It is impossible to respond to this sad piece, except to say that is so filled with error, special (and false) pleading, misreading and misunderstanding, pretence and posturing, perversion and malice, as to defy coherent reply….
Will any one, in the days ahead, pay attention to the sorry production of these miguided bishops? I pray God that they will not.
I have always suspected that the HoB March Statement was drafted before the meeting ever took place, by people like Sauls and others. (Whether Prof. Grieb was in the loop, I don’t know; but she certainly didn’t miss a step in blending in.) The success of this strategy in March, which “framed” the outcome then rather slickly, may have over-emboldened the same group to adopt a more public pre-meeting profile. Obviously, given the embarrassing nature of the quality and content of this “report”, the strategy is proving a profound mistake on their part. It has deep-sixed any credibility that Henderson might have (if ever he would) to stand as a Primatial Vicar nominee, it has publicly nailed the character of the bishops in question to a caricature of American arrogance and “Christian” idiocy, and it has dug a hole for their cause, before the Communion, whose only fit filling is the ordure of their arguments.
Dr. Radner,
We are grateful for your labors. You are much needed in this time.
Please, Dr. Radner, don’t hold back. It is sooo good when an honest and well-informed man speaks frankly!
I couldn’t get past the first section of this report. All of the claims that TEC respects and abides by Anglican Communion principles while we are trying to change what the AC is and does were just astounding. This sounds like the arguments of a sleazy legal team who trying to convince a jury that although their client did rob several stores, he was just proving the value of our society’s practices, since the store was insured and no one really suffered from his actions.
Bizarre, totally bizarre.
thank you Fr. Radner
This from the Telegraph Sunday: “The Archbishop of Canterbury fears the Anglican Church will finally split if his warnings over promoting gay bishops are not heeded. Dr Rowan Williams has confided in his closest aides that he believes his visit to a summit of Church leaders in America this week is critical to the survival of the Anglican Communion. In one of the most crucial weeks of his tenure as Archbishop, he will fly to New Orleans on Wednesday to urge American bishops to heed the recommendations of the Windsor Report, which called on liberals to refrain from making further pro-gay moves.”
I fully anticipate that the Archbishop will do exactly what is described in this report from the Telegraph. I also anticipate that the HOB will respond with both the fog of reports such as this one and the same bottom line that they issued in March. Finally, I think we have, reached yet another critical turning point in the history of Anglican Christianity. The sun will still rise and set, and our daily lives will go on, but something essential will have changed. Time for lots of prayer!
Winning and losing…
Sarah Hey has written brilliantly how the liberal revisionistas have cleaned the clocks of the orthodox to the point that national meetings are entirely “homosexuals or homosexual wannabe’s” in the words of Kevin Kallsen of Anglican TV. Is winning everything? It certainly is to the liberal ideologues such as Gene Robinson who stated he would “boldy [sic] risk the institution itself” to advance his agenda.
There is a technique that is now becoming a modus operandi of the liberals, that of springing a completely typed and triplicated document at the beginning of meetings so as to dominate the agenda of meetings of Christian leaders. We have three recent examples, the subcommittee report of the ABC, the mind of the House resolution at the spring meeting, and now this sad legal briefing attempting to pass as theology. The later was apparently released in such a fashion so as to prevent what actually happened that of widespread dissemination so that it could be analyzed beforehand. I believe we have Greg Griffiths and other standfirmers to thank for this.
This method of course is completely antithetical to the manner where Christian leaders should come together and discuss and reconcile. It also runs against the good practice of law wherein there is a discovery period and opposing sides can examine the evidence in a manner so as to try to move to the goal, which in law is coming to a just settlement. I imagine that these lawyer/bishops would get a severe reprimand if not have their case thrown out by the presiding judge if they pulled these antics in a court of law.
Of course, we are here trying to sort out something much more important than a divorce settlement or insurance payout in an automobile accident. The presiding judge in this case is the Lord Almighty. These lawyer/bishops should hang their heads in shame for trying to foist this legal tactic on fellow brothers and sisters in Christ rather than coming together in an conciliary fashion prayerfully looking together at the issues in the light of scripture, tradition and (lastly) reason.
Winning or losing? I am not worried. The political machinations of the liberals cannot hold up to the test of Gamaliel which they are failing miserably.
I wish I could be as sanguine as Dr. Radner.
But when he says this — “Will any one, in the days ahead, pay attention to the sorry production of these miguided bishops? I pray God that they will not” — I consider how much positive attention is and has been poured out on other utterly misguided and vacuous documents, resolutions, reports, and more over the past four years.
All I can picture is many many bishops and [sadly] three members of the Primates Standing Committee all nodding their heads wisely as this thing is read aloud, or even merely referred to as a toss-away “given” in the course of “dialogue”.
By the end of the HOB meeting it will be a part of the canon, and we’ll all be starting our sentences with words like “As the Bishops’ Report stated . . . ”
And I honestly don’t know Archbishop Williams at all, so he could be the fourth Primate at the meeting who nods his head wisely.
Sarah: I am sure that the bishops in question will indeed present this report to the HoB where it will be accepted as a brilliant piece of legal and theological reasoning. We all know what the HoB thought of Dr. Radner last time.
I would be highly doubtful of Rowan Williams being so easily taken in, however. Or shall I say, if Rowan Williams would be taken in, then he would have blown any and all personal credibility and self-respect he has. Don’t forget that both Radner and Gomez were put on the Covenant drafting committee and Rowan Williams has heavily tied himself to the idea of the Covenant. This paper attacks the Covenant as being “unconstitutional” and Radner has dismissed it out of hand.
I actually think that it is very good news indeed that this sort of garbage is being put out by the HoB’s top legal minds. I think that if this is part of the HoB’s stategy vis a vis Rowan Williams (and I would guess that since Stacey Sauls and – originally anyway – Dorsey Henderson’s name are attached to this, this must represent a mainstream view within the HoB), then it is much more likely to push Rowan Williams into the arms of Radner and Gomez.
The fact that this was leaked early will have no effect on its reception at the HoB – you could probably hand out a list of Big Mac ingredients there and the majority would still nod sagely and declare how wise and inclusive and enlightened what they read is. But it will mean that Rowan Williams will be able to gauge its reaction amongst the conservatives, and frankly, both CommCons and FedCons have – without hesitation or reservation – totally trashed this report. I think that Rowan will know this report is trash, but he now knows that this report will have no truck amongst any of the conservatives.
Thank God for people like Ephraim Radner who tell the truth no matter what the cost.
I think that Sarah is correct and that Radner+ is too quick to dismiss this document. There are flaws that need to be addressed and he would be a good person to challenge these.