Sunday 6 November 2011

Fulcrum Getting Desperate?

Bury St. Edmunds and Wi[th]chips diocese saying no to the Covenant wasn't obviously persuaded by Fulcrum's latest attempt to shore up the document in addition to Anglicanism.

In A Churchgoer's Guide to the Anglican Communion Covenant by Fulcrum (it does have the ability to make some statements) it states, early on:

Fulcrum has consistently supported the covenant but is aware that there is little accessible material explaining it. As a result, many people are relatively uninformed or are being misinformed about it and its significance by some opponents.

Crumbs! I mean St. Mundsed Bury with Vinegar is one of the few dioceses where they had a presentation of a 'no' point of view. It's as if any presentation of a 'no' point if view is to misinform. But look at this sentence:

There are two main alternative visions competing with the covenant - GAFCON’s more narrowly defined confessional approach and the path of unaccountable independence through unilateral innovation. Despite their fundamental differences, these minority views may unite in rejecting the covenant which is much more recognisably Anglican than both of them.

Indeed they may, probably because they are more than minority views when it comes to informing ordinary folk in synods what is involved and then asking for a vote. The actual debate on Fulcrum itself isn't consistent in support.

1 comment:

Jonathan Clatworthy said...

The Fulcrum article repeats a common story. I have debated the Covenant with its supporters a number of times, and it astonishes me how little its supporters have to say.
1) The North Americans were wicked for disobeying Lambeth 1998. (But this is disputable, and anyway Lambeth 1998 wasn't binding).
2) We need some way to make sure we don't fall out with each other like that again. (But the Covenant is not some way, it's a very specific way, a way which suppresses honest disagreement by giving a small committee power to decree *the* Anglican answer in cases of disagreement).
3) The intention is to find a way of resolving our disagreements. (But like all legal documents, what matters is not the authors' intentions but how the words will be interpreted in the court cases).
This Fulcrum article once again reveals that its supporters haven't got anything else up their sleeve.