Doug LeBlanc, The Living Church: In the ENS (Episcopal News Service) report on Friday, you indicated that the PB spoke about the situation in South Carolina, asking people pray for the people in SC. What change do you hope to see as a result of those prayers?
PB: I want a clear understanding of realities of TEC and don’t want the people of South Carolina to rely on erroneous information, provided by other sources.
Bonnie Anderson: Have heard from several of the deputies from south Carolina. They have a desire for clear and accurate information; prayer all across the church for this situation….
George Conger, reporter at large: to the PB and President: You both expressed receiving erroneous information in SC. What is this erroneous information? Where did it come from?
PB: Episcopalians, like many others who use the internet, seek information that is not subject to peer review [Ed. Note: as information is in academic circles.] They rely on opinion, not fact. The South Carolina representation of our theology and polity as a whole is not accurate. There are stated processes of this Church that are not accurate. I would encourage South Carolinians to ask bodies of TEC that are responsible for these decisions and get their facts straight.
Bonnie Anderson: There is a large influx of information coming from multiple sources. It is really important for people who are going to be voting on something to get accurate information on the issues before them. Fox example, and this is just hypothetical, can a diocese leave TEC? What is the process for that concern? What have we agreed to in the General Convention over the years with regard to that?
I gather Conger actually mentioned ACI, and the ‘peer-review’ comment then followed.
It is hard to imagine, seriously, what world the leadership of TEC lives in. Here are people who have never published a peer-review article on anything at all, and probably struggle to use the term appropriately. ACI holds a conference on hierarchy with world class experts on canon law, an American Church Historian who publishes ‘peer-reviewed’ articles and mainstream books; a published scholar who has been the Dean of two Episcopal Theological Schools; the Chancellor for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas; Wm Abraham, a highly recognised scholar and published author (Oxford Press); and an ACI research group which includes an ecclesiologist referred to by NCR as a ‘leading light,’ who missed the conference because he was at the Vatican for a conference honoring Walter Kaspar, author of more than five books and sufficient ‘peer reviewed’ articles; and of course my own lowly self, a tenured professor at Yale, St Andrews and now Toronto who has written enough (peer-reveiwed) books to disqualify me from ever holding any position in leadership in TEC!
What is unclear is whether the comment is dissembling, ignorant, or just neither-here-nor-there, given the juggernaut of Executive Council and the PB.
Yes, I asked if the ACI were the source of this “erroneous” information? My question to the presiding bishop (on behalf of the Church of England Newspaper) was what were the sources of the erroneous information she decried? Was it the ACI? Who?
GConger
“Episcopal assets. That is my primary concern. ” Without a doubt this is the most honest statement I have read the PB make. Unfortunately, I fear it may be South Carolina’s primary concern too at this point; otherwise, would they still be in TEC with this kind of leadership?
Did Schori truly say this: “PB: Budgets are always challenging, even though we preach a gospel of prosperity. How do we, or what is the best way to spend money to perform the transformative work of the Gospel?”
Preach a gospel of prosperity? Not in my life. Hope my parish would run me out if I tried. Money performs the transformative work of the gospel? Really? She’s kidding, right?
Yes, it’s hard to speak in front of reporters, but this quote is bad on so many levels I am not sure what to conclude.
Thank you for your hard work, George, and probing. We have got a group of people running a major operation who appear just to make things up. Talk about serious need of ‘peer review’ — this is a church which at its upper levels is living in fantasy land, in respect of budget, attendance reality, mission, anything approaching serious theology, canonical probity, adminstrative transparency — leaving aside the morality of monies spent in lawsuits and now in harrassing Diocesan Bishops *who are not intending to leave*.
We look forward to your CEN article.
RE: “Episcopalians, like many others who use the internet, seek information that is not subject to peer review [Ed. Note: as information is in academic circles.] They rely on opinion, not fact. The South Carolina representation of our theology and polity as a whole is not accurate. There are stated processes of this Church that are not accurate. I would encourage South Carolinians to ask bodies of TEC that are responsible for these decisions and get their facts straight.”
Heh.
This is so so much fun to read. “Do not read the internets” said the Baghdad Bob.
It must be sickening to them to realize that they have utterly lost control of the communication and the communication vehicles. Oh for the good old days when TEC authorities could force people to receive their “news” from the organs of Pravda.
Yes, if only the ignorant would ask “bodies of TEC” and gain all “information” from those parties!
I don’t think there has been a day in the last five years that I haven’t checked in here at T19 (and later at Stand Firm) to keep up with what’s happening (both in and out of TEC) – and more often than not, I visit multiple times daily. The first I heard of anything happening in the Diocese of SC was less than two weeks ago when it was posted here that +Lawrence postponed convetion by two weeks…then, of course came the revelation of the various letters between the lawyers. So, I’m not at all certain where KJS is drawing her conclusions vis-a-vis sources of misinformation. It seems to me that the “treachery afoot” was kept out of the public domain for much longer than one would expect, given the speed of communication these days. As for her disdain at the absence of “peer review, perhaps now would be a good time to remind her that she is the PB and [i]not[/i] functioning in her previous occupation of oceanographer. Then again, her gracelessness in dealing with those who disagree with her (on any level) and apparent absence of pastoral skills don’t exactly mesh with her office, either.
[blockquote] Bonnie Anderson in conclusion: . . . We need to give people a reason to get out of bed on Sunday morning and come to church. We must respond to our communities and tell people all the good things about TEC: our strong stand for social justice, the vital ministry of lay people and our democratic process of decision making. [/blockquote]
What a hoot!
Oh…and where is the “peer review” of TEC and its wacked out theology?
[Comment deleted by Elf – please would commenters fast from invective during Lent – thanks]
Nikolaus (#8):
I couldn’t stomach reading the entire transcript and this one statement by Bonnie Anderson is the very reason why. Doesn’t the Kiwanis Club do good things…respond to the needs of their communities…and have a democratic process of decision making as well? Doesn’t sound like there is a whole lot of difference to me, so if Dr. Aderson doesn’t mind, I’ll just sleep-in on Sunday and just attend the Thursday night dinner meetings with the Kiwanis “brethren.”
When authorities fear that the masses have too much information or can’t discern good information from bad, it’s time for a new reformation. That could be a good thing! And one thing most families don’t have time for these days is to get out of bed on Sunday morning to take their children across town for a dose of watered-down social studies.
[blockquote]PB: Episcopalians, like many others who use the internet, seek information that is not subject to peer review [Ed. Note: as information is in academic circles.] They rely on opinion, not fact.[/blockquote]
Funny. I was accused the very thing. When my diocese was about to take a second vote to leave, I started to do some research on the subject. I found out all sorts of information, documented churches that were leaving and their reasons, documented the PB’s sermons, statements etc. I have a documnet 14 pages on her alone. I was shocked (sarcasm)to find out that this really has little to do with women’s ordination, which is what the priest was trying to sell to the congregation. Once I started talking to others about what I knew and sharing my information …. It wasn’t pretty. Even had to listen to a sermon (a lecture) about how one shouldn’t read certain e-mails, the internet is not a reliable source of information etc. Problem was that all my facts were linked to original sources and I rarely gave my opinion. Truth has a way of shining through the darkness. Once it comes through, you can’t put it back. What started as a few friends grew to a group scattered all over the country.
“Peer review?” She DOES mean censorship……or “clear it with me before you speak,” doesn’t she?
re comment #11…
15 or more years ago I heard Will Willimon say someting along these lines: “We (mainline Christians) are giving the atheists less and less to disbelieve. We have a message that seems hard to distinguish from that of the Rotary Clun, except the Rotary Club meets at a more convenient time and offers a better meal”…
Dr. Seitz,
I daresay that the last thing the PB would want would be to have any of the several legal reviews put forward by ACI peer reviewed by legal journals (I am thinking especially about the points made on such things as voluntary associations, or unilaterally imposed trusts), as those peer reviews would likely be quite favorable to the papers submitted by Mr. McCall and others. As you point out, a substantial amount of Dr. Prichard’s work, as well as your own, has indeed been peer reviewed. Your work has certainly stood up better than TEC’s has in it’s “peer reviews” of the last 10-15 years. For instance:
TEC’s theological changes were “peer reviewed†by the Lambeth Conferences of 1998 and 2008- and rejected.
The consecration of VGR was peer reviewed by the Instruments of Communion and the Churches of the Anglican Communion, both before and after it took place- and rejected.
SSBs have been peer reviewed in every major forum of the Anglican Communion for the last 15 years- and rejected.
The hundreds of depositions and other disciplinary actions against clergy taken by TEC since 2003 have been peer reviewed by the Churches of the Anglican Communion, and rejected. One thing that is clear in the CoE Synod resolution on ACNA is that even the Church of England rejects the legitimacy of the depositions.
TEC’s use of lawsuits has been peer reviewed by every major church in Christendom and found wanting.
In any case, TEC has nothing to worry about. The decline and collapse of the Episcopal Church will provide fodder for graduate school theses and historical and theological journals for generations to come. So there will be plenty of academic peer review as well.
Not know about peer review? Was not the Presiding Bishop the Dean of a School of Theology? Why, certainly she was. “Dean of the Good Samaritan School of Theology”. It is right there on her CV. Here it is (probably need to save this link before this it gets taken down like some others):
http://ecusa.anglican.org/3577_71139_ENG_HTM.htm
Bonnie Anderson refers to an agreement over the years within General Convention about whether a diocese can leave TEC. Does anyone know to what she is referring?