What is it that has led to the flurry of letters from the Presiding Bishop and the President of the House of Deputies? What is it that they fear which has led to this PR exercise to pursuade everyone that these resolutions do not mean what the ordinary usage of the words makes clear? What is behind the ‘talking points’ sheet which TEC bishops seem to be taking their cue from? Is it love of the Communion which they make no effort otherwise to take into account?
The conclusion I am coming to is that the reason is so that they continue doing what they intend to continue to do in breach of the moratoria, while securing their tentative position in the Communion. They know full well that given their claim to hierachy and membership of the Communion as the Anglican presence in North America that sanction will undermine their scorched earth policy of lawsuits against departing dioceses and those who are differentiating themselves from the General Convention’s actions. That this is their intention is clear from the way they ramped up the litigation budget to $4m from the central budget, let alone diocesan and trust funds to litigation while stopping the budget for evangelism and cutting everything else This is serious and affects peoples’ church homes and ability to continue to witness as faithful Anglicans. I hope we will stop giving comfort to TEC’s policy of persecution and litigation – surely that is the least we can do.
TEC know that it is litigation which is its best bet of cowing and getting rid of conservatives whether in ACNA or CP. Let’s not give them and their nasty policy any more assistance.
The longer he waits to say something, the more irrelevant he seems. This reminds me a bit of the story of Queen Elizabeth waiting too long to make a public pronouncement about Princess Diana’s death (well-delivered by the movie, “The Queenâ€). Maybe it’s a British thing…
His leadership will be criticized no matter what – due mostly to his own apparent reticence over the past several years. But this is kind of like when you’re waiting in line to be helped at a store, and the clerk – who is already helping another customer – simply makes no acknowledgement that you are there. If s/he would only simply turn to you and say, “I’ll be with you in a momentâ€, any frustration you may have is likely diminished.
He does himself, and the Communion, no favors by keeping silent. I pray we hear something soon – even if it’s “I’ll be with you in a moment.”
Maybe nothing is coming from Rowan. Notice the silence also from the Global South? Maybe nobody cares any more. ECUSA certainly doesn’t, which has shown the various primates and leaders around the world that the effort to write these responses is a waste of precious resources. There’s a good chance they’ve quit beating their heads against the wall trying to get ECUSA out of the bar and are going to let it drink itself to death.
I think Canon Harmon’s stricture to see what actually comes out and to remain prayerful is right. Perhaps Peter Ould’s take on this is wise and fits the silence all round. Prayers for the Archbishop and those making decisions. Everyone has put their oar in, myself included, let’s now see what happens, prayerfully.
The “Ladies” may have tried to lay the gauntlet down gently, tenderly and sweetly, but it is down nonetheless.
The real, blatant and direct violation of Windsor was not in the resolutions but in the budget:
In response to the Windsor request for an end to the lawsuits, several $million was given a specific line item for litigation. This is neither secondary nor minor. It is the clearest violation of the Windsor Report and the repeated insistence of the Primates.
Oh wait. I forgot. In her opening “remarks” Bonnie Anderson told us quite clearly and emphatically:
[b]”The ONLY authority in The Episcopal Church is General Convention…. Bishops have NO authority in the Episcopal Church.”[/b] And, yes, I remember this quite accurately.
I don’t take the silence in the same way as Peter Ould. Far from burning up the lines with the Global South I expect that Kearon and various lawyers on both sides, and Crew and Schori and Beers are burning up the wires to figure out how to water down whatever it is that RW has written.
At the end of the week we’ll get a nice thin gruel.
[blockquote]One thought – the longer it takes for the official reply to come, the more it’s clear that Lambeth Palace is taking this very, very seriously. [/blockquote]
So, by extension, if Rowan never says anything, the matter is of supreme, dire, thermonuclear importance.
I agree with Sarah in #8, though I’d love to be proven wrong.
I suspect that #8 is more correct. I suspect that the open communication to ABC RW from Ms. Anderson and the PB were done with advance notice and communication with him. They offer him a cover to hide beneath. I suspect we will get more “I regret” and more “I cannot sanction” and more about the deep relationship with TEC. And of course we will be told by the defenders of TEC and ABC that he is such a complex thinker and speaks with such nuance that common folk like us cannot grasp his depth of insight. He has been a textbook example of how not to lead, unless he is by default allowing TEC to go in the direction he wants the whole AC to go.
In light of #6, I found Anderson’s remarks [url=http://wwwepiscopalchurch.org/documents/POHDopeningaddress.pdf]here.[/url]
The second paragraph reads, “The General Convention, meeting once every three years is the world’s largest bicameral legislature. The General Convention holds all authority in The Episcopal Church, other than the authority to change the Core Doctrine of the Church. Of course, the ultimate authority for all we are and all we have and all we do resides in our beloved Jesus Christ.”
Further speculation will draw this thread far off course. I simply wanted to share the link, and note that the ACI Bishop’s Statement on the Polity of the Episcopal Church is a timely document.
There is a certain irony in the possibility that while we await a response, the ABC may have already responded (Privately and formally) to TEC. He may be awaiting a response from them (also possibly privately) before he responds publicly. If the ball is in their court, they will take their time responding knowing Rowan is left to twist in the wind during the interim.
It also seems that the ABC would have, as a leader of the WWAC, already been pondering responses in the event that TEC did the inevitable. This is something he had a lot of lead time to consider. That is why he cannot claim the response delay was due to his agonizing over the “surprise” decisions of GenCon09.
“The General Convention, meeting once every three years is the world’s largest bicameral legislature. The General Convention holds all authority in The Episcopal Church, other than the authority to change the Core Doctrine of the Church. Of course, the ultimate authority for all we are and all we have and all we do resides in our beloved Jesus Christ.†Read this 3 or 4 times very slowly and very carefully…..then ask yourself…who is really running TEC…..aw come on, you know the answer…..she and the PB are two peas in a pod….in the quote, she shoots her mouth off to let you know who is in control, and then the after thought, the ” of course” sentence…..
Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): “Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”
Holmes: “To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”
Gregory: “The dog did nothing in the night-time.”
Holmes: “That was the curious incident.”
If I might continue Jim’s narrative:
Gregory: But, Mr. Holmes, the dog never does anything – day or night.
Holmes: Perhaps it is a good for nothing mongrel.
Gregory: You’ve never said a truer word, Guvner.
#18…. are you sure about that? My memory (which may be wrong) is that the final decision of the Richter trial was that the bishop’s ordination of a sexually active gay man for the priesthood did not violate the then ECUSA’s core doctrine. Such a ruling implied that such core doctrine exists, but that it didn’t address the question at hand.
It’s hard for me to believe that the ECUSA judges then were insightful enough or brave enough to boldly state what was by that time true: that no doctrine of any kind was binding or normative in ECUSA, whether the Trinity or the Incarnation or the Atonement or anything else.
Sorry I have been offline for a while. I hope it is not too late to answer Fr Greg’s # 11 in response to my # 6.
In regard to some of the BP’s speeches/sermons I have been told there was some, “cleaning up” in the reporting of them with some significant lacunae. I have not verified this for myself, but the info came from someone I completely trust, and who said he had checked
this himself. It wouldn’t surprise me. This causes me to be a little suspicious of the accuracy of the rendering of what was actually said.
The point she was making was that bishops do not, somehow, have any authority over the church except as they participate in GenCon — where (it is continually repeated) the HoB is the “lower” ,”junior” house. This is NOT said tongue in cheek.
Ms (Dr?) Anderson went on to say in her little talk that there were no bishops in the colonies and therefore no episcopal authority (I guess she never read about the authority of the Bishop of London) and that the Episcopal Church in the newly independent USA organized itself without any need for bishops, except that: they finally got some bishops to do sacramental functions. [words close to this and/or connoting the same.] She made it very clear that she believes that bishops do not have authority over the church.
There was some serious tension between her and the BP and between HoB and HoD.
OK I just read the text online of Anderson’s “opening remarks.”
I am sorry, but I can put this no other way: I feel like I am living in Stalinist Russia and another party leader got air-brushed out of a photograph. Welcome to the pages of Pravda.
Anderson DID say that the PECUSA start up did not have and did not need bishops and only got some: “to do sacramental functions.” It really struck me at the time, and it stayed with me because I kept pondering it. I would not make something like this up. She made clear her opinion that bishops do not actually have authority OVER the church. She strongly pushes the idea that: “This Church is a democracy!!” I have heard her say it more than once.
#22. Lumen Christie,
This essentially means that the highest lay person and the highest clergy person in TEC do not understand the polity or the theology of the church they purport to serve. Based on what you are saying Bonnie Anderson would probably be an advocate of lay presidency also.
Upon further reading and pondering last night and this morning I realize that at least an entire paragraph has been taken out of this speech. Anderson gave us a short but extensive history lesson on the lack of bishops in the beginnings of TEC. This is now gone.
Her sense of history is completely wrong, of course. There must have been some counsel taken to patch up things a little with the PB. How do these people live with themselves doing such dishonest things?
Well, in answer to your question, LumenChristie, I’d say that normal people might be uneasy living with themselves. Anderson and her associates, however, are a different story.
What is it that has led to the flurry of letters from the Presiding Bishop and the President of the House of Deputies? What is it that they fear which has led to this PR exercise to pursuade everyone that these resolutions do not mean what the ordinary usage of the words makes clear? What is behind the ‘talking points’ sheet which TEC bishops seem to be taking their cue from? Is it love of the Communion which they make no effort otherwise to take into account?
The conclusion I am coming to is that the reason is so that they continue doing what they intend to continue to do in breach of the moratoria, while securing their tentative position in the Communion. They know full well that given their claim to hierachy and membership of the Communion as the Anglican presence in North America that sanction will undermine their scorched earth policy of lawsuits against departing dioceses and those who are differentiating themselves from the General Convention’s actions. That this is their intention is clear from the way they ramped up the litigation budget to $4m from the central budget, let alone diocesan and trust funds to litigation while stopping the budget for evangelism and cutting everything else This is serious and affects peoples’ church homes and ability to continue to witness as faithful Anglicans. I hope we will stop giving comfort to TEC’s policy of persecution and litigation – surely that is the least we can do.
TEC know that it is litigation which is its best bet of cowing and getting rid of conservatives whether in ACNA or CP. Let’s not give them and their nasty policy any more assistance.
Prayers are certainly in order.
For anyone in any doubt that this is what this is about consider what is happening in the continuing persecution in San Joaquin where the Nasty Church is sueing not only the diocese but also their lawyers:
http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2008/07/brace-yourselves-in-san-joaquin.html
You won’t find a letter about this to the Primates from the ladies I’ll bet.
Prayers for the faithful people of San Joaquin.
All,
The longer he waits to say something, the more irrelevant he seems. This reminds me a bit of the story of Queen Elizabeth waiting too long to make a public pronouncement about Princess Diana’s death (well-delivered by the movie, “The Queenâ€). Maybe it’s a British thing…
His leadership will be criticized no matter what – due mostly to his own apparent reticence over the past several years. But this is kind of like when you’re waiting in line to be helped at a store, and the clerk – who is already helping another customer – simply makes no acknowledgement that you are there. If s/he would only simply turn to you and say, “I’ll be with you in a momentâ€, any frustration you may have is likely diminished.
He does himself, and the Communion, no favors by keeping silent. I pray we hear something soon – even if it’s “I’ll be with you in a moment.”
Darin+
Maybe nothing is coming from Rowan. Notice the silence also from the Global South? Maybe nobody cares any more. ECUSA certainly doesn’t, which has shown the various primates and leaders around the world that the effort to write these responses is a waste of precious resources. There’s a good chance they’ve quit beating their heads against the wall trying to get ECUSA out of the bar and are going to let it drink itself to death.
I think Canon Harmon’s stricture to see what actually comes out and to remain prayerful is right. Perhaps Peter Ould’s take on this is wise and fits the silence all round. Prayers for the Archbishop and those making decisions. Everyone has put their oar in, myself included, let’s now see what happens, prayerfully.
Some response must come.
The “Ladies” may have tried to lay the gauntlet down gently, tenderly and sweetly, but it is down nonetheless.
The real, blatant and direct violation of Windsor was not in the resolutions but in the budget:
In response to the Windsor request for an end to the lawsuits, several $million was given a specific line item for litigation. This is neither secondary nor minor. It is the clearest violation of the Windsor Report and the repeated insistence of the Primates.
Oh wait. I forgot. In her opening “remarks” Bonnie Anderson told us quite clearly and emphatically:
[b]”The ONLY authority in The Episcopal Church is General Convention…. Bishops have NO authority in the Episcopal Church.”[/b] And, yes, I remember this quite accurately.
Wow, LumenChristie. I hadn’t heard that. Why doesn’t she remove herself from the “Episcopal” church if she feels that way?
I don’t take the silence in the same way as Peter Ould. Far from burning up the lines with the Global South I expect that Kearon and various lawyers on both sides, and Crew and Schori and Beers are burning up the wires to figure out how to water down whatever it is that RW has written.
At the end of the week we’ll get a nice thin gruel.
[blockquote]One thought – the longer it takes for the official reply to come, the more it’s clear that Lambeth Palace is taking this very, very seriously. [/blockquote]
So, by extension, if Rowan never says anything, the matter is of supreme, dire, thermonuclear importance.
I agree with Sarah in #8, though I’d love to be proven wrong.
I suspect that #8 is more correct. I suspect that the open communication to ABC RW from Ms. Anderson and the PB were done with advance notice and communication with him. They offer him a cover to hide beneath. I suspect we will get more “I regret” and more “I cannot sanction” and more about the deep relationship with TEC. And of course we will be told by the defenders of TEC and ABC that he is such a complex thinker and speaks with such nuance that common folk like us cannot grasp his depth of insight. He has been a textbook example of how not to lead, unless he is by default allowing TEC to go in the direction he wants the whole AC to go.
In light of #6, I found Anderson’s remarks [url=http://wwwepiscopalchurch.org/documents/POHDopeningaddress.pdf]here.[/url]
The second paragraph reads, “The General Convention, meeting once every three years is the world’s largest bicameral legislature. The General Convention holds all authority in The Episcopal Church, other than the authority to change the Core Doctrine of the Church. Of course, the ultimate authority for all we are and all we have and all we do resides in our beloved Jesus Christ.”
Further speculation will draw this thread far off course. I simply wanted to share the link, and note that the ACI Bishop’s Statement on the Polity of the Episcopal Church is a timely document.
I left a “dot” after the link I attempted to post.
I hope [url=http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/POHDopeningaddress.pdf]this one works.[/url]
There is a certain irony in the possibility that while we await a response, the ABC may have already responded (Privately and formally) to TEC. He may be awaiting a response from them (also possibly privately) before he responds publicly. If the ball is in their court, they will take their time responding knowing Rowan is left to twist in the wind during the interim.
It also seems that the ABC would have, as a leader of the WWAC, already been pondering responses in the event that TEC did the inevitable. This is something he had a lot of lead time to consider. That is why he cannot claim the response delay was due to his agonizing over the “surprise” decisions of GenCon09.
“The General Convention, meeting once every three years is the world’s largest bicameral legislature. The General Convention holds all authority in The Episcopal Church, other than the authority to change the Core Doctrine of the Church. Of course, the ultimate authority for all we are and all we have and all we do resides in our beloved Jesus Christ.†Read this 3 or 4 times very slowly and very carefully…..then ask yourself…who is really running TEC…..aw come on, you know the answer…..she and the PB are two peas in a pod….in the quote, she shoots her mouth off to let you know who is in control, and then the after thought, the ” of course” sentence…..
Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): “Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”
Holmes: “To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”
Gregory: “The dog did nothing in the night-time.”
Holmes: “That was the curious incident.”
If I might continue Jim’s narrative:
Gregory: But, Mr. Holmes, the dog never does anything – day or night.
Holmes: Perhaps it is a good for nothing mongrel.
Gregory: You’ve never said a truer word, Guvner.
2. Thank you, pageantmaster! We can use all the prayers we can get!
What CORE Doctrine, during the trial of a bishop some years back the ruling was the Episcopal Church had NO CORE Doctrine.
#18…. are you sure about that? My memory (which may be wrong) is that the final decision of the Richter trial was that the bishop’s ordination of a sexually active gay man for the priesthood did not violate the then ECUSA’s core doctrine. Such a ruling implied that such core doctrine exists, but that it didn’t address the question at hand.
It’s hard for me to believe that the ECUSA judges then were insightful enough or brave enough to boldly state what was by that time true: that no doctrine of any kind was binding or normative in ECUSA, whether the Trinity or the Incarnation or the Atonement or anything else.
Why should we care?
Sorry I have been offline for a while. I hope it is not too late to answer Fr Greg’s # 11 in response to my # 6.
In regard to some of the BP’s speeches/sermons I have been told there was some, “cleaning up” in the reporting of them with some significant lacunae. I have not verified this for myself, but the info came from someone I completely trust, and who said he had checked
this himself. It wouldn’t surprise me. This causes me to be a little suspicious of the accuracy of the rendering of what was actually said.
The point she was making was that bishops do not, somehow, have any authority over the church except as they participate in GenCon — where (it is continually repeated) the HoB is the “lower” ,”junior” house. This is NOT said tongue in cheek.
Ms (Dr?) Anderson went on to say in her little talk that there were no bishops in the colonies and therefore no episcopal authority (I guess she never read about the authority of the Bishop of London) and that the Episcopal Church in the newly independent USA organized itself without any need for bishops, except that: they finally got some bishops to do sacramental functions. [words close to this and/or connoting the same.] She made it very clear that she believes that bishops do not have authority over the church.
There was some serious tension between her and the BP and between HoB and HoD.
OK I just read the text online of Anderson’s “opening remarks.”
I am sorry, but I can put this no other way: I feel like I am living in Stalinist Russia and another party leader got air-brushed out of a photograph. Welcome to the pages of Pravda.
Anderson DID say that the PECUSA start up did not have and did not need bishops and only got some: “to do sacramental functions.” It really struck me at the time, and it stayed with me because I kept pondering it. I would not make something like this up. She made clear her opinion that bishops do not actually have authority OVER the church. She strongly pushes the idea that: “This Church is a democracy!!” I have heard her say it more than once.
Deniabiltiy after the fact??
AAUGH.
#22. Lumen Christie,
This essentially means that the highest lay person and the highest clergy person in TEC do not understand the polity or the theology of the church they purport to serve. Based on what you are saying Bonnie Anderson would probably be an advocate of lay presidency also.
Dcn Dale — This would not surprise me.
Upon further reading and pondering last night and this morning I realize that at least an entire paragraph has been taken out of this speech. Anderson gave us a short but extensive history lesson on the lack of bishops in the beginnings of TEC. This is now gone.
Her sense of history is completely wrong, of course. There must have been some counsel taken to patch up things a little with the PB. How do these people live with themselves doing such dishonest things?
Well, in answer to your question, LumenChristie, I’d say that normal people might be uneasy living with themselves. Anderson and her associates, however, are a different story.