At least, that is the way I am reading this analysis from Anglican Curmudgeon posted here. Curmudgeon is interested in a range of matters concerning the composition of the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion. In various ways it is looking quite unbalanced.
Some may say that is because various people have resigned who should have stayed around.
Why did they resign?
How come TEC has so many bishops on this important committee?
Well, not to worry too much: if they misplay their cards in the game they are playing, there will be consequences.
And a committee to blame!
Again, I think it is a bit difficult to understand what your point is. I think it might be: you and others were very supportive of the "Anglican Covenant" - when many others said, it won't work in practice, especially not part 4 & the SC's place there. Now, as the rubber starts to hit the road, you are starting to say - actually... it may not work in practice.
If you wonder how everyone got to be on the SC, your own link gives that.
For the Covenant to work in practice as a document guiding the whole Communion in its life as a Communion, with particular relevance when one part of the Communion is a odds with another, it requires all member churches of the Communion to sign up to it; and it requires those signing up members to work together in the spirit of the Covenant as well as with the letter of the Covenant.
I believe with all my heart that this could have happened. I believe it could still happen, but right now the whole Communion is not committed to seeing the process of signing up through to fruition. Thus in practice the Covenant may well not work; it may not even come into existence; but it will not be for the reasons that some have been predicting.
Post a Comment