An Independent Voice Analyzes the Oxford “Introduction”
At his site William F. Hammond has published an analysis of Canon Rees’s “Introduction to the Anglican Covenant Debate.”
Hammond’s analysis is spot on and I recommend you read it if you are in a position to vote on the Covenant at any diocese or deanery event in any church. In a very short and logical paper he shreds what Fr. Malcolm French has dubbed the “babbling points” now being advanced by Lambeth staff. The idea that nothing much is happening here and you should simply vote yes and smile is contemptuous of your intellect and position. Hammond shreds the idea quite effectively, and I think he should be read.
For the record, I do not know Mr. Hammond, have never met or talked to him as far as I know. He is not a member of the Coalition, but he is certainly someone I hope to know down the road.
jimB
Labels: analysis
posted by JimB at
5:30 PM
5 Comments:
I'm pleased to read Hammond's succinct analysis.
As to the second point concerning the covenant's understanding of scripture, I've said for some time that the position of some of the African churches is precisely what Hammond exposes--a crossing over into the territory of sola scriptura. One of the African churches and primates (Nigeria if I am not mistaken) has gone so far as to indicate that the Archbishop of Canterbury is no longer Anglican because he declines to take the sola scriptura position; and therefore the Nigerian church's website no longer makes any reference to the Archbishop or the Church of England. The irony is, of course, obvious.
As I try to control my rancor, I suggest that those unable to subscribe to the tenets of Anglicanism proceed upon the path to which they believe themselves to be called. They will find no shortage of fellow-travelers in the fundamentalist fellowship. And if they are so enamored of copes, miters and other such, let them take those as well. This will, of course, leave the Anglican communion a much smaller fellowship than before. But the "claim to fame" of the Anglican way inheres, in part, in its reasonability. To me, allowing the communion to be held hostage by those unprepared to read the scriptures outside a pre-19th Century mindset can hardly be construed as reasonable. More pointedly, the well-documented hatred of Muslims, of gay people, and even of women found among those who do so do not seem faithful to the mind of Christ.
But, hey, that's just my opinion.
Danny,
I agree that the Covenant leads to some odd places. I am working on a longer comment on yours. Please give me a few hours, life intrudes.
FWIW
jimB
Sorry Danny, I got sidetracked.
If you look at my post today, you will see the problem I have with yours. I do not want anyone, not even the homophobes to leave. I really believe that the whole point of Anglican Comprehensiveness is continuing to agree to disagree. What troubles me about our ultra-orthodox friends is that they won't stay, refuse to tell me why and where they think I screw up every week, and do not shout at any of us enough.
FWIW
jimB
Thanks for calling attention to the Hammond paper. It is short, but it makes some important points.
As for not wanting anyone to leave, there are limits to diversity. I can tell you that the departure of a lot of folks from the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh has been a blessing. Tolerating the intolerant (i.e., those who know they are right and cannot stand everyone else who is wrong) is not a viable church strategy.
Hmmm.... I suppose one caveat to wanting everyone to stay is the requirement that they want the same. We lost some homophobes at Emmanuel when +Robinson was consecrated, and it was like turning on a light. They did not want to open the doors, or even let some of us bad, brash, evil, and progressive sorts stay.
Interestingly enough I know where most of them went, and I am tempted to quote Jesus, "They have their reward" as they have all now left that parish too.
FWIW
jimB
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]