other hand 'innovation' can refer to things which are new-and-antithetical to well-being of (in this instance) a body or group. With regard to the latter, governance which prevents 'innovation' may be acting responsibly.<br /><br />Thus, in my view (and others) the possibility of a Diocese or Province unilaterally authorising lay presidency is an innovation which is antithetical to the well-being of the Communion (because it undermines our claim to be in continuity with the ancient undivided church. It ought to be prevented! The Covenant (many would argue) is a means to ensure the well-being of the Communion.<br /><br />Obviously much more can be said for/against ... but I will stop here!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-9458994844328572182009-11-19T03:22:58.161+13:002009-11-19T03:22:58.161+13:00I agree that the MCU attempted too much in one doc...I agree that the MCU attempted too much in one document. However, on one key aspect they are totally spot on:<br /><br />“Plans are afoot to turn this [temporary] reactionary mood into a permanent part of the Anglican Communion. The proposals for an Anglican Covenant are designed to achieve precisely this... Although there are some administrative reasons for favouring an Anglican Covenant, the driving force behind it is overwhelmingly the determination of conservative evangelicals to establish that homosexuality is immoral, active homosexuals cannot be bishops and churches cannot offer same-sex marriages. Behind this focus, however, lies an additional implication, fully intended: that it will be possible for the central Communion authorities to block any innovation by one province which another province finds objectionable.”<br /><br />This is totally unacceptable to the American and Canadian Churches (and to most progressives, and even moderate conservatives, elsewhere). It is the principle reason why the Covenant is dead on arrival here (at least as it is presently written). <br /><br />There are signs that here in America, at least, the post-WWII ascendancy of evangelicalism is over. Not having a crystal ball, I don’t pretend to know what school of thought will take its place. (Though, if I would venture a guess, it very well may be some kind of High Church Latitudinarianism).<br /><br />Kurt Hill<br />Brooklyn USAKurthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10032216707367304535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-85431253398816000532009-11-18T22:29:05.396+13:002009-11-18T22:29:05.396+13:00Peter - thanks for this. What really brought a sm...Peter - thanks for this. What really brought a smile to my face was thorough-going liberals declaring, "the increasing appeal to the individual conscience ... should be resisted". <br /><br />I couldn't agree more - just pleasantly surprised that ideological liberals are now saying this. <br /><br />I assume that this will now apply to a range of issues and not merely the consecration of women as bishops ...? In other words, the mind of the Tradition and the Communion will no longer be trumped by "individual conscience".<br /><br />Brian.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com