PLURALIST - "HEADS YOU LOSE, TAILS YOU LOSE"

Adrian at Pluralist Speaks posted "Heads you Lose, Tails you Lose" on his "further thinking on the Anglican Communion...."

Imagine, however, what happens should the House of Clergy defeat the thing and throw it out.

It is necessary to stop it if the Church of England is to remain flexible about the future. My guess is that the biased powers that be will then panic, and try desperately to bend the rules to bring the thing back in. If not, and if they cannot, the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams will have to resign because it is his policy, steered and forced through so far by him. It is his flagship. Also arguments will be made beforehand to support the Archbishop, and so if he then loses he really will be done for. Even the Archbishop of York might go too (gosh, this gets better!). I actually think Rowan Williams should go, and should have a long time ago as he has been nothing but a disaster. But, with or without that resignation, the level of recrimination will be huge, especially against those who have led the campaign.
....

A weakness of the campaign against is that it has come from the liberal side of the Church, and that means it will be easier to target the recriminations. The hierarchs and bureaucrats as well as evangelicals will set about marginalising the liberals through various legislative and other means, if that is the way needed to reattach to the Covenant or something similar.

The entire post is well worth reading. My thinking is, as I said in the comments, that Adrian may be right that those in the Church of England (and elsewhere) who oppose the covenant may suffer from their stand, even in the unlikely event that the covenant is voted down in General Synod (and elsewhere), and the opposition achieves its goal. Still, I see it as a good thing to go down fighting, win or lose. Of course, since I speak as one of the fortunate who has nothing to lose by voicing my opinion, I have no right to urge others on in activities that may be injurious to them. I fully understand why some may choose not to speak out against the daft covenant.

THAT WICKED PLURALIST!

If you're not reading Pluralist's satirical pieces on the commentary surrounding the Daft Anglican Covenant, perhaps you should. The English folk who follow the discussion of the covenant will have an easier time of it, because they will recognize the similarity of the cast to real life people, whereas, since I am not English, I have more difficulty. The names have been changed, not to protect the innocent, but to protect Pluaralist from litigation. Therefore, if you comment, perhaps it's best not to name names. Below is an excerpt from his most recent offering titled Covenant On Midweek.

Virginia Lake: I am the Director of the Anglican Confrontation Organisation called Unity Faith and Order that operates under SHADO - the 'Secretive Hierarchical Anglican Doctrinal Organisation'. I operate underneath Lambeth Palace and Rowanov Treetri carries the operational name Commander Straker, as he is the 'Ed Bishop.

Melvin Blagg: Not very zecretive den.

Virginia Lake: Well everyone knows about it. The secret part, as with all Anglicanism, is in the actual rule book as opposed to the formal rule book; it's an acquired taste, what you find out after joining. It's part of the Sense Inference Detector, or SID.

Melvin Blagg: So what is du dispute about den?

Virginia Lake: To cut a lot of representational conversations short, the upshot is that Harold Wilson here wants the UFO to be renamed DMC; indeed he thinks John Sendmehome could Run DMC.

Melvin Blagg: DMC sdands for?

Virginia Lake: It would stand for...

Harold Wilson: Disunity, Mistrust and Chaos.

Another offering is titled Five Go Down - Chadderbox and is beyond wicked.

"GRACIOUS RESTRAINT" AGAIN?

See Adrian's post titled "Archbishop Not With Us". Pluralist quotes the Archbishop of Canterbury's own words - against himself?