At this particular gathering in New Orleans our House of Bishops will address three significant matters. We have been asked to clarify what were our intentions when General Convention passed B033 last summer, the very difficult “compromise” in which we pledged not to consent to the election of a bishop whose “manner of life” would pose a challenge to our communion. Many disagreed with our action, but everyone knew what was being said by this resolution. Secondly, we have been asked to clarify whether or not we have authorized the blessing of same gender unions. We, as a church, have not and I believe we can say that with integrity. However, a minority have interpreted our commitment to the pastoral care of gay and lesbian persons as permission to allow for the blessing of same gender relationships.
Thirdly, we have been asked to consider the concept of a covenant, including what would be its purpose, content and instruments of accountability? Controversial from its outset and dismissed by every faction of the Communion at one time or another, the idea of a covenant remains alive and will be a part of our ongoing conversation for years to come.
Some bishops and spouses will be spending time on the Gulf Coast on Saturday and Sunday of our meeting. They will receive an orientation to our challenges, work out of Camp Coast Care in rebuilding projects and join coast congregations for Sunday worship. I believe their presence among us will point again to our experience over the past two years of being “One Church in Mission.”
The Archbishop of Canterbury will be meeting with us for two days of our deliberations. His presence among us is eagerly anticipated and I am delighted that he accepted our invitation to join us. I have been asked to sit with him when we move to our traditional small group tables for in depth conversations during plenary sessions. I am honored to be chosen by our Presiding Bishop to participate in this way and look forward to a deeper conversation with Archbishop Williams than I had previously imagined.
Read it all. I find it baffling that he omits the issue of the pastoral scheme and the response thereto by the previous House of Bishops meeting and the Executive Council. Also, if everyone knew what B033 meant then why were so many different understandings given at the time? Also, what of resolution C051 and the practice of numerous dioceses of allowing same sex blessings in contravention of the teaching and practice of the Anglican Communion?KSH.
The silence from +Mississippi re the matters of C051 and the pastoral schme ought not be baffling. They are too clear in what they said and did. +Mississippi does not wish to raise that spectre to his readers, for it considerably advances the ball down the field into chaos and potential breakup.
Additionally, if I heard correctly, the findings of the small group table discussions are NOT intended for wider discussion in the general meet sessions, so we have the reality of all the thoughts, suggestions, warnings and statements from the ABoC, being tabled and not attended.
Surely, this is not the best way forward, if one is seeking a healing or a metanoya. However, IMO, suppressing information and alternative opinions, is pretty much what the HoB & current TEC management, are best at.
Alternative opinions simply do not flow smoothly within the TEC listending process.
And yet there is (misplaced) hope that the House of Bishops is capable of being honest and active in addressing the issues. Such faith in this institution and its members boggles the mind!
This letter probably received high marks from 815 and the PB and perhaps thus the invitation to sit with the ABC. One hates to think in this fashion about a bishop, much less a 3rd generation bishop, but this seems to be the level to which the leadership of TEC has been reduced as a result of their own conduct. How sad and unfortunate. Contrast that with the character of AB Henry Orambi for example. No comparison. How said and unfortunate for the Church.
Much like consideration of both sides of the equation regarding the property disputes & trusts, the inconvenient concepts of Dar are simply ignored by the powers that be within the GCC, therefore they do not exist, do not have to be addressed and are no longer part of their “listening process”. Selective memory can be a wonderful thing if you have no interest in truth.
No 1, Does this remind you of the Delphi procedure? Let opinoins be espressed in small groups but not reporting them as such. Those “opinions” are lost in the final reporting.
I, too wonder what the first Bishop Gray is thinking coudl he think. Also, the second Bishop Gray? He is retired. God rest those wonderful souls who have gone on to their reward
HEY – give the Bishop his due –
MEANWHILE in MONTANA – did you know nothing has happened in the Anglican Communion worth mentioning since the arrival of a nifty shield to their site on August 10th?
So, hey there IS no bishop’s meeting, the Archbishop of Canterbury must not be coming – nothing of significance is going on except a Convention October 7th in Butte, MT.
No controversy at all – anywhere – I’m surprised the Anglican Communion has not REALIZED this!
As always, Dr. Harmon “gets it”…
“I find it baffling that he omits the issue of the pastoral scheme and the response thereto by the previous House of Bishops meeting and the Executive Council. Also, if everyone knew what B033 meant then why were so many different understandings given at the time? Also, what of resolution C051 and the practice of numerous dioceses of allowing same sex blessings in contravention of the teaching and practice of the Anglican Communion?KSH”.
In the letter Bishop Gray seems a lot more enthralled with being seated next to the AB of C(sounds awfully “kid in candy store” to me) than he does with dealing with the issues at hand.
Practically the whole lot of them are starting to look like a raging alcoholic system–fine, but the elephant is still in the middle of the room, ruining everything whether you deny it or not.
I won’t call them “morons”, Dr. H; I don’t believe that anyway. But, a lot of their leadership behaviors are starting to look even worse than moronic.
Prayers abound–
TS
If B033 settles the issue, then what do we make of the many dioceses who have passed anti-B033 resolutions at their conventions? And we know – from being told over and over again – that resolutions are non-binding. Unless it’s in the canons, it doesn’t count and can be easily changed within three years.
Scott K (#9): Your question underscores something we should have all learned by now: Resolutions mean nothing in such a conflicted and undisciplined church. TEC should halt the charade (not to mention the waste of time and money) and stop passing them. Make it a canonical change or be prepared to let it slide (because it will).