Three posts from Jim Naughton and one from Mark Harris and the commentary that follows caught my eye yesterday evening and this morning:
- The property issue wonders how much avoiding nasty litigation over church property may have played into a number of our leaders' considered move away from brinkmanship and the Primatial Vicar proposal put forward by the Primates' Communique. I don't see this necessarily as cynical. Surely almost no one, regardless of theological position, wants Christian mission hanged on expensive litigation. Jim suggests that this question coming to the fore might have been an unintended consequence of the Communique.
- A challenge asks what can be done to better hold the Anglican Communion together, short of the current leanings towards greater power for the Primates. It brings back an old rule of participating in a fruitful visioning and planning process: If you don't like the suggestions on the table, do you have an alternative to offer?
- Putting on my Frank Luntz hat. . . very wisely posits that "polity" is an arcane, churchy, and most unhelpful word for public consumption. With apologies to Richard Hooker fans (I count myself as one), I agree.
- Mark Harris also remarks on Bishop John Howe's gracious pastoral letter, and raises a suggested change of canons to forestall what we just saw happen in South Carolina. In a comment I raised a hypothetical concern -- but in a most overwrought way. Apologies to Mark! But other comments seem to support his suggestion. For all you "canonical wonks" out there. . .