I'm simply gobsmacked by the intellectual dishonesty of Bishop Cameron, who would have us debate "the text of the Covenant" completely divorced from its context.
I understand why he is calling for this. Divorced from the context, he and his ilk can ignore the manner in which "recommendation" has become Lambeth-speak for "fiat," and the manner in which childish threats to walk away are indulged by the faux-liberalism of the Lambeth bureaucracy.
I'd thought his ridiculous accusations of fascism were simply an overwrought reaction to the savaging of a document of which he is the principle author. Now I think his odious rhetoric was more than deliberate.
I am not at all surprised by the "intellectual dishonesty" of Bishop Cameron. The right wing of organized Fundamentalists in America presents itself in very much the same way. Honesty goes out the door as they try to poison the waters. In America, we call them "thugs" because they have lost their decency.
"I'm simply gobsmacked by the intellectual dishonesty of Bishop Cameron, who would have us debate 'the text of the Covenant' completely divorced from its context."
How about divorced from its text, also? He says there is nothing coercive in it, but seems conveniently to forget about the "relational consequences". Is that not coercion?
relational consequence = we need to see other people
To see how the covenant will work, re-read the Primates Statement from Dar es Salaam. It was an attempt to carve the Episcopal Church into pieces, put the piece that resisted progress on LGBT issues under the authority of the Primates of other provinces, and call them the real Anglicans.
The answer must be a resounding NO.
The whole tenor and text is against all that has been positive in the Church of England, and Anglican Communion over many many years. The Via Media, and the writings of Richard Hooker speak of the breadth and inclusivity of the church.
The convenant is no way forward, lacking in charity, and full of double speak.
Kill it before it does more damage. The right wing thinking bishops just love it, kill it now.
Bishop Cameron talks about the 'trust' that was lost within the Anglican Communion when TEC went forward with the episcopal ordination of Bishop Gene in New Hampshire. What he makes absolutely no mention of the 'trust' that might have been endangered in the Churches of the Communion by the Church of England's decision to create what it has been pleased to call 'Flying Bishops', to minster to a group of people who disagreed with the Mother Church's decision to ordain women as priests in that Church. This was a move which was seen by many of us in the Communion as of far greater significance than the matter of ordaining a gay bishop or the blessing of same-sex unions.
Is the Church of England immune to charges of having changed the 'catholic' structure of the Church by ordaining episcopi vagantes - rather than allowing local bishops to exercise their lawful jurisdiction in their own diocese?
Good point Fr Ron. There is nothing about gay bishops in the canons of the Ecumenical Councils, but there is about bishops retaining oversight of their dioceses! One person's novelty is not another's.
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.