Simon Says ...

There is a lot being written at the moment about the proposed Anglican Covenant , not least because it is going to be discussed by the General Synod of the Church of England next week. Whilst not being totally against the idea of a Covenant - I am persuadable that something like it could be helpful - I am skeptical about this Covenant at the present moment. Some reasons: 1. It does not address the real questions. All of the fuss that the Covenant is supposed to help us deal with centers around issues of sexuality. Yet the Covenant does not address this at all. It is an ecclesiological tool to deal with a theological and ethical problem. That has to be some sort of category mistake. The theological and ethical questions will remain, regardless of the ecclesiology. They just won't be addressed. Rather than adding a new layer to the organisation of the Anglican Communion, shouldn't we all start doing some theology? This is not a quick fix, but a slow and painful process....

I've had a lot of conversations and encounters this week that have left me reflecting on space. There was a conversation about Lectio Divina , reflecting on how being strict with the method of doing this enabled participation. There was a question with a confirmation group about the rules for consumption of the elements after communion allowed Anglicans to remain united despite differences in theology. There was a meeting of the Standing Committee of the local Children's Centre, which provided a means by which all the different sub-committees could report and all the work be co-ordinated. None of this is rocket science, but in each situation there is a space created by means of which other activity or reflection is made possible. The space is created by means of something (rules, a meeting, or whatever) that provides boundaries and thus creates the space. The question therefore arises about these boundaries. They are clearly determinative of the nature of the space create...

A couple of weeks ago The Episcopal Church in America voted to cease their moratorium on ordaining partnered gay people as bishops. This provoked reactions from all over, but most importantly from the Archbishop of Canterbury . As part of his response, the Archbishop speaks of a 'two-track' Anglican Communion. One Track would sign up to the proposed Anglican Covenant. The other Track would not. Both would be Anglican (though it is hard to see how this would be realised in terms of sharing ministry, sacraments and counsel). Archbishop Rowan's remarks were amplified by the Bishop of Durham . Bishop Tom is much more blunt, and sees the Two Track approach as indicating the end to Communion. Today, the Modern Churchpeople's Union (which really needs to change its name) has published a reply to both the Archbishop and the Bishop. In summary, the MCU says: Both blame the American church for rejecting a consensus that homosexuality is immoral. There is no such consensus; t...