As with MPs sermon I suggest that covenants, as well as communion are the prerogative of God and not of men. Their terms are of the universal given. They are given by god and not negotiated by men. The biblical covenants concluded by god are not ones in which we negotiate on terms and conditions for our own advantage. It is not by our demand or effort that grace is achieved, but solely by the open offer of god. The covenants which are struck between men are doomed to failure as we do not possess the universal capacity for the love of difference, that we understand in god, and there is an almost arrogance in presuming that we can. In its existing form, the alleged covenant is a fetter, a manacle that will bind both those inside its provisions and those outside and inhibit communion, not strengthen it.
And I am not simply arguing for a name change here, I would like for our noble leadership to recognise that they are saying something very profoundly unsettling about our faith with this proposal. That the Anglican communion is an homogenising institution where people all think the same, pray the same, eat, drink, play, fart and shag the same way. This is absurd. So is the covenant. An idol of global proportion.
“The test of faith is whether I can make space for difference. Can I recognise God’s image in someone who is not in my image, whose language, faith, ideals, are different from mine? If I cannot, then I have made god in my image, instead of allowing him to remake me in his.” Rabbi Jonathan Sacks.
Read the entire post, please. In my comment, I said:
Grandmère Mimi said...
TheMe, this is excellent writing, well-reasoned and quite right in it's conclusion.
18 August, 2009 19:12
to which TheMe responded:
themethatisme said...
Thank you Granmère, I'm not sure it's that well reasoned, some study and deeper thought, then perhaps.
So. He's not done with thinking on the covenant, yet, and we shall hear more from him on the subject. I look forward to his further thoughts, but I still believe that what he has written is quite good.
"...I would like for our noble leadership to recognise that they are saying something very profoundly unsettling about our faith with this proposal. That the Anglican communion is an homogenising institution where people all think the same...
ReplyDeleteI so agree. At least that's true if I understand the Elizabethan Settlement even to a small degree. I truly don't know how anyone who has read any history of the English Reformation at all can assert that Anglicanism is supposed to be homogenized.
And I'm also looking forward to what TheMe has to say after he's thought some more.
Ellie, the sort of Anglicanism that the ABC proposes with the covenant is not like any Anglicanism or Episcopalianism that I know. Just in my small congregation, we stay together (so far) holding widely different views on many issues.
ReplyDeleteAs I see it, the Elizabethan Settlement worked insofar as it did, because it left not a few issues open and unsettled with room for a variety of beliefs and expressions within the broad concept of Anglicanism.
I can't decide if it's most ironic or most comforting that the most well-known sign of God's covenant with us is the rainbow.
ReplyDeleteMost fine, and very much to the point. It is God who makes Covenants.
ReplyDeleteC.W.S., I was thinking about the rainbow as a symbol as I listened to Johnny Cash's song, "Man in Black", in which he sings,
ReplyDeleteAh, I'd love to wear a rainbow every day,
And tell the world that everything's OK,
I believe that God tells us every day that things will be okay in the Kingdom of God here on earth, the paradoxical kingdom, which is both right now and not yet.
Göran, you're right. Only God....