This [Lambeth] Commission recommends, therefore, and urges the primates to consider, the adoption by the churches of the Communion of a common Anglican Covenant which would make explicit and forceful the loyalty and bonds of affection which govern the relationships between the churches of the Communion. (Windsor Report, 118)
Dr Caroline Hall's essays, to which I linked in an earlier post, reminded me of the nonsensical words in the Windsor Report (the report, which somehow became a set of rules that must be obeyed), making explicit and forceful the bonds of affection. Who wrote the words? Who proofread the words and permitted them to stand? I'd guess more than a few people approved the words, and the report was sent out to the member churches of the Anglican Communion. Did no one note the silliness? A picture forms in my mind of a large number of people being forced into a group hug.
The reality is that the bonds of affection are either present, or they are not. Bonds of affection cannot be coerced by threats of consequences. The covenant cannot and will not force the members of the various churches of the communion to love one another.
Yes, it's ridiculous to say out loud in front of God and everybody that we are going to force the bonds of affection.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, if a report is now a set of rules that must be obeyed, what does that mean for the Colbert Report? :-)
The true bonds of affection are the waters of baptism and the bread and wine of the eucharist.
ReplyDeleteI am sure that numbers of people read it. In fact it bears all the hallmarks of a document created by committee. It takes exactly that kind of process to produce such twaddle. It's not an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters eventually producing the works of Shakespeare, as these particular hominids are not infinite, (thankfully) nor with typewriters (Macbook Pro's is my bet) and the end product sure ain't Shakespeare.
ReplyDeletePenny, which report takes precedence? What if the Colbert Report disagrees with the Windsor Report? Which rules do we obey? 'Fraid I lean toward Colbert.
ReplyDeleteOrmonde, exactly. It's simple, and Anglicans have no need of a bureaucracy to enforce the bonds of affection which you name.
...these particular hominids are not infinite, (thankfully)....
Theme, thanksgiving for (in this case) large favors.
And the writers sneaked in the insidious "govern the relationships". To me, governance has no part in the bonds of affection between equals.
I think the issue at stake with the Covenant, which is so beautifully epitomized in this little quotation, is whether we want to start competing with the Roman Catholics for the S & M constituency in the religious marketplace. Personally, I think it would be a mistake. They are so good at it and have all the institutional structures, the theology, sacred imagery and cultural attitudes already in place. Our 'brand' would look pale by comparison. We are too soft to pursue coercion in relationships to the point of inducing the kind of ecstatic suffering which would enable the sufferer to achieve mystical union with the crucified Christ. I say we stick with our existing instruments (chalice and paten, wafer and wine, baptismal font and shell, hymnbook and pipe organ, and of course the coffeepot -- see 4th post below with link to Off-Topic Allowed) and let this opportunity pass.
ReplyDeleteMary Clara, brava! Very well said. If we attempt to model Rome in our structures, we will only ever look like a pale copy. Ormonde, you, and our friend Fred in his post at Off-Topic Allowed, enumerated the treasures of Anglicanism, in which I see no insufficiency. Why mess with them?
ReplyDeletePerhaps my interpretation is faulty but I always thought Jesus TOLD us to love one another as he loved us. If that's not reason enough how is a "Covenant" more effective?
ReplyDeleteWade, the covenant is of no worth to promote the bonds of affection. It would be useless but for its potential to do harm.
ReplyDelete