Amazing. One speech on the Covenant topic...just one and it puts everything in to great clarity and perspective...this is the ¨opposing¨ video that would be most effective (I think) to Rowan Williams pro-covenant video snarl which is to be presented at upcoming Church of England Synods. Night and Day, life or death (of the Anglican Communion).
It's true Leonardo James Jones is beginning to surprise us all ... pleasantly.
Is it true Leonardo that Williams' video is to be presented at upcoming Synods? If it is it smacks of ... something ... desperation perhaps, but it might well swing things in a pro-Covenant direction; although whether he can get eleven synods on board, I don't don't know?
This man, Bishop Jones of Liverpool, is so even and clear...he also is kindly and isn´t campaigning as much as simple explaining (which is best) and then, as at the introduction, he invites everyone to have their own opinions registered...invites! Wow, this is the guy, if he has the physical stength (his spiritual and emotional seem healthy) to be the next ABC...but what do I know? I live at the bottom of a active volcano in Central America -- how wise can that be?
I would just say glad as I am to see James Jones' intervention (and the other bishops who have voted against) I can't help feeling slightly irritated that there was no support from any bishop when we were fighting the covenant in General Synod- then the support was mainly expressed in the tea room. If James Jones and others had been a bit more up front then in the face of Tom Wright, Michael Nazir-Ally & Rowan we might have avoided this protracted battle in the dioceses.
Maybe. I'm sure that explicit episcopal opposition would have changed the dynamic of the Covenant in Synod, but I doubt the voices would have been strong enough to prevent its progress. (It might even have raised the quality of argument for it.)
However, I don't think we could have avoided referral to the dioceses. Norman Doe in his book on the Covenant argued (against me) that it wouldn't be necessary. I, for one, am pleased it has been referred.
This is not just because it has proved possible to challenge the Covenant in the dioceses in a way we never imagined earlier. It is also because the terms of the earlier debates were deliberately general.
For example, Modern Church was prevented from submitting a paper to Synod members on the St Andrew's Draft Covenant because, we were told, debate would be on the principle of the Covenant, not the detail of the actual draft.
If this had continued (and general endorsement has consistently been the tone of the commendation to dioceses) there would never have been an opportunity to point people to the actual text, to explain what its weasel words meant in implementation, or to enable a much wider group to address its implications.
But I accept I wasn't there and my view is an outsider's.
Amazing. One speech on the Covenant topic...just one and it puts everything in to great clarity and perspective...this is the ¨opposing¨ video that would be most effective (I think) to Rowan Williams pro-covenant video snarl which is to be presented at upcoming Church of England Synods. Night and Day, life or death (of the Anglican Communion).
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing this,
Leonardo Ricardo
It's true Leonardo James Jones is beginning to surprise us all ... pleasantly.
ReplyDeleteIs it true Leonardo that Williams' video is to be presented at upcoming Synods? If it is it smacks of ... something ... desperation perhaps, but it might well swing things in a pro-Covenant direction; although whether he can get eleven synods on board, I don't don't know?
I have heard that Lincoln Diocese is planning to show the video and little if anything by way of balance.
DeleteEach Diocese is doing its own thing and I guess it will reflect the working relationship between Bishop and Synod as much as the issue.
This man, Bishop Jones of Liverpool, is so even and clear...he also is kindly and isn´t campaigning as much as simple explaining (which is best) and then, as at the introduction, he invites everyone to have their own opinions registered...invites! Wow, this is the guy, if he has the physical stength (his spiritual and emotional seem healthy) to be the next ABC...but what do I know? I live at the bottom of a active volcano in Central America -- how wise can that be?
ReplyDeletePrayers for Mexico, they just had another earthquake.
ReplyDeletePrayers indeed. And wisdom comes in many forms.
DeleteLeonrdo's situation adds perspective!
DeleteI would just say glad as I am to see James Jones' intervention (and the other bishops who have voted against) I can't help feeling slightly irritated that there was no support from any bishop when we were fighting the covenant in General Synod- then the support was mainly expressed in the tea room. If James Jones and others had been a bit more up front then in the face of Tom Wright, Michael Nazir-Ally & Rowan we might have avoided this protracted battle in the dioceses.
Brian Lewis
Brian,
ReplyDeleteMaybe. I'm sure that explicit episcopal opposition would have changed the dynamic of the Covenant in Synod, but I doubt the voices would have been strong enough to prevent its progress. (It might even have raised the quality of argument for it.)
However, I don't think we could have avoided referral to the dioceses. Norman Doe in his book on the Covenant argued (against me) that it wouldn't be necessary. I, for one, am pleased it has been referred.
This is not just because it has proved possible to challenge the Covenant in the dioceses in a way we never imagined earlier. It is also because the terms of the earlier debates were deliberately general.
For example, Modern Church was prevented from submitting a paper to Synod members on the St Andrew's Draft Covenant because, we were told, debate would be on the principle of the Covenant, not the detail of the actual draft.
If this had continued (and general endorsement has consistently been the tone of the commendation to dioceses) there would never have been an opportunity to point people to the actual text, to explain what its weasel words meant in implementation, or to enable a much wider group to address its implications.
But I accept I wasn't there and my view is an outsider's.