THE ENEMY OF MY ENEMY

from Midwest Conservative Journal by The Editor

Most people who have actually read it realize that the proposed Anglican Covenant is far too weak and tepid to adequately deal with the fundametal problem in the Anglican Communion. But that view may need to be seriously rethought considering how bat crap it’s driving Episcolibs like Jim Naughton:

Perhaps the greatest failing of the covenant, however, is not technical but spiritual. The covenant is blind to evil within the church, and the extent to which the church participates in the evils of the world. Put aside for the moment the fact that at a time when poverty and disease are rampant, the earth is warming at a potentially cataclysmic pace, and war ravages much of the planet, the leaders of our Communion are unwilling to move on until the Americans are brought to heel on the issue of homosexuality. Focus instead on the simple fact that much of the evil in our world exists because it serves the self interest of powerful people and powerful institutions. These are people who can always arrange for a fuss to be made on their behalf—who can always claim that any attempt to rectify the balance of power in this world “tears at the fabric” of whatever community has summoned the fortitude to challenge their dominance. The covenant is a handy tool for maintaining the status quo—for making certain that the meek never come into the inheritance that Jesus promised them. The issue may be homosexuality today, but what is at stake is the ability of churches in the Anglican Communion to challenge injustice when it is in the interest of other churches in the Communion to support it.

Jim? If you’re not too busy, read Acts 15 some time. And while you’re doing that, reflect on the term “accountability.”

Two things, slick. American Anglicans do not have a direct line to the Almighty; the Word of the living God is not whatever politically correct crap pops into John Chane’s, Katharine Jefferts Schori’s or J. Jon Bruno’s theologically-illiterate heads.

Do you think the wider church ought to change its mind on what Gene Robinson does in his off-hours? You might want to run it by the wider church first.

What if the wider church doesn’t buy your arguments? If you had the least amount of integrity, you’d realize that you have two options. Admit that you might be wrong or be willing to walk away from the Communion while telling yourself that you’re “prophetic.”

But if I were you, I wouldn’t go anywhere near concepts like “evil within the church” and how the “the church participates in the evils of the world.” Because to many of us on my side of the argument, that is precisely what the Episcopal Organization’s been doing for at least the last thirty years.

Give or take.