tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post1688385544030556599..comments2024-03-22T15:15:09.943-04:00Comments on Lionel Deimel’s Web Log: Covenant MusingsLionel Deimelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08363018512775944659noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-3529804046030772622011-06-06T17:30:21.028-04:002011-06-06T17:30:21.028-04:00And signing on in hopes of introducing amendments ...<i>And signing on in hopes of introducing amendments to fix a flawed text is really only a fantasy.</i><br /><br />I agree.June Butlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01723016934182800437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-62165045146103199892011-06-06T17:28:29.334-04:002011-06-06T17:28:29.334-04:00Thanks, Lionel.
I agree that signing on in order ...Thanks, Lionel.<br /><br />I agree that signing on in order to stay at the table is a mug's game. And signing on in hopes of introducing amendments to fix a flawed text is really only a fantasy. Once this puppy is in place there will be little or no interest in amending it. And how will we get 75% approval for amendments is we can't even agree how to sign on or what it is we are being asked to sign?Alan T Perryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11700037716579004059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-63665813810301499122011-06-06T15:14:50.688-04:002011-06-06T15:14:50.688-04:00Lionel, I have no problem with the phrase "mu...Lionel, I have no problem with the phrase "mutual responsibility and interdependence". My problem is with the meaning that Sumner assigns to the phrase.June Butlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01723016934182800437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-58725840338595673352011-06-06T07:39:02.594-04:002011-06-06T07:39:02.594-04:00Thank you, Grandmère Mimi, for your analysis of th...Thank you, Grandmère Mimi, for your analysis of the Sumner piece. When I read the essay in <i>The Living Church</i>, I lost track of how many ways I thought it was wrong.<br /><br />The thrust of the Toronto meeting was not that our doctrine must be of the lowest common denominator, so that no church is upset. Instead, “mutual responsibility and interdependence” was an anti-colonialist plea. The formerly colonial churches wanted to be treated like partners by the longer-established Western churches, not like colonies.<br /><br />I dealt with this at some length in my post “<a href="http://blog.deimel.org/2010/02/mutual-responsibility-and.htm" rel="nofollow">Mutual Responsibility and Interdependence</a>,” which I offer as an antidote to Sumner’s revisionist history. (Interestingly, my early essay drew heavily from an Anglican Communion Institute contribution.)Lionel Deimelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08363018512775944659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-26751450540741441202011-06-06T00:15:34.986-04:002011-06-06T00:15:34.986-04:00The 1963 Anglican Congress in Toronto came at the ...<i>The 1963 Anglican Congress in Toronto came at the high-water mark of Anglican prestige in the Global North, and yet it held up a much wider and deeper vision of the nature of communion in a prescient way. The Congress gave us the banner “mutual responsibility and interdependence” in which mission priorities in a parish in Canada or the United States should take into account the needs of partners in Ghana or Burma. The vision assumed the Communion to be a family of churches throughout the world, and church leaders throughout North America applauded it — no one complained that this sense of accountability was somehow un-Anglican (though getting churches to fund it was another matter).</i><br /><br />Sorry, but I had to post the rather long quote from Sumner's first paragraph to make my point. I don't agree with the writer's assumption that “mutual responsibility and interdependence” means the same as "sense of accountability".<br /><br />And then Sumner says:<br /><br /><i>This may well be true, if mission were only another word for marketing, and all we sought were the adaptation of the most saleable product.</i><br /><br />Who says "mission" is another word for "marketing"?<br /><br />And then the final sentence:<br /><br /><i>The Covenant is the providential means, in our time, by which we as global Anglicans may together be stewards of the mysteries of God to the nations, the very Gospel itself.</i><br /><br />As I see it, the suggestion that the Anglican Covenant is sent by God as the means to spread the Gospel today overreaches in the extreme.June Butlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01723016934182800437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-4023099574683191072011-06-05T21:36:19.604-04:002011-06-05T21:36:19.604-04:00It is worth noting that Bp Bayne, one of the prime...It is worth noting that Bp Bayne, one of the prime movers behing Mutual Resposibility and Interdependence, thought that the immediate goal was the forming of relationshops between people in the churches of the Communiion. The relationships that were formed between conservative Episcopalians and Anglicans in Africa may not have been what Bayne himself had in mind, but they seem to me to have been one expression of MRI.Daniel Weirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11430381764138066595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-19075752059287461642011-06-05T19:15:18.453-04:002011-06-05T19:15:18.453-04:00Thanks Bruce - I read the Sumner piece. TEC is hea...Thanks Bruce - I read the Sumner piece. TEC is heavily involved in the continuation of Mutual Responsibility and Interdependence even with those who disagree with us on the single issue of honestly gay and lesbian clergy or the various things that go on in other provinces. The proposed covenant is an open door to endless accusations and litigation. Seems like we are better off to focus on mission and let the Spirit decide what is of God and what is not.Annhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07287169546184325690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-18717049552281834332011-06-05T17:59:42.340-04:002011-06-05T17:59:42.340-04:00Hi Lionel,
In the midst of all, of course, there ...Hi Lionel,<br /><br />In the midst of all, of course, there are a few of us who think the "Covenant is a good thing as it stands," and who will make that case in the conversation leading up to and at General Convention next year. I do think George Sumner's piece last month was helpful and encourage folks, in the mix of your "No Anglican Covenant" collation, to take a look at it as well.<br /><br />http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2011/5/20/recognizably-anglican<br /><br />All best--<br /><br />Bruce RobisonBruce Robisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00193701138386039942noreply@blogger.com