We’ve now added TWO updates at the end. Please check them out.
Trying to scan the blogs tonight and there is just WAY too much information and commentary out there to begin to try and post a lot of separate entries, or even many excerpts or highlights. What follows is an attempt to capture some of what caught our eye around the blogosphere tonight.
We’ll start tonight on the reappraising side of the aisle since we assume many of our readers are less up-to-date with reading the commentary from that perspective.
Jim Naughton’s Day 2 roundup is here at Episcopal Cafe.
Here’s the section that jumped out at us from his report:
One bishop we spoke with said a member of the Joint Standing Committee had offered a private apology for Archbishop Anis’ remarks.
All three of the people we spoke with said the mood of the bishops after the morning session was glum because most of the speakers seemed to be pushing them toward an either or choice between conscience and unity.
Integrity has a very short blog entry entitled HoB Update: “Pastor Rowan” speaks, focused on a question asked of the ABC at today’s press conference:
[John Gibson writes:] I asked +Rowan what word of hope he had for the gay and lesbian baptized. He repeated assurances of the communion’s stated opposition to discrimination against gay and lesbian persons. I followed up and asked whether that opposition to discrimination applied to the world outside the church but not within the church.
He answered it was a matter of how people perceived a person’s “choice of a style of life” and how that affected what level of role that person was “eligible for” within the church. (”˜Choice’ of a ”˜lifestyle.’ Flashback to the 70s.) He also said we’re concerned with the appropriate limits of pastoral response to gay and lesbian people.
Scott Gunn at Inclusive Church focuses his latest blog entry on +Marc Andrus’ statement from yesterday [which Kendall’s posted below]. After posting +Andrus’ statement, Gunn shares his personal opinion:
All that is true. However, we cannot expect to talk about justice and experience and think that we will nurture conversion among the wider Communion. We Americans had better start talking about biblical and traditional grounds for our innovation.
Obviously, writing for a blog called by the name “InclusiveChurch” and affiliated with IC in the UK, I favor the full inclusion of GLBT Christians in all aspects of the life and ministry of the church. However, I support this “new thing” because I believe this change — and it is a departure from the historic practice of the church — is warranted. I believe this change is warranted on scriptural grounds, and I believe it is warranted on grounds of tradition. And, finally, my experience tells me that it’s the right thing to do.
This elf appreciates Scott’s honesty here, and wishes all would be similarly clear about their positions. But we can’t help thinking there’s a contradiction or oxymoron in what Scott writes. In one sentence he admits that the GLBT agenda is a “departure from historic practice,” yet in the next believes it can be supported by tradition? Is there such a thing as “traditional innovation?” (our word, not his, but that seems to be what Gunn is trying to claim is possible.)
Susan Russell loudly (with 4 exclamation points) cheers on Gene Robinson. Susan writes:
It is time to name it as unconscionable for a people of God committed to seeking and serving Christ in all persons and repecting the dignity of every human being to continue to perpetuate a defacto sacramental apartheid precluding the full inclusion of the gay and lesbian baptized in the Body of Christ.
And it is time to recognize the clear truth that there is no compromise short of our explusion which will satisfy the Tribal Council convening to vote us off the Anglican Island.
Those are my two cents.
Those who are praying for clarity are certainly getting it in spades tonight from Susan!
Susan’s following post is also of interest. She watched the Anglican TV live feed of the press conference (and offers her thanks to Kevin) and notes what she thinks to be the takeaway quote:
That said, the “take away” quote of the day award goes to Archbishop Williams for “There is no ultimatum involved.”
Susan R. is clearly not alone in thinking the “no ultimatum” quote is the takeaway quote of the day. We’ve seen it all around the web on both sides of the aisle. Notably, both Fr. Jake and Simon Sarmiento highlight that quote in their blog headlines:
Jake: Canterbury: “No Ultimatum”
Simon at Thinking Anglicans: Archbishop Williams says “no ultimatum”
We could have missed something (and please comment if we did!), but we didn’t see many blog entries on the reappraising side of the aisle that dealt in much depth with the plethora of proposed resolutions that were posted today by Stand Firm (though Thinking Anglicans did cover these. Thanks Simon.) Nor did we see much commentary on Archbishop Mouneer Anis’ remarks. Yes, Jim Naughton commented about Apb. Mouneer’s remarks (seeking to discredit them, it seemed). But for example in NINE posts so far today at Thinking Anglicans, not one mention of Mouneer? That seems hard to believe, so maybe we really did miss something.
Similarly we saw nothing on +Mouneer at Jake’s or Integrity’s blog or Susan Russell’s Hello? Anyone listening? Maybe we’re being rude and impertinent to ask this, but, what’s the point of inviting the Primates to come and speak to you if you’re going to ignore what they say? Just wondering.
There’s lots on +Gene Robinson. And +Marc Andrus, and now +Kirk Smith and their statements. But nothing on +Mouneer or Apb. Aspinall of Australia. It really seems like many in TEC only want to listen to themselves.
And yes, this is elfgirl writing her own opinion (Hope that’s ok Kendall). I’m not speaking for Kendall. But this stuff needs to be pointed out in my opinion.
(Note: please forgive my lack of using titles (“the Rev’d” etc.). I’m working quickly trying to get this done before I need to call it a night. No disrespect intended. Short and simple is just easier at the moment, especially since I don’t necessarily know the exact status (clergy, lay) or titles of all these bloggers.)
UPDATE / CORRECTION:
Although his focus is on ++Rowan, Fr. Jake actually quotes parts of Jim Naughton’s post from “The Lead” — so there is a mention of the fact that +Mouneer spoke and that the bishops didn’t like it. Here’s Jake’s excerpt of Jim (ellipses are in the post at Jake’s exactly as they are posted here, I’ve cut nothing):
…(Presiding Bishop) Anis was the most confrontational. The bishops we spoke with were depressed by his presentation because it contrasted so sharply with the flexibility expressed in private conversation by other members of the delegation…
…One bishop we spoke with said a member of the Joint Standing Committee had offered a private apology for Archbishop Anis’ remarks.
Right. So +Anis was confrontational. But what did he say??? The reappraising bloggers aren’t telling us or their regular readers.
UPDATE 2: Ok, it gets even more interesting. The reappraising bloggers are one thing. After all, most blogs aren’t meant to be comprehensive news sources. Bloggers cover what interests them, what they have something to say about. So maybe they choose to ignore +Mouneer. I can live with that. But ENS?
ENS has 4 stories posted under today’s date, Sept. 21.
Archbishop of Canterbury ‘encouraged’ by bishops’ meetings By Pat McCaughan, Sep 21, 2007
Raise prophetic voices against poverty, Paul Farmer tells bishops By Mary Frances Schjonberg, Sep 21, 2007
Archbishop Rowan Williams’ opening remarks at September 21 news conference Sep 21, 2007
Archbishop of Canterbury gets a taste of New Orleans By Mary Frances Schjonberg, Sep 21, 2007
Anyone want to guess how many times the names Mouneer Anis or even Australian Primate Aspinall appear in these 4 articles? If you guessed ZERO, you get the gold ring! Nope. Not one mention of either Primate. No mention of +Morgan who supports TEC’s agenda. No mention of any of the Joint Standing Committee or their remarks that I can find at ENS today.
And yet, we have an 800+ word feature on some medical anthropologist and his remarks. Simply unbelievable.