discussion on “covenant”

At a meeting of about 15 friends last night, we had a curious discussion supposedly about the meaning of “covenant.”  I see this generally speaking as an agreement of some sort between two beings, or parties.  We got off the track a lot, since the book which posed the question [Gwynn’s “The Covenant Crucified”] tossed in a lot of ancient and middle history which is, by its nature, open to interpretation.  Also, because I am a writer, I was very much put off by the almost deliberate obfuscation of the style.  EG:  “the gerontocratic rule of the elders], which says the same thing twice, and ‘commodified forms of temple-centered observance.’  ‘modified’ would say the same thing, and the entire phrase could easily be covered in ‘various forms of temple ritual.’  But I kept reading because the man was trying so hard to put across something which mattered to him.  But for me a basic rule is to remember that SIMPLICITY IS AN ACHIEVEMENT.   or IT’S HARD TO BE SIMPLE.  It is also worth the effort.

Leave a Reply