BAT CRAP

from Midwest Conservative Journal by The Editor

Over at Naughton’s, they’re bent about the Anglican Covenant. How bent? This bent; someone named Ann Fontane seems to have written the following without any sense of irony whatsoever:

The current push for an Anglican Covenant has involved over a 66% increase in travel expenditures by Anglican Communion bureaucrats. How much more will be spent on this centralizing, punitive contract before those who are paying the majority of the funds for the Anglican Communion will be in the “second tier?”

How much scratch has TEO spent suing traditionalist Anglicans out of their meeting houses, Annie? Ever hear the one about the pot and the kettle?

The Church of England’s going to vote on the Covenant soon so something called Modern Church(formerly the Modern Churmosqagogue Living Entities Who May Or May Not Be Human Because We’re Not A Bunch of Stinkikng Speciesists Around Here Union) wants to talk them out of it. Among their reasons why an Anglican Covenant would be THE SINGLE WORST THING THAT EVER HAPPENED IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION are the following:

It would become more dogmatic as each new ruling lays down a new official Anglican teaching. The effect would be felt not only nationally but also in parishes, as open-minded clergy came under increasing pressure to toe the line.

It would become more timid as new proposals could be blocked by objections – possibly from just one archbishop the other side of the world. Thus decision-makers would feel obliged to conform to international Anglicanism instead of responding appropriately to local situations.

It would become more backward-looking. Instead of Classic Anglicanism’s balance of scripture, reason and tradition, which allows for new developments, the Covenant reduces Anglicanism’s authorities to ‘the Scriptures, the common standards of faith, and the canon laws of our churches’, thus making it harder to justify changes. If it had been in force in 1944 when the first woman priest was ordained, it would almost certainly have prevented Anglicanism ever having women priests.

It would hinder mission. Many younger people are put off by the Church’s apparent reluctance to change and backward-looking stance on many issues. Whether or not they are right, to turn this stance into an essential feature of Anglicanism is bound to alienate many and create a new obstacle to mission.

Behind this debate lies a longstanding theological disagreement. Reformation Puritans believed Christians should submit to the supreme authority of the Bible, that every question has a single biblical answer, and that therefore there should be no disagreement between Christians. Their successors today therefore welcome a central hierarchy with power to decree the Anglican teaching on each issue. Anglicans with different theologies sometimes support them in the mistaken hope that this will avoid schism.

In other words, we’d actually have to start believing something. And if we have to start paying attention to that ridiculous Bible thing, we wouldn’t be able to make Christianity up as we go along anymore and who needs that?