I found this conversation disturbing. I fully accept that General Convention is our final decision making body and that it is self-authenticating, a notion I find embarrassing. What really disturbs me is that the House of Bishops may not speak for TEC in matters of doctrine, discipline and worship. If this is not the case, we have evolved into a “General Convention Church” and in so doing compromised Catholic order as Anglicanism understand that expression. I find this a crucial matter and one to which one hopes our bishops will respond.
Not much new here and nothing of what Rowan actually said in response. One observation: Columbus 2006 Bonnie and Jim look like they’ve aged a bit and Frank looks like he’s put on a few lbs.
Rowan: “So let me see if I understand — what you are saying is that only the Convention as a whole can say [interpret] what you are saying [in your resolutions] and they can only say it every three years — And this is what YOU THREE are saying [as appointed representatives by the Presiding Bishop] , but that isn’t the Convention saying it. We four are only having a conversation.”
Tony (#4)–you might dig into the history files. At its inception, my memory is that the fledgling episcopal church sought to give equal or higher authority (veto) to the HofD. The communications from the CoE were not to do this, or to sever links altogether (something the ‘tory’ high churchman Seabury would not have countenanced). One can sense the political atmosphere of the US government polity hanging over affairs. At any event, the ECUSA demurred. An effort to ‘level’ things with the rhetoric of the president of the HoD would be setting aside the historic polity, if that is what she implied with her idea that TEC is unique. Well, it may be unique, but the HoB is not without a special role, one that was required from the beginning. When we hear that the GenConv meets only every three years, and that this does not form an analogy of meetings of the General Synod, well fine. But this begs the question of the character of the HoB which obviously DOES meet more regularly.
The politics of the situation appear to demand a ‘unique’ TEC polity (whose historical roots are questionable when it comes to the HoB/HoD balance), on the one hand. On the other, we get arguments for a hierarchy of power from PB to Exec Counc to General Convention, to Bishops as subordinate unites. They don’t really fit well together, and neither is an expression of the character of the Ordinary held by the Anglican Communion. Radner’s essay just published makes this clear and it has been the consistent point of ACI’s publications.
RDW has never sought to defend the province as a meaningful church structure, as against the Ordinary. What the president of the HoD sees as ‘unique’ is both special pleading and loose with the facts, but the hierarchy argument which places General Convention below ExecCouncil and PB also demotes the Bishops.
Kendall has spoken of tension at this point, from the political side. And maybe we are seeing that played out. What ‘liberal’ Bishop wants to be a subordinate unit, even one like VGR who uses his office as a way to bemoan the fate of the HoD — leveling from above, by a Bishop.
Bonnie Anderson labels those of us in the four ACNA dioceses who have left TEC, as “spiritual abusers”. And Jim Simons is very quick to make sure the assembled press atributes the quote to her not him! I can tell you that +Bob Duncan bent over backwards to accomodate those is Pittsburgh who disagreed with him. He was far more gracious to the opposition than most of them were with him. Perhaps Dr Bonnie ought to heed the immortal words of Creedence Clearwater Revival, “`Fore you `Cuse Me, Better Look at Yourself”!
I found this conversation disturbing. I fully accept that General Convention is our final decision making body and that it is self-authenticating, a notion I find embarrassing. What really disturbs me is that the House of Bishops may not speak for TEC in matters of doctrine, discipline and worship. If this is not the case, we have evolved into a “General Convention Church” and in so doing compromised Catholic order as Anglicanism understand that expression. I find this a crucial matter and one to which one hopes our bishops will respond.
Not much new here and nothing of what Rowan actually said in response. One observation: Columbus 2006 Bonnie and Jim look like they’ve aged a bit and Frank looks like he’s put on a few lbs.
Rowan: “So let me see if I understand — what you are saying is that only the Convention as a whole can say [interpret] what you are saying [in your resolutions] and they can only say it every three years — And this is what YOU THREE are saying [as appointed representatives by the Presiding Bishop] , but that isn’t the Convention saying it. We four are only having a conversation.”
Just saying…
Bonnie Anderson is sounding very Cromwellian. Or worse, a “Leveler.”
This is not a church.
This is a political party, meeting at its convention to decide its platform on X, Y or Z.
Lord, have mercy.
Tony (#4)–you might dig into the history files. At its inception, my memory is that the fledgling episcopal church sought to give equal or higher authority (veto) to the HofD. The communications from the CoE were not to do this, or to sever links altogether (something the ‘tory’ high churchman Seabury would not have countenanced). One can sense the political atmosphere of the US government polity hanging over affairs. At any event, the ECUSA demurred. An effort to ‘level’ things with the rhetoric of the president of the HoD would be setting aside the historic polity, if that is what she implied with her idea that TEC is unique. Well, it may be unique, but the HoB is not without a special role, one that was required from the beginning. When we hear that the GenConv meets only every three years, and that this does not form an analogy of meetings of the General Synod, well fine. But this begs the question of the character of the HoB which obviously DOES meet more regularly.
The politics of the situation appear to demand a ‘unique’ TEC polity (whose historical roots are questionable when it comes to the HoB/HoD balance), on the one hand. On the other, we get arguments for a hierarchy of power from PB to Exec Counc to General Convention, to Bishops as subordinate unites. They don’t really fit well together, and neither is an expression of the character of the Ordinary held by the Anglican Communion. Radner’s essay just published makes this clear and it has been the consistent point of ACI’s publications.
RDW has never sought to defend the province as a meaningful church structure, as against the Ordinary. What the president of the HoD sees as ‘unique’ is both special pleading and loose with the facts, but the hierarchy argument which places General Convention below ExecCouncil and PB also demotes the Bishops.
Kendall has spoken of tension at this point, from the political side. And maybe we are seeing that played out. What ‘liberal’ Bishop wants to be a subordinate unit, even one like VGR who uses his office as a way to bemoan the fate of the HoD — leveling from above, by a Bishop.
Bonnie Anderson labels those of us in the four ACNA dioceses who have left TEC, as “spiritual abusers”. And Jim Simons is very quick to make sure the assembled press atributes the quote to her not him! I can tell you that +Bob Duncan bent over backwards to accomodate those is Pittsburgh who disagreed with him. He was far more gracious to the opposition than most of them were with him. Perhaps Dr Bonnie ought to heed the immortal words of Creedence Clearwater Revival, “`Fore you `Cuse Me, Better Look at Yourself”!