Comments: Fulcrum's initial response to the "covenant"

Fulcrum's "initial" response says: "Whilst the provenance, process and representative authority of the 'covenant for the Church of England', which was presented to the Archbishop of Canterbury on 12 December 2006, are still very much contested issues, some initial comment from Fulcrum may be helpful."

Would it not suffice to say "... the provenance, process and representative authority are still" unknown...

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Friday, 15 December 2006 at 8:35am GMT

Quote: "Fulcrum strongly questions the representative process of the publication of this 'covenant', eg in that it was not on the agenda, nor amongst the papers, of CEEC meetings"

So, once again, a document has been issued which was not written collaboratively, agreed, or seen by all the supposed "signatories". We've seen this one before. I know these guys claim to be against innovations but I'd like a new trick 'cause this one is boring!

Posted by Sarah at Friday, 15 December 2006 at 8:13pm GMT


They aren't against innovation. They've done it before. ;-)

But I love that people like you have the wisdom to spot it. It's much harder to covertly sabotage when people make overt what they hoped was too subtle to be noticed.

I read Annan's call to overcome Israeli-Palestinian mistrust this morning

Some of the comments could apply as much to the Anglican Communion as to their conflict. For example:

"Our challenge is to convince the people on each side that these majorities exist on the other side, while showing that the spoilers and rejectionists are a distinct minority."


“This conflict places before the world, historical responsibilities that will determine not only the future of peace in the region, but also the entire world,”


"Too often, the work of parts of the United Nations system is too easily dismissed as being reflexively biased against Israel, which in turn limits its ability to help the tragically suffering Palestinian people on the ground. It hurts both Palestinians and Israelis if the United Nations is perceived as too one-sided to be allowed a significant role in the Middle East peace process..."

Posted by Cheryl Clough at Saturday, 16 December 2006 at 8:55pm GMT

Oh Sarah, but that was n a u g h t y!

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Saturday, 16 December 2006 at 8:56pm GMT
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.