Friday, May 02, 2008

Brazil weighs in on Anglican Covenant proposal, and ...

Titusoneine points to a Brazilian blog offering a response to the proposed Anglican Covenant by the Bishops of Brazil:

However, although acknowledging that commendable effort, we believe that our Communion does not need new instruments of consensus beyond those that historically have been our benchmarks in terms of identity.

We have diligently studied the second draft of the Covenant, known as the St Andrew’s Draft, and despite some new insights shown from the first reactions to the proposal coming from various parts of the Communion, according to our view, the proposition is still problematic.

Sections 05 and 06 in the new proposal focus on elements that we believe are unnecessary and inapplicable to our Communion. In the manner in which they are presented, they constitute a serious setback in the understanding of what is Communion, prioritising the juridical dimension more and less so the ecclesiological and affective dimensions that have been the historical mark of our mutual interdependence.

The Covenant continues to be a mistaken proposal for the resolution of conflicts through the creation of curial instances absolutely alien to our ethos.

We are fully convinced that the time in which we live is marked by symptoms that value highly the building up of networks and other manifestations of communion in a spontaneous way in the various aspects of human life. Insisting on a formal and juridical Covenant, with the logic of discipline and exercise of power, means to move in the opposite direction, thus returning to the days of Modernity, with its Confessions, Covenants, Diets and other rational instruments of theological consensus.

Good for them!

And the, just for fun, I checked out some of the comments on Titusonenine -- which led to this exchange:

drummie wrote: The preceeding message was bought and paid for by the political action arm of TEC, and they are solely responsable for it’s contents. May 2, 10:28 am

Susan Russell wrote: Help me here ... why is it that when Anglicans from the global south express perspectives congruent with neo-orthodoxy, any inference that they are being influenced by conservatives from North America is charged with being multi-culturally insensitive and racist ... but when Anglicans from the global south express perspectives congruent with a more progressive, inclusive vision of the Kingdom then they are the running dogs of Yankee Liberal Imperialism?

I’m thinking that it’s a tough sell to have it both ways.

Isn’t it JUST POSSIBLE that there really is a broad diversity of experience and understanding throughout the communion and figuring out how to live together in communion in spite of those differences ... not figuring out how to boot people out of the communion because of them ... should be the point of any “covenant” to begin with?
May 2, 10:54 am

Cennydd wrote: Susan: Bring The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada back into line, and maybe we’ll talk turkey. Until then........ May 2, 10:59 am


It seems to me that if nothing short of surrendering Dorothy (and her little dog, too!) is good enough for the schismatics then it's time for the rest of the Communion to ignore them and keep on following the yellow brick road!


J.T. said...

Seems as though double-speak and double-standards are the name of the game when it comes to our schismatic brothers and sisters. I point you, Rev. Susan and your readers to the newest bit of drama in the Diocese of Albany where I am a parishioner at St. Andrew's Church (an island of hope in a land of despair.) I am hoping that you will read it over and may offer some reflections on your blog. The link is: and the story is titled "Diocese Says: We Can Discriminate." Be sure to read the whole thing including is quite fascinating. Pray for us!

Frair John said...

Please don't do call these skeezy schismatic neo-Donatist Arminians neo-Orthodox. It dose two things. One it gives them far to much credit. And second, it tarnishes the name of Barth and Bonehhoffer.