tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5951416214263462025.post1170232416370664282..comments2023-08-10T01:27:22.370-06:00Comments on Insert Catchy Blog Title Here: Theological Analysis?Alan T Perryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11700037716579004059noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5951416214263462025.post-41461437370090283422012-12-12T07:21:13.267-07:002012-12-12T07:21:13.267-07:00It may be, as you suggest, that the report is a “s...It may be, as you suggest, that the report is a “slap-dash all-nighter.” A more generous (and perhaps more scary) hypothesis is that the committee was so divided over the Covenant that its members could hardly agree on anything other than their disagreement.<br /><br />Indeed, there really isn’t any theology at all in the report. It is instead all about different views of the Covenant from an institutional perspective. (One is hard pressed to see anything of what one would conventionally call <i>ecclesiology</i> in this.) This is where <i>context</i> comes in. Obviously some members view the Covenant as a sincere attempt to move the Communion beyond the current conflicts and to manage conflicts better in the future. Others, no doubt, view the Covenant as a disingenuous attempt to stifle dissent in order to achieve political and theological supremacy over the Communion. It is not hard to see how such divergent perceptions could make it nearly impossible to produce a dispassionate theological analysis of the Covenant text.<br /><br />The report as much as admits that adopting the Covenant is buying a pig in a poke. That the committee report is what it is suggests that, rather than bringing the Anglican Communion together, the Covenant can only tear the Communion apart.<br /><br />As you say, the answer from the Anglican Church of Canada must be “no.” Lionel Deimelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08363018512775944659noreply@blogger.com