Knisely on the Anglican Covenant
Getting Down to Brass Tacks
The Rev. Nick Knisely provides important information about The Proposed Anglican Covenant. He has sought information about the process whereby the Church of England could "sign on" to the covenant being drafted. Because the CofE is an "established" church, he reports, "should the Covenant pass the Church of England Synod, it would then have to be adopted by the British Parliament as well."
Thus, he says, "the covenant is only useful if it is able to be adopted. . . . [U]nless the covenant is fairly mild in its language and intentionally irenic in intent - there's little chance that a broad majority of the Provinces of the Communion will adopt it."
All this leaves the Rev. Knisely optimistic about the covenant design process. I've found his writings to be intelligent and centrist, and I hope he is right about this. Go and read his full remarks.
The Rev. Nick Knisely provides important information about The Proposed Anglican Covenant. He has sought information about the process whereby the Church of England could "sign on" to the covenant being drafted. Because the CofE is an "established" church, he reports, "should the Covenant pass the Church of England Synod, it would then have to be adopted by the British Parliament as well."
Thus, he says, "the covenant is only useful if it is able to be adopted. . . . [U]nless the covenant is fairly mild in its language and intentionally irenic in intent - there's little chance that a broad majority of the Provinces of the Communion will adopt it."
All this leaves the Rev. Knisely optimistic about the covenant design process. I've found his writings to be intelligent and centrist, and I hope he is right about this. Go and read his full remarks.
It also strikes me as odd that if the covenant document is not mild and irenic, we could see quite an ironic result: the Church of England and Archbishop of Canterbury forced into second-class status in the Anglican Communion.
Now we're getting down to brass tacks.
posted by Lisa Fox at 1/14/2007 09:19:00 AM
2 Comments:
I am a radical, but all my adult life I have annoyed my fellow radicals by being pro-establishment and pro-monarch. I have always given two reasons for my position. Firstly, by having a monarch we don't have a president (I don't think I need to explain that further). Secondly, by being established there is always a safeguard against the hijacking of the Church by individuals or groups within the Church (including majorities which are the most dangerous threats to any democracy). There is a downside but I accept it willingly in order to have security for all members of the Church.
MadPriest! It's an honor to have you visit! Thanks -- and double thanks for your eminently sane comment.
I share your apparent concern about the tyranny of majorities. We have seen that in the U.S., as we have abandoned our republican form of government for a democratic one. No minority is safe now. States and cities are going after gay people, smokers, people who eat trans fats -- trans fats, for God's sake!! How can it get more ridiculous? No, don't answer that, or someone will find a way to "raise the bar" on stupidity.
And here's a confession for you: I'm also increasingly concerned about how the Episcopal Church has treated its own conservative minority. I think there are instances where we have not practiced the "inclusiveness" that we preach. In fact, I'm trying to screw up my courage to write a piece on that point, but I know I'll then get spitballs from both left and right.
Well ... I'm blathering on now, aren't I?
Post a Comment
<< Home