tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7924955229106334724.post2608138449834075838..comments2007-05-21T18:45:01.634-07:00Comments on Locally Adapted: Responding to the Draft CovenantUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7924955229106334724.post-79697477511991965422007-05-21T18:45:00.000-07:002007-05-21T18:45:00.000-07:00Thanks so much for contributing to the conversatio...Thanks so much for contributing to the conversation Ron!Lydia Agnew Spellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10736820822903782069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7924955229106334724.post-90232846668457261692007-05-21T13:50:00.000-07:002007-05-21T13:50:00.000-07:00I think the whole project is ill-conceived from th...I think the whole project is ill-conceived from the start. Typically covenants of this kind are only useful if the parties to the covenant are already quite homogenous in their beliefs. Although covenants and confessions are often forged out of sharp debate, nevertheless useful documents like the "Mayflower Compact," the "Westminster Confession" or the "Augsburg Confession" only grow out of a group of quite like-minded individuals.<BR/><BR/>In such cases, the set of promises in a covenent serves to define some agreed-on boundaries for the group and to pass along these shared beliefs to future generations. The covenant is an expression of mutual trust, but it is not an instrument designed to CREATE trust. <BR/><BR/>Can a covenant resolve a dispute between parties with strongly held divergent opinions? Only, it seems to me, <BR/><BR/> 1) if the dispute is resolved (because one side "wins," or one side "surrenders," or the sides mutually agree on a settlement) and then the outcome is embodied in a covenant, or<BR/><BR/> 2) if the covenant says, in effect, "we agree to disagree."<BR/><BR/>I think that the Draft Text by the Covenant Design Group does not fit path 1). It is clear that the different sides in our disputes have not resolved their disagreements. To an observer it appears, indeed, that the disagreements are becoming sharper.<BR/><BR/>One might interpret the Draft Text as an attempt to follow go down path 2). Just for example, item (3.1) in the Draft states that all the churches commit to "uphold ... biblically derived moral values..." That could be an soothing, eirenic statement if all parties had come first to a mutual trust -- a trust in which each would be able to accept that the others were, in fact, fulfilling (3.1) in good faith. In that case, (3.1) would, in effect, be saying "we are all committed to uphold biblically derived moral values and we can live with differing conclusions in different churches because we trust that the Holy Spirit will eventually make the truth clear when everyone has such a commitment."<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, it also seems clear to me that there are parties in this dispute who would never say "we agree to disagree" on the issues at hand. Therefore I don't find it plausible to think about the Draft Text along the lines of 2). <BR/><BR/>Because this attempted covenent is a reaction to mistrust and argument rather than an outgrowth of trust, I think it won't work (unless one side, in signing on to the covenant is actually "surrendering.") Even worse, if the Draft (or something like it) were approved and accepted, then I believe that it would quickly become a weapon rather than a tool for healing. Can't you hear the accusation already? -- "Aha! you agreed to (3.1) but you're not living up to it." And when that happens, the Draft itself also sets in place mechanisms for the "discipline" of the offender.<BR/><BR/>In short, I think the idea of this "covenant" puts the cart before the horse. It cannot create unity; a effective covenant can only be an expression of unity. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Ron Freiwald<BR/>Christ Church Cathedralrfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01706907398211162383noreply@blogger.com