It's hard to unscare people

Do you think people run around scared a lot? I do. I was interested in this piece that Canon Alan Perry wrote:

Reading the paper yesterday, I was interested in an article about the scandal of the falsified study linking childhood vaccines to autism. Although the initial study has been thoroughly discredited as a fraud, and numerous attempts to replicate the results have failed, there is still great fear that a link might exist and so parents are putting their children at risk of serious diseases by refusing vaccination. This quote from Dr Paul Offit, of Children's Hospital in Philadelphia, leapt out:

"It's very hard to unscare people. You can do study after study, but people are far more compelled by their fears than by their reason."

It strikes me that that's a pretty good description of what's going on in Lambeth Palace and the Anglican Communion Office these days. There's a lot of people who seem to be far more compelled by their fears than by their reason.

Over and over again, I find that if I act out of fear it is the wrong decision. It is a motto of mine to act only out of love, and not fear. I do get sick of feeling scared - I spent many years as a child and young adult being afraid. I think life in all its fullness is a life without fear. Let us model this as Christians, as Anglicans, as Human Beings. I am a strong believer that if we take a step backwards in the face of fear, then the fear will take a step forwards, and we will be boxed into ever smaller places. Fear stops us being free, and the Anglican Covenant is an example of the fruits of such fears.

Covenant smack down on BBC

The Rev. Lesley Fellows, who serves as Moderator of No Anglican Covenant Coalition and our Convener in the Church of England, and the Bishop of St. Asaph Gregory Cameron, who was on the committee that drew up the Covenant, were interviewed by Edward Stourton, November 7, on his weekly BBC “Sunday” program.

Stourton sought to discover why a Covenant was needed at this time, asking Cameron, “But, to be clear, it is about controlling what different bits of the church believe really, isn’t it, particularly in the light of the fact that it comes from the row over the ordination of a gay Bishop in the United States?

Cameron responded, “It depends what you mean by the word ‘control’.”

Fellows followed up by emphasizing that the Covenant as proposed is not Anglican at all, “I think it’s about whether we think we’re a church where we can have different opinions and live together and worship together, or whether we think we’re a church where we all have to believe the same thing. Traditional Anglicanism is a very broad church.”

Cameron tried to defend his earlier slam against those who opposed the Covenant, where he called them “Little Englanders” and “just like the BNP” (xenophobic groups in England) by saying he was shocked that anyone would oppose the document that in intended to hold the Communion together.

Fellows said, “I think actually the Bishop’s got a very difficult argument [that says] ‘We can’t have control without discipline, and then they say, ‘Oh well, it’s not about discipline.’ But the Covenant does say there are relational consequences for controversial actions; that sounds to me punitive.”

Cameron seemed unable to clarify his stance that it was not punitive and how it would work to bring people closer together through separation.

Here is Mr. CatOLick's impression of the interview, he wonders if Mr. Cameron, when making his “little Englanders” and “BNP” comments about those who oppose the Covenant, was only a bit shocked then what would Mr. Cameron say if he were really shocked?

More here.