on Thursday, 14 December 2006 at 10.43 pm by Simon Sarmiento
categorised as Church of England
Fulcrum has published this Initial Response to the ‘Covenant for the Church of England’.
Fulcrum’s own forum discussion on this matter can be found here.
Fulcrum’s “initial” response says: “Whilst the provenance, process and representative authority of the ‘covenant for the Church of England’, which was presented to the Archbishop of Canterbury on 12 December 2006, are still very much contested issues, some initial comment from Fulcrum may be helpful.”
Would it not suffice to say “… the provenance, process and representative authority are still” unknown…
Quote: “Fulcrum strongly questions the representative process of the publication of this ‘covenant’, eg in that it was not on the agenda, nor amongst the papers, of CEEC meetings”
So, once again, a document has been issued which was not written collaboratively, agreed, or seen by all the supposed “signatories”. We’ve seen this one before. I know these guys claim to be against innovations but I’d like a new trick ’cause this one is boring!
Sarah They aren’t against innovation. They’ve done it before. 😉 But I love that people like you have the wisdom to spot it. It’s much harder to covertly sabotage when people make overt what they hoped was too subtle to be noticed. I read Annan’s call to overcome Israeli-Palestinian mistrust this morning http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=21005&Cr=palestin&Cr1= Some of the comments could apply as much to the Anglican Communion as to their conflict. For example: “Our challenge is to convince the people on each side that these majorities exist on the other side, while showing that the spoilers and rejectionists are a distinct minority.”… Read more »
Oh Sarah, but that was n a u g h t y!