Comments: Friday news reports as synod gathers

It is interesting that Mr Petre puts inverted commas around the word Communion when refering to the Anglican Communion. I suspect it reveals where his sympathies are and permits one to read ALL his contributions (past, present, and future) with a certain scepticism.

Posted by Anglicanus at Friday, 6 July 2007 at 8:44am BST

I think implosion is probably the way forward.

Posted by L Roberts at Friday, 6 July 2007 at 10:58am BST

I note with concern how Iran is has emphasis in some of this thread's links.

Are some preparing to the rubber stamp for another military incursion?

Iran is developing nuclear weapon capacity and that is scary.

What is more scary is that nations need to develop nuclear capacity as that appears to be the only effective deterrent from nations that choose to aspire to be the next Roman or Babylonian empire. Who are ruthless and a law unto themselves and think their own honor comes before true justice. e.g. Habbakuk 1:5-11

Australian politics is in uproar as a government member let slip that the Iraq war was partly to do with controlling access to oil. Now souls tap dance to pretend there were no economic motivations.

God knows the truth of who has died from whom, and why.

Proverbs 11:16 "A kindhearted woman gains respect, but ruthless men gain only wealth".

Ezekiel 22:12-14 "In you men accept bribes to shed blood; you take usury and excessive interest and make unjust gain from your neighbors by extortion. And you have forgotten me, declares the Sovereign LORD. “ ‘I will surely strike my hands together at the unjust gain you have made and at the blood you have shed in your midst. Will your courage endure or your hands be strong in the day I deal with you? I the LORD have spoken, and I will do it."

Posted by Cheryl Clough at Friday, 6 July 2007 at 11:47am BST

On the Communion, I am thinking about the Commonwealth. It seems to be its "bonds of affection" and those who work within it might be able to provide some helpful input into our current difficulties. Much of our problem is about order, government and polity, obviously not all, but maybe some expertise from this quarter, analysis of its success and the why of that success might help us in our thinking. The current draft hands a blank check to the primates, 38 individuals with virtually no accountability and no lay participation. The Church of England is being asked to fast track this proposal with maybe a little tweaking. There are a couple of resolutions for consideration that would slow the process down and take time for important reflection and input. My thought is to get input from those, outside the religious debate, who are good at organizational structure and maybe managing coalitions. ...the genius of the Commonwealth.? and see if they can help? The draft was constructed by very small committee, two of whose members could not attend in what looks like a little better than a weekend. Britain doesn't have a constitution. But, in a sense, this document purports to be one. As the Americans can surely tell you, once you've got one, they are the dickens to amend. And once you have one, who will be its interpret its meaning? In this draft, that function appears to belong (as do most of the legislative and executive functions), to the primates.

The genius, if there is one at all of the American system is its "checks and balances" This draft has none and ironically, when it comes to this kind of document, maybe the politicians actually have something helpful to suggest? And again, the experience of those who work so successfully with Britain's own Commonwealth might be great input.

Posted by EPfizH at Friday, 6 July 2007 at 12:54pm BST

Interesting too the use of "plotting" and "scheme" to describe a group towards whom he seems favourably disposed. Am I wrong in assuming he is a conservative, or does he really not see how these vey apt descriptors suggest motives and methods that are anything but Christian?
"frustrating the efforts of liberals to promote their agenda."
"conservatives believe that this "seismic shift" will boost their power significantly."

are interesting. This frames the debate solidly as a power play, which it is, and puts paid to the lie that it is about some kind of desire for morality and holy living. This is just the rock the conservatives have chosen to founder on.

Posted by Ford Elms at Friday, 6 July 2007 at 2:01pm BST

A look at the Covenant, with a bit of history, happened on this BBC Radio 4 PM report (39 mins in):

Judith Maltby speaks historically. The C of E has the right to decide its own affairs - a key Reformation principle.

Christ Church Oxford - Marylyn Adams says Covenant to stop Churches determining their own affairs, stop them with specific blessings etc.

Wycliffe Hall is hosting a conference on Anglicanism's future but won't let journalists in. The Covenant is crucial, it says, to stop the Church of England fragmenting.

Graham Kings says a Covenant is needed just as the government now says it needs a written constitution [does it????].

Christopher Hill says the discussion should go forward - "cohere more better together".

Colin Slee concerned that Williams' supporters are giving up hope that he will stand up to people bullying the Church in a position he has never supported.

Posted by Pluralist at Friday, 6 July 2007 at 3:13pm BST

Mr Petre also names no-one involved in this supposed new "coalition" (another use for inverted commas). More spin and scare tactics I think.

Posted by Matthew Duckett at Friday, 6 July 2007 at 4:12pm BST

I don't think there is much chance that the Episcopal Church will agree to the terms of the present draft Covenant. Given the recent spate of irregular consecrations in North America, however, there is now a ready-made replacement province waiting in the wings if we are sidelined from the Anglican Communion. The Church of England can do exactly that on Sunday by giving up any further attempt to negotiate the terms of a Covenant and accepting Archbishop Gomez's draft "as is." So I think it is up to all of you now. Which Church would you really prefer?

Posted by Charlotte at Friday, 6 July 2007 at 11:39pm BST

An editorial in the Australian today comments: "...Our enemies do not believe in democracy or tolerance or liberalism. They despise our values." see,20867,22030505-7583,00.html The difficulty is they are not talking about conservative Christian power brokers. They are talking about highly educated souls who have embraced terrorism as an ideology and moved from one community to another, seeking out other lovers of violence and working to form cells with criminals who are prepared to go all the way...

After the World Trade Centre, many people commented about how parts of Islam had become dominated by aggressive interpretations centuries ago, and some still use aggressive strategies to maintain control.

Now we are seeing some power brokers for whom victory is everything. They do not seem to understand the price of their repressive control. They might win in the human arena, they might be able to censor and repress in the human arena. They might be able to have a Temple of Doom “beauty”. Yet God knows what happens behind closed doors, what each of us do, and why.

God made a promise of an everlasting covenant of peace and an end to tyranny and repression (Isaiah 54:7-11). God knows who is working to make that covenant manifest and who is colluding to thwart and sabotage that reality being made manifest. God knows who will be judged as an Edomite, who not only refused passage to others (even for a fee) (Numbers 20:14-21), but actively participated in the attacks on their cousins (see also Obadiah 1:10-14).

Obadiah is a great little book, see also:

"The pride of your heart has deceived you, you who live in the clefts of the rocks and make your home on the heights, you who say to yourself, ‘Who can bring me down to the ground?’ Though you soar like the eagle and make your nest among the stars, from there I will bring you down,”declares the LORD."


"...those who eat your bread will set a trap for you, but you will not detect it." e.g. God wanting both humanity and an inhabitable earth (made new by healing rather than replaced), justice on this earth as well as in heaven, Jesus despising slavery and oppression and thus imperialism, God's promises to the feminine; God being more than can be manifested by any one human in any number of years.

Posted by Cheryl Clough at Saturday, 7 July 2007 at 12:06am BST
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.