Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Adoption urgently required for orphan child. Can you help?

I think even those who disagree with me on the Covenant would agree that if the Covenant is to have any kind of traction in the life of the Communion, let alone to "work" or be "effective" it needs to be adopted by member churches.

But what we have unfolding before our eyes is the Covenant being treated like an orphan child. You know, the awkward orphan child that prospective parents feel hesitant to commit to. "How about we foster the child for a while first and see if it works out?" Conditional adoption is not adoption and that's what we are getting. Let's not adopt the Covenant some churches are saying. Instead we will "accede" or "subscribe" to it. In a way these are synonyms for 'fostering'. Although 'accede' seems close to 'adoption' there are conditions attached, so I go for this being a version of fostering: if the child behaves, we will adopt.

Well, let's be clear, pro Covenanters: we need this child adopted not fostered!

PS. Plenty of discussion about these latest moves are going on. Thinking Anglicans has the links, but I note blogs I link to having their say here, here, and here. Tobias Haller is sort of (by my lights) an adopter, so check him out here.


Anonymous said...

I agree. The whole issue of the Covenant is coming up at our Synod this year.

Pew Potato said...

The present Covenant is a disaster. It flies in the face of Windsor that the primates council should take a greater role. Rowan removed an American and a Southern Coner from some irrelevant committee a while back for violations of the moratoria, yet Katherine Jefferts Schori, the Americans and their allies are at the centre of the Standing Committee.

Southeast Asia pointed out the fatal flaw in their preamble to the adoption of the Covenant.

Rowan is the problem. His successor will be much worse. The present covenant centralizes power in the ABC. Again, what a disaster.

liturgy said...

The reason the child isn’t being adopted in the cases you describe is because we were looking for a way to get from Christchurch to Wellington. What we needed was a plane, a train and boat, even a bicycle would have worked. But we’ve been offered a child (if they play with this child they might forget about the Christchurch-Wellington trip). Ummm… OK… we say respectfully, with British colonial reserve… ummm… OK, we’ll foster this child. Meanwhile the Christchurch-Wellington trip still needs to be done. So some, (those with less British reserve), are saying – we’ll take the child on the understanding that this child comes with tickets to Wellington.


Peter Carrell said...

Perhaps, Bosco! But on your analogy we would all be agreeing that we wanted to get from Christchurch to Wellington. It would be interesting to know how and when we came to that agreement.

Andrew Reid said...

Even those who "subscribe" or "accede" to the Covenant are doing better than Australia, who only agreed to send it to individual diocese for study and to report back before the 2013 General Synod. I guess the timing was the main issue, since there wasn't much time to debate the final text before the 2010 Synod was held. Stil, 3 years is a fair time to kick the can down the road, especially since it will most likely require individual dioceses to approve it, before a final vote at 2016 General Synod.

Father Ron Smith said...

Now Bosco! You surely spoke about the wrong destination here. Didn't you really mean Christchurch to Nelson? Nelson might be much nearer to Peter's idea of the sort of 'haven' we ought to reach for - in the present controversy.

Nelson has just exported its own adoptive child to become a bishop in CANA (U.S. not The Holy Land) -so IT may be more interested in adopting orphans out, rather than adopting them in.

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Ron,
I have alwys found Bosco to mean what he says and say what he means.

Christchurch is a very fine spiritual home, overseen by an orthodox bishop. What more could an evangelical desire than that?

The exported bishop you refer to grew up in the Auckland Diocese and went to King's College. His ministry education was at St John's College, Auckland. He arrived in the Nelson Diocese with much the same theological stance as he left. It is a bit of a worry what they teach at St John's College, isn't it?

Father Ron Smith said...

This future bishop's heart was obviously already already turned towards the evangelicalism of the Nelson Diocese. No doubt he thought he'd get something at St. John's College that was not available elsewhere - not even in Nelson! Perhaps that something was the ability to deal with proper exegetical discipline, which he has since left behind - in favour of subjective 'certainty'.