More on the language of control

This is from the Archbishop of Canterbury's address to the opening General Synod meeting. It is an amazing piece of double talk.

To say yes to the Covenant is not to tie our hands. But it is to recognise that we have the option of tying our hands if we judge, after consultation, that the divisive effects of some step are too costly.

So let me get this straight, it is not about binding unless it is. Let's see if we can de-construct this. The covenant is not about constraining someone until some other someone (the standing committee of course) decides it should be. Then it will be, but that is ok for three reasons:

• one it is only bad North American hands constrained
• constraint will arrive with an appropriate procedure from the non-constraining covenant
• constraint will be for a good cause -- unity. Unity of course only by constraint, but whatever it is it will look like unity.

. We rough and ready colonials have names for that sort of logic, but this is a family blog so I won't use them.

Here is a simple and straightforward thought. If one forces people together it is not unity one achieves but incarceration.

FWIW
jimB