As a result of developments in the Diocese of Springfield, Bishop The Rt. Rev. Peter Beckwith, Bishop of Springfield, will not be attending the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA) Assembly which is scheduled to begin tomorrow at St. Vincent’s Cathedral in Bedford, Texas.
I’m sad to read this. How tragic that TEC is so suspicious and litigious that a faithful TEC bishop can not attend to wish his friends and colleagues well.
So very sad!
I’m a bit confused. The Living Church pieces states that the bishop is now not attending “as a result of developments in the Diocese of Springfield….”
Are they sure that’s right? I mean isn’t the guy the bishop of that diocese? What developments WITHIN that diocese are they talking about?
Is it possible that the LC writer means “as a result of developments OUTSIDE the Diocese of Springfield”? E.g. developments at 815 perhaps? Or is the intra-diocesan development that a reappraiser inside the diocese wants to sue him?
Anyway I really hope the bishop gets sent to re-education camp so that he doesn’t try in the future to “continue the conversation” with people he’s not supposed to be continuing the conversation with.
, Bishop The Rt. Rev. Peter Beckwith, Bishop of Springfield, will not be attending
I find it sad that you all do not take +Beckwith at his word.
I agree with Brian for once. Let’s not rush to judgment here. It’s easy to imagine all sorts of crises that might have suddenly developed within the diocese that could’ve led +Beckwith to stay home and tend to his first responsibility, the flocks and clergy under his care.
David Handy+
Yes, true. I suppose I did rush to judgment. But given that nothing is said specifically about developments within the diocese and that the whole focus is on TEC’s complaint and Springfield’s prior press release it is all too easy an assumption to make. But I do stand corrected.
One can’t help but wonder at the “developments” in the diocese. Is there a reason for the secrecy?
It is a bad idea to live the crops and livestock unattended when you have an enemy on the march who practices salt the earth battle tactics.
[Comment deleted by Elf]
Is there a reason for the secrecy?
Before the Internet Age and the perceived right of some to know everything … there was a manner known by the term understatement.
[Comment deleted by Elf]
[Comment referring to deleted comment also deleted – Elf]
[i]The elves seem testy today, so I’ve deleted my comment myself to save time and effort.[/i]
It is unfortunate that Bishop Beckwith’s attempt to maintain some measure of dialogue between TEC and ACNA has apparently been thwarted. I am guessing not due to anything at the ACNA end. Prayers and thanks for Bishop Beckwith for trying his best to do as our Lord would have us all do. I shall end my comment there, lest it be ended for me.
[Generally emotions may run high in the next few days so we would be grateful if commenters will please be particularly careful at this time to follow comment policy – that is not to make personal comments and to be careful how they express themselves while remaining on topic. If we appear to be testy it is because we are keen that this forum remains a place for Christian discourse. Thank you – Elf]
#4. Hey Brian. It’s actually normal when a person is being pressured from above to change course (in any organization) to come up with a euphemistic way of describing that, a way that doesn’t blame the change on your boss.
We do know that there was displeasure and criticism by significant TEC leaders regarding the bishop’s initial decision to attend. That’s a matter of public record.
Those two facts taken together, it’s a reasonable question to ask (my post framed it as a question) whether the developments were truly intra-diocesan.
If David Handy suggestion is right (#5), the bishop’s press release or the CT article might have been both clearer and briefer by saying something like:
“The bishop of Springfield regrets that he will not be able to attend the ACNA conference due to an unrelated pastoral need inside his diocese. He sends his best wishes.”
Instead the LC piece is 10 times as long. Furthermore it gives the impression that the bishop’s final decision not to go was somehow related to suggestions from critics that he was not “a faithful Christian within The Episcopal Church.” (A big part of the LC article is about him getting a lot of heat.)
No. 13 Jeffersonian, thanks for a good laugh!
I would only remark that removing someone for “abandonment of communion” now seems to be a fairly easy process in TEC with no readily discernable checks and balances to this observer. Of course one irony is that the ABC is sending an observer as well, and by definition the ABC’s office can’t abandon the communion.
As KJS has demonstrated complete control of the JSC, which has successively overthrown the Primates, Lambeth (who else gutted and redefined Lambeth 1.10?), and the ACC (by refusing to seat delegates, a power they do not possess constitutionally, and defining its agenda), and to which ++Rowan has abdicated his authority, KJS probably views the office of the ABoC as a redundant anachronism. Anyway, if she can depose one CoE bishop, why not another?
Bp Beckwith is too close to retirement to really be concerned about the threat of a process of presentment and deposition, don’t you think?
As far as we know, since it has not been reported in a media channel somewhere, Bp Beckwith is still Vice-President on the board of AAC – which was definitely in presence at the ACNA gatherings. I don’t see any backpedaling here.
I read the press release as a statement of priorities when priority action was demanded. I’ve been known on occasion to not attend a Council or Standing Committee meeting or even an annual Clergy Retreat due to the death of a parishioner (i.e., a “development” back in the parish), and no one had to tell me where I should and should not be at that time.
Attending or not attending ACNA constitutional gathering for any less-than-clearly-articulated reason is not a litmus test for the ramrod orthodoxy of +Peter Beckwith.
FGS, people, ……..