They went all of the way to London for a 90-minute meeting? Yikes. Yes indeedy, I’d really be moved to tithe if I lived in one of those dioceses!
I’d like to read an unspun account. You can’t tell me that all Cantuar did was “express his affection” for TEC and pat them all on their episcopal heads.
“The bishops also discussed boundary interventions between provinces “and the pain and stress that these have caused and continue to cause in parts of our church, which sadden us greatly, especially since the Windsor Process itself called for a cessation of such interventions,” said Daniel.”
What about the pain and stress of being told that what you believe and have always believed and what the church has believed the last 2000 years’ has now changed and you have to get with the program?
Ok, we’ve had the Sep delegation and the Oct delegation – I wonder who is going in November. I can’t believe what it must cost for these people to go over there for a 90-minute meeting. How much does that come out to for every minute?
They believe they represent a broad center and want to build trusting, respectful relationships and find common ground.
Unless I am mistaken, two of the six (Bps. Daniel and Powell) are on the PB’s council of advice that just signed off on the supposed “renunciation†by Bishop Ackerman. Does this sound like a broad center that wants to build trust?
Pardon my pun, but this smells like a rotten fish in denmark. Broad Center – I don’t know some of these bishops, but some of them are not broad center, they are totally leftist revisionists!!!!. If the ABC believes this I would like to sell him prime real estate in the middle of a Georgia swamp for his next Cathedral.
And now for some shooting fish in a barrel: “Our message was to say that the Episcopal Church is not a perfect church, but … it is alive, it is well, it is vital…”
All is well, after all.
Centrist to what, exactly. I can see by the roster that there’s nary a one as can claim to be close to the left side of an alleged center with any relation to substantial Christian moral and ethical teaching regarding sexuality.
They are pretty centrist. Probably they don’t buy the confusion of cultural politics with religious politics. They are willing to pray with people who aren’t perfect. Fortunately, they seem to lack the hostility that marks the margins of the church.
Perhaps what makes them centrist is that they are unwilling to be the sex police that those on the right would have.
Thanks John Wilkens for defining “center” for me, for the life of me I just haven’t been able to do for the last 25 years while a member of TEC — now I’m in ACNA and I guess I no longert need to.
MY view – the views of these bishops do represent sociologically about the mean of the Episcopal Church (particularly for clergy). Of course, theologically they’re all thoroughly progressive – but that broadly represents where TEC is. In other words, even the center of TEC is wholly skewed towards one end of the theological spectrum. But Archbishop Rowan will know that.
For a slightly more conservative northern Bishop – the Bishop of Montana. For a considerably more conservative northern Bishop – Bishop of North Dakota.
Just about everyone by his or her own definition is “in the center”. Almost nobody likes to be characterized as “rightwing” or “leftwing” because the terms are toxic. So the self-description is pretty meaningless self-reassurance that “I am right” (“because I’m left”).
By the standards of world Anglicanism, almost NOBODY in the hierarchy of Tec could be called “in the center”.
Three commenters here (#19, 20, 24) dissent from the general drift of the thread and state that the bishops are indeed basically correct in suggesting that they occupy a centrist position within TEC. Make that four… I agree with them as well.
The key here is to look carefully at what the bishops actually said. They claim to be at the the current ideological center of TEC. They never claimed to be centrist compared to all Christians throughout the world, or all Christians throughout time, or even all Episcopalians for the last 200 years.
So if you compare them to Jack Spong, or Marcus Borg, or Susan Russell, or the Muslim Priestess, or the Buddhist Bishop, or KJS (on the one side) over and against say Fitz Alison or Mark Lawrence (on the other) — and bearing in mind that there are in TEC now many more of the former than the latter — then they are probably center or perhaps a bit right of center.
What does it mean to be in the center of TEC today?
It means:
* Not being a person who has pioneered the sexual innovations yourself, or agitated wildly for them, but who has come over the last 10 years to give them your support
* Not going out of your way to persecute traditionalist clergy and parishes (if they make no effort to leave or otherwise rock the boat), but joining in their persecution if they do
* Not going out of your way yourself to attack creedal belief, and usually also claiming that you personally believe in the Creeds’ traditional meaning; but also viewing Anglicanism as a ‘via media’ in which the Creeds can be understood many ways, and certainly in no way viewing the current proliferation of creedal heresies in TEC’s laity and priesthood with deep alarm or attempting vigorously to correct it; and indeed usually calling people who do experience such alarm “Fundamentalists” or “Literalists.”
#20 says: “They are willing to pray with people who aren’t perfect.” Is this a sincere statement? I don’t know anyone in the Episcopal Church at all who doesn’t subscribe to this belief–even at the extemes. We disagree on many things, but in fairness this has really never been an issue, has it? I guess it’s so over the top it’s just meant to be provocative, but someone who didn’t know the truth might take it seriously.
Don’t have time to do much research, but here’s a bit of info on voting records:
GC09 Votes on D025, C056 (Yes votes are revisionist votes)
Michael Curry: D025 Yes, C056 Yes
Clifton Daniel: D025 Yes, C056 Yes
William Gregg: D025 Yes, C056 Yes
Chip Marble: D025 Yes, C056 Yes
Neff Powell: D025 Yes, C056 vote not recorded
Stacy Sauls: D025 Yes, C056 Yes
Votes from GC03 on B001 (core doctrine) / VGR
B001 NO is revisionist, VGR Yes is revisionist
Michael Curry: B001 No, VGR Yes
Clifton Daniel: B001 No, VGR Yes
William Gregg: B001 Yes, VGR Yes
Neff Powell: B001 No, VGR Yes
Stacy Sauls: B001 No, VGR Yes
So, almost totally the revisionist line on all votes. So much for broad center.
Thanks, Karen, nice attempt to supply an objective basis for understanding how centrist or leftist these six particular bishops are. Well done.
I’s say, more subjectively, but based on his relentless persecution of orthodox clergy and parishes (such as the old orthodox stronghold at St. John’s, Versailles), +Stacy Sauls is the most glaring example of someone who is rabidly anti-orthodox. There is nothing moderate about him at all.
Jon (#29) has a valid point. These six fellows are portrayed by ENS as in the broad center [b]of TEC[/b], not of Anglicanism as a whole, or Christianity as a whole. And that’s precisely the problem. Alas the center of TEC now bears no recognizable relation whatsoever to the center or mainstream of authentic, biblical Christianity.
The leaders of TEC have fatefully chosen to stay in the broad center of our increasingly immoral and de-Christianized culture rather than in the central stream of historic Christianity.
It’s a disastrous, even catastrophic choice. But it was a very intentional one. And it was a very natural, predictable one, given the old Christendom nature of our state church heritage as Anglicans, and the very advanced stage of theological and moral corruption in TEC. Sadly, in our day and age, we all face a momentous fork in the road, because you simply can’t be in the broad center of the mainstream western culture and the mainstream of authentic Christianity at the same time. You have to choose.
In our lifetime, God has put before us all the same supremely important choice that he set before the people of Israel long ago. [i]”See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil…Therefore, choose life, that you and your descendants may live[/i] (Deut. 30:15,19).” Alas, the leaders of TEC have chosen the path to death and destruction.
The master warned us that the broad center isn’t always the place you want to be. Remember the closing of the Sermon on the Mount. “enter by the narrow gate, for the gate is BROAD and the way is easy that leads to…
Well, to what? To peace and harmony and congenial relationships in a tolerant, inclusive community? No, to destruction.
But the gate is NARROW and the way is HARD that leads to life. And FEW there be that find it.”
So it has ever been. So it will always be.
David Handy+
Passionate advocate of post-Constantinian, Christ-against-culture Anglicanism
They went all of the way to London for a 90-minute meeting? Yikes. Yes indeedy, I’d really be moved to tithe if I lived in one of those dioceses!
I’d like to read an unspun account. You can’t tell me that all Cantuar did was “express his affection” for TEC and pat them all on their episcopal heads.
“The bishops also discussed boundary interventions between provinces “and the pain and stress that these have caused and continue to cause in parts of our church, which sadden us greatly, especially since the Windsor Process itself called for a cessation of such interventions,” said Daniel.”
What about the pain and stress of being told that what you believe and have always believed and what the church has believed the last 2000 years’ has now changed and you have to get with the program?
Ok, we’ve had the Sep delegation and the Oct delegation – I wonder who is going in November. I can’t believe what it must cost for these people to go over there for a 90-minute meeting. How much does that come out to for every minute?
If that’s the broad center then the pegs were moved. It must have been in the night! What a long trip to visit such a dry well.
Never has the Episcopal Church had a more narrow “broad center.”
I bet there is nothing center about the seminaries these bishops send their postulants or the priests they allow into their dioceses.
They believe they represent a broad center and want to build trusting, respectful relationships and find common ground.
Unless I am mistaken, two of the six (Bps. Daniel and Powell) are on the PB’s council of advice that just signed off on the supposed “renunciation†by Bishop Ackerman. Does this sound like a broad center that wants to build trust?
I don’t think there is anyone at 815 that has a concern about trust.
Hmmm … for a California Girl this “broad center” is sure “South” of center. Aren’t there any “broad center bishops” north of the Maxon-Dixon line?
[Comment deleted by Elf]
Pardon my pun, but this smells like a rotten fish in denmark. Broad Center – I don’t know some of these bishops, but some of them are not broad center, they are totally leftist revisionists!!!!. If the ABC believes this I would like to sell him prime real estate in the middle of a Georgia swamp for his next Cathedral.
ooops … typo. That should have been “Mason-Dixon” … but all y’all probably already knew that.
Bp. (paraphrase) — “he was a nice man. And, and he said he liked us. Golly, it was good.”
Bishop Curry is hardly a centrist. If he’s the new ECUSA center, I shudder to think of what the left is.
Ah, they were talking about geography then. And missed that, too.
I think broad center translates to left of center
Ten years ago I was in the broad center. Now I am on the edge.
And now for some shooting fish in a barrel: “Our message was to say that the Episcopal Church is not a perfect church, but … it is alive, it is well, it is vital…”
All is well, after all.
Centrist to what, exactly. I can see by the roster that there’s nary a one as can claim to be close to the left side of an alleged center with any relation to substantial Christian moral and ethical teaching regarding sexuality.
Sad to say, this really is the “broad center” of the Episcopal Church.
They are pretty centrist. Probably they don’t buy the confusion of cultural politics with religious politics. They are willing to pray with people who aren’t perfect. Fortunately, they seem to lack the hostility that marks the margins of the church.
Perhaps what makes them centrist is that they are unwilling to be the sex police that those on the right would have.
Thanks John Wilkens for defining “center” for me, for the life of me I just haven’t been able to do for the last 25 years while a member of TEC — now I’m in ACNA and I guess I no longert need to.
John, you have no idea what you’re talking about. Such a fascinating mixture of ignorance and lies.
[Comment deleted by Elf – please be careful how you express yourself in relation to other commenters]
MY view – the views of these bishops do represent sociologically about the mean of the Episcopal Church (particularly for clergy). Of course, theologically they’re all thoroughly progressive – but that broadly represents where TEC is. In other words, even the center of TEC is wholly skewed towards one end of the theological spectrum. But Archbishop Rowan will know that.
Hey Susan,
I wish they had included one Yankee: Bishop Geralyn Wolf. I guess she wouldn’t make your cut either.
Loyal opposition to this insanity
For a slightly more conservative northern Bishop – the Bishop of Montana. For a considerably more conservative northern Bishop – Bishop of North Dakota.
I expect it’s TECspeak: ‘broad center’ = loony left.
Just about everyone by his or her own definition is “in the center”. Almost nobody likes to be characterized as “rightwing” or “leftwing” because the terms are toxic. So the self-description is pretty meaningless self-reassurance that “I am right” (“because I’m left”).
By the standards of world Anglicanism, almost NOBODY in the hierarchy of Tec could be called “in the center”.
Three commenters here (#19, 20, 24) dissent from the general drift of the thread and state that the bishops are indeed basically correct in suggesting that they occupy a centrist position within TEC. Make that four… I agree with them as well.
The key here is to look carefully at what the bishops actually said. They claim to be at the the current ideological center of TEC. They never claimed to be centrist compared to all Christians throughout the world, or all Christians throughout time, or even all Episcopalians for the last 200 years.
So if you compare them to Jack Spong, or Marcus Borg, or Susan Russell, or the Muslim Priestess, or the Buddhist Bishop, or KJS (on the one side) over and against say Fitz Alison or Mark Lawrence (on the other) — and bearing in mind that there are in TEC now many more of the former than the latter — then they are probably center or perhaps a bit right of center.
What does it mean to be in the center of TEC today?
It means:
* Not being a person who has pioneered the sexual innovations yourself, or agitated wildly for them, but who has come over the last 10 years to give them your support
* Not going out of your way to persecute traditionalist clergy and parishes (if they make no effort to leave or otherwise rock the boat), but joining in their persecution if they do
* Not going out of your way yourself to attack creedal belief, and usually also claiming that you personally believe in the Creeds’ traditional meaning; but also viewing Anglicanism as a ‘via media’ in which the Creeds can be understood many ways, and certainly in no way viewing the current proliferation of creedal heresies in TEC’s laity and priesthood with deep alarm or attempting vigorously to correct it; and indeed usually calling people who do experience such alarm “Fundamentalists” or “Literalists.”
#20 says: “They are willing to pray with people who aren’t perfect.” Is this a sincere statement? I don’t know anyone in the Episcopal Church at all who doesn’t subscribe to this belief–even at the extemes. We disagree on many things, but in fairness this has really never been an issue, has it? I guess it’s so over the top it’s just meant to be provocative, but someone who didn’t know the truth might take it seriously.
Cross posted from SF:
Don’t have time to do much research, but here’s a bit of info on voting records:
GC09 Votes on D025, C056 (Yes votes are revisionist votes)
Michael Curry: D025 Yes, C056 Yes
Clifton Daniel: D025 Yes, C056 Yes
William Gregg: D025 Yes, C056 Yes
Chip Marble: D025 Yes, C056 Yes
Neff Powell: D025 Yes, C056 vote not recorded
Stacy Sauls: D025 Yes, C056 Yes
Votes from GC03 on B001 (core doctrine) / VGR
B001 NO is revisionist, VGR Yes is revisionist
Michael Curry: B001 No, VGR Yes
Clifton Daniel: B001 No, VGR Yes
William Gregg: B001 Yes, VGR Yes
Neff Powell: B001 No, VGR Yes
Stacy Sauls: B001 No, VGR Yes
So, almost totally the revisionist line on all votes. So much for broad center.
Thanks, Karen, nice attempt to supply an objective basis for understanding how centrist or leftist these six particular bishops are. Well done.
I’s say, more subjectively, but based on his relentless persecution of orthodox clergy and parishes (such as the old orthodox stronghold at St. John’s, Versailles), +Stacy Sauls is the most glaring example of someone who is rabidly anti-orthodox. There is nothing moderate about him at all.
Jon (#29) has a valid point. These six fellows are portrayed by ENS as in the broad center [b]of TEC[/b], not of Anglicanism as a whole, or Christianity as a whole. And that’s precisely the problem. Alas the center of TEC now bears no recognizable relation whatsoever to the center or mainstream of authentic, biblical Christianity.
The leaders of TEC have fatefully chosen to stay in the broad center of our increasingly immoral and de-Christianized culture rather than in the central stream of historic Christianity.
It’s a disastrous, even catastrophic choice. But it was a very intentional one. And it was a very natural, predictable one, given the old Christendom nature of our state church heritage as Anglicans, and the very advanced stage of theological and moral corruption in TEC. Sadly, in our day and age, we all face a momentous fork in the road, because you simply can’t be in the broad center of the mainstream western culture and the mainstream of authentic Christianity at the same time. You have to choose.
In our lifetime, God has put before us all the same supremely important choice that he set before the people of Israel long ago. [i]”See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil…Therefore, choose life, that you and your descendants may live[/i] (Deut. 30:15,19).” Alas, the leaders of TEC have chosen the path to death and destruction.
The master warned us that the broad center isn’t always the place you want to be. Remember the closing of the Sermon on the Mount. “enter by the narrow gate, for the gate is BROAD and the way is easy that leads to…
Well, to what? To peace and harmony and congenial relationships in a tolerant, inclusive community? No, to destruction.
But the gate is NARROW and the way is HARD that leads to life. And FEW there be that find it.”
So it has ever been. So it will always be.
David Handy+
Passionate advocate of post-Constantinian, Christ-against-culture Anglicanism