(See the end for an update.)
Of course the argument against change might be one that appeals to some to prevent it: change to what? It's not for me to propose a theological method,
but others might mention that the dynamic element to the Church in terms of the divine in communication with culture is the 'Holy Spirit' and as such a Covenant would throttle 'movements of the Spirit'. That would be the more developed argument that might have a broader appeal in that Church, because presumably the Holy Spirit is the element that retells the same faith to a new generation (etc.).My own approach is nevertheless to avoid such 'God on our side' devices, and rather write more directly about liturgical and theological language connecting with a people's spirituality formed within a sociology of knowledge, within cultural settings. I don't care about pretences towards orthodoxy, for example, or that something supposedly remains the same when language undergoes huge reinterpretations and essences are not then the same.
Again arguing that the Covenant upsets a Church-State link might appeal to some who would want a more self-defined Church, with its own international bureaucracy. The real issue is whether it is legal at all for the Church of England, and should the Covenant be passed there might well be legal challenges that are costly and messy: the whole thing not being thought through.
The latest drawing/ computer painting here is only relevant in that she is a part of an evolving and changing Church, a creedless one. She is Unitarian.
Update
Note how Graham Kings wants the General Synod to approve, so it goes to the dioceses for discussion. Come on! What he means is, get it passed through another goal, so to claim it has been very nearly passed. If you are against it, the legitimate place is to vote against it in the representative Synod at the Church level where it takes effect.
No comments:
Post a Comment