Here is an excerpt from one:
I would suggest that the writer step back for a moment, and realize that his facile and generalized volleys do little to promote advancement in mission and ministry, which is precisely what the proposed covenant attempts to do. His lack of connection with the story of Anglicanism through the years (yes, as haphazard and untidy as it has been), and his inability to see that mutual submission to one another just might bear a more godly discernment about mission and ministry than that which is myopically grounded in the so-called “freedom” of the Episcopal Church, does no service to anyone in the church.
There are some of us who are sincerely trying to see how we can move forward in what is “our” church too – the Episcopal Church. We are distressed by the blatant politicization which falls at the feet of such idols as “rights” and “social action and advocacy.” We are dismayed that those who do not fall in step with the “progressive” and “revisionist” agenda are marginalized more and more as time goes on. We sit in utter wonder that those who have left the Episcopal Church are demonized, and yet we who have stayed are discounted, disparaged, and counted as ignorant among the all-knowing elite.
The proposed Anglican covenant seeks a way to get beyond this toxic culture of mistrust and misuse of power. If honored, it will call for deeper reflection and humility from all sides. It is not about “enforcing unity”; it is about seeking the mind of God in all its evangelical and catholic fullness.
[blockquote]If honored…[/blockquote]
The point at which everything implodes with TEC.
It is not surprising, though nonetheless dismaying that, of all the responses on the site, this letter was one of only two that took issue with James Stockton’s article and supported Bruce Robison’s rebuttal. I have a vacation scheduled after General Convention. I will need it.
I am surprised the Episcopal Life even published this letter.