From Graham Kings at Fulcrum
This was a clear sign, very early on, that not all were likely to agree to the Covenant. Its content would not be just bland – there would be ‘teeth’ – and eventually a ‘two tier’ Communion would be likely to emerge, of those in the centre who will sign, and of those on the edge who will not. The Anglican Communion is involved in ‘intensifying’ its current relationships and those who do not wish to continue on that ‘intensifying’ trajectory may remain where they are – there is no force - while the centre of the Communion moves on. Not exclusion, but intensification and no group can veto this movement forward.
He mentions two categories: those who sign on to the Covenant and will be a full part of the Communion and those who don’t – and won’t. I can’t help thinking that there will be a third category: those who sign, but have no intention of living up to what they just signed.
And what is this obsession with the word ‘trajectory’; it makes it sound as if we are trying to hit the moon with a firework. Oh right, we are. Another word I’m sick of reading.
‘Intensify’ appears to be the latest euphemism for ‘exclude’. I admit, I can see potential here: orthodox parishes will belong to Intensified Provinces, while liberal parishes will have their Enervated Provinces.
Further down in the complete article, there is mention that the ‘interventions’ were only ever intended to be temporary (true) and that they will be no longer needed once the Pastoral Forum is in force (highly unlikely to be true).
How can anything useful come of all this waffle?
After a lengthy debate at parish council, it was agreed to put bibles in the pews so that the congregation could follow the readings -and expand them if they chose. The first Sunday after the bibles appeared, a good friend of mine (whose father is a minister) said to me “What are these here for? We’re Anglicans. We don’t read the bible.” Although cute at the time, in retrospect it appears smug narrow and dismissive.
This is a longwinded way of addressing the “two categories” issue. It seems to me that we have much more in common with our faithful brethren, both across the Tiber and in the Protestant fold, than we have with a whole slew of those we used to call fellow Anglicans.
In ANiC’s case, just look at the generosity of the Crossroads folk in opening up their facilities to us. Contrast that to the deceitful mean-spirited pursuit of the ACoC’s lawsuits against dissenting parishes and the despicable actions against our priests.
Trajectory assumes an inevitable direction. The only thing we know for sure is that God’s will be done.
Peace,
Jim
Jim (#1),
We do also have a lot in common with 80% of the world’s Anglicans represented by GAFCON.
But when I try and make any sense of what the people who are trying to hold – perhaps with the best of intentions – the shattered pieces of Anglicanism together, I find myself awash in a sea of meaningless sludge.
The ‘trajectory’ abomination is scattered abroad by liberals and conservatives with equal abandon.
[2] David
My remarks are grounded in the bedrock certainty of GAFCON unity.
Peace,
Jim
#1 It may be great to have bibles in the pews, but sometimes the ill-intentioned pick them up for photo ops.: see http://www.vanmag.com/articles/08sept/House.shtml (Page 4)