Eight bishops have accepted Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori’s invitation to serve as “episcopal visitors” to dioceses that have requested this provision.
At her request, the Presiding Bishop’s canon, the Rev. Dr. Charles Robertson, advised Episcopal News Service of this measure the evening of September 19. The announcement preceded the opening plenary session of the House of Bishops’ September 20-25 meeting in New Orleans. Robertson said Jefferts Schori expected to announce the names of the eight bishops during that session, which is devoted to the bishops’ private conversation with Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, and is closed to the public and media.
Jefferts Schori has conferred with Williams about the invitations, which she extended after a process of consultation with bishops in the Episcopal Church, Robertson said.
“All eight are true bridge-builders who empathize with the concerns and needs of dioceses that are struggling with the issues of the current time,” Robertson said, adding that “while all are sympathetic to to these concerns, each is clear that the Presiding Bishop’s ultimate goal is reconciliation.”
The eight are active diocesan bishops Frank Brookhart of Montana, Dorsey Henderson of Upper South Carolina (based in Columbia, S.C.), John Howe of Central Florida (based in Orlando), Gary Lillibridge of West Texas (based in San Antonio), Michael Smith of North Dakota, James Stanton of Dallas, and Geralyn Wolf of Rhode Island, together with retired Connecticut Bishop Clarence Coleridge.
The problem is that ECUSA’s leadership has departed from “the Faith once given” to such an extent that one questions the ‘spiritual authority’ of their leadership.
That is, are ECUSA’s leaders capable of acting as Christian leaders when many of them profess beliefs that are akin to those of the Unitarian/Universalists?
Can orthodox Anglicans accept the leadership of ECUSAn clergy who deny the singular divinity of Christ, ‘pick and choose’ parts of the Creeds, radically interpret or ignore Scripture and who sometines insidiously and at other times openly oppress those who disagree with them?
If Schori is going to ‘pull the strings’ of the eight bishops, then the answer is that her plan won’t work.
How about questions of ‘discernment’ within dioceses? Who is going to ensure that orthodox Anglicans who want to be come clergy are going to be ‘discerned’ fairly? The answer is that they won’t be. This is already an established fact in many dioceses.
I could go on, but the potential for repression of those who would question the secular revisionist agenda within ECUSA speaks for itself.
Do you honestly think, as you suggest AnglicanFirst, that +Stanton and +Howe, would just be puppets of +Schori? I’m definitely on the reappraise side of things, but it seems to me that you’re doing these bishops a great disservice by suggesting this.
Patrick,
What I am saying is that the Presiding Bishop and her fellow travelers will not permit the orthodox portion of ECUSA to grow and prosper. They have demonstrated a singleminded dedication to their agenda and there is no indication that they will ‘back off’ from that agenda.
Therefore, a subordinate serving under such a senior, no matter how good a man he is, will eventually be rendered dysfunctional if he attempts to maintain an orthodox or traditional stance in his utterances and actions that ‘runs afoul’ of the revisionist leadership of ECUSA.
And, in the end, the orthodox Anglicans throughout ECUSA will not be ‘well served’ by the Eight Bishop Plan.
I doubt there is power great enough in the ‘verse to render John Howe dysfunctional. I’m on the conservative side of this thing and I think we should welcome this for what it is. It ain’t perfect, but it is better than the status quo.
How about having Africans be Episcopal visitors? What’s the diff?
And would Stanton or Howe be able to fly into a parish calling a new rector and agree to its choice? Would they be able to fly into Fairfax, say, and sign the papers to end a lawsuit by a revisionist diocese against a parish and settle with the parish so that it owns its own property and can be certain that the whole thing is not just a trap, an arrangement waiting to be revoked and the parish destroyed? If not, how is the oversight adequate? And if not, why not?
Right on, pendennis.
Firefly is awsome yes, Widening Gyre?
Also, pendennis88 has hit the nail roundly on it’s head.
As a bonafide reasserter called by God to be a priest within TECusa,
I am pleased to see especially Bps Stanton and Howe on this list, and for the reasons reappraiser PatrickB intimates in his questioning of AnglicanFirst. I’ll continue with a critique: I personally do not trust the “bridge-building-ness” of Bps Brookhart and Henderson. But even then I must say “bridge building” is not the issue, and can say that if this is the PB’s idea of what it is all about, then she STILL doesn’t get it. I like what I see in Bps Lillibridge and Smith, but haven’t seen enough yet to put them in the category with +Stanton and +Howe, even though they are CA/Windsor bishops, I believe. Along with +Henderson and +Brookhart, I would not seek out Bp Wolf for “EV” – however, I have seen enough to know that she would respect my biblical faith in teaching and preaching to not “interfere.” In the end, though, there would be enough tension in collegiality to undermine such a relationship. I deeply appreciate her willingness to be available, though, as I said, because she would be episcopally and personally supportive.
Be that as it may, this is not what the Primates asked for in its fullness. When separation does come, though, the Primates will not have ANY of the influence they MIGHT have now, and reasserters still in TECusa will be left with this morsel. I do think it is possible to see 4 other bishops, at least, added to this list by default if only in specific dioceses.
I want to add that if the PB truly wants “reconciliation”, she should be talking to the Network bishops and dioceses who – by all accounts – are preparing to leave TECusa en masse. And not trying to reassure those who are NOT planning to depart, since plans and actual relationships of EV’s are already in place (as inadequate and ineffective as they may be to establish and work).
One final note, it feels like this list is a concession to other bishops in this Church who said to the PB, “This can’t be just a plan for conservatives. It has to be a comprehensive visitor plan for anybody who’s got a problem with their bishop. That way it doesn’t look like we’re saying there is an open door for all “conservatives” to “move away” from their home dioceses.”
And thus, as I observe it, the range of the bishops listed.
Well, they can take their politicizations and overt need for control and put it back into their cathedra. Those bishops don’t like the fact that there is any EV plan at all.
This is a pressured move in the right direction……but it’s not the whole enchilada, and no one should be so naive to see it as such when they, out of necessity and biblical integrity, apply.
RGEaton
That is, are ECUSA’s leaders capable of acting as Christian leaders when many of them profess beliefs that are akin to those of the Unitarian/Universalists?
AnglicanFirst
Very, very few bishops in TEC are Unitarian (I can think of only one who is retired). Many, if not the majority are Universalist.
They have demonstrated a singleminded dedication to their agenda and there is no indication that they will ‘back off’ from that agenda.
In what way? I agree that there is a single-minded dedication to prevent parishes and Dioceses from leaving TEC and a dedication to retaining property. Other than that, where is the issue?
And would Stanton or Howe be able to fly into a parish calling a new rector and agree to its choice?
In consultation with the Diocesan, why not?
Would they be able to fly into Fairfax, say, and sign the papers to end a lawsuit by a revisionist diocese against a parish and settle with the parish so that it owns its own property and can be certain that the whole thing is not just a trap, an arrangement waiting to be revoked and the parish destroyed?
Of course not! Why would an alternate Bishop be needed for a non-TEC parish. They are no longer even a part of the Anglican Communion.
If not, how is the oversight adequate? And if not, why not?
The question is really ridiculous. Once they leave TEC, they no longer exist except as another entity stealing property.
What will we be “reconciling?”
#10-12: 1. Failure to pass B-033 (upholding basic Christian doctrine) 2. PB’s public statements making all religions equivalent in value in searching for God 3. Endorsement of changes in language for the Trinity (“Creator, Redeemer, “Sustainter”), etc., and on and on.
——–
[i]quick correction. The resolution from 2003 re: upholding Christian doctrine was B001. B033 was the resolution which was passed in 2006 re: not consenting to any new bishop whose manner of life might not be in accord with the Communion’s teaching [terribly rough paraphrase… sorry, trying to juggle a lot and no time to look up exact wording[/i]
Once they leave TEC, they no longer exist except as another entity stealing property.
Brian, people don’t suddenly become “another entity stealing property.”
The TLC article states, [i]Bishop Jefferts Schori’s invitation to the eight bishops seeks to delegate the first of three primary canonical duties of the Presiding Bishop, that of visiting each of The Episcopal Church’s 110 dioceses during each Presiding Bishop’s nine-year term. The Presiding Bishop’s other two principal canonical roles are to “take order†for ordaining and consecrating bishops, and to oversee certain disciplinary actions as needed.[/i] Is this right that she is delegating only her once in a nine-year visit? What about her delegating the other two canonical roles?
Stuart
I assume you are giving examples of their agenda, but how has that agenda/belief forced you to believe that way? And if you have an alternate Bishop such as +Stanton who believes like you, then where is the issue?
Brian, people don’t suddenly become “another entity stealing property.â€
You’re right Sherri. It takes a choice on their part and then an attempt to retain what is not theirs
I’m not going around that tree with you again, Brian. My objection is to the way you mentally dismiss them – fellow communicants one day, thieves the next. On all “sides” we’re doing too much of these easy dismissal of fellow Christians.
Brian from T19, your constant use of the phrase “stealing property” is rather tiresome. By definition, property cannot be “stolen” in the context of proceedings in a court of law. If the courts decide the property is owned by your church, then your church has not “stolen” the property from the orthodox, and vice versa.
William2
If you continue to occupy property held in trust for another with the intent of converting the property to your ownership, you are stealing property
#3 AnglicanFirst wrote, [i]What I am saying is that the Presiding Bishop and her fellow travelers will not permit the orthodox portion of ECUSA to grow and prosper. They have demonstrated a singleminded dedication to their agenda and there is no indication that they will ‘back off’ from that agenda.[/i]
Replace “Presiding Bishop” with “Bp. Stanton” and “the orthodox portion” with “the mainstream portion” and you’ll understand the way we mainstream-types in the Dio. of Dallas feel.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Brian from T19, I am going to give this one, last try. And one last try only. Your response to my point remains tiresome. Your response is merely an empty assumption. There is no trust, no theft, and no stealing until a court adjudicates the dispute between the parties. If the courts decide you are right and the CANA churches have no claim to the buildings they built and paid for, then the courts can also compensate TEC and the Diocese of Virginia for their wrongful use of the property. Let the courts decide who has true ownership of the property; thats why we have courts in the first place, so disputes can be adjudicated according to the facts and law, not according to the whims of the Brians.
Planonian, the orthodox portion is the mainstream portion, so I don’t see your point.
#24, Phil. I’ll certainly grant you that the majority of the Episcopalians in the Dio. of Dallas are what folks around here at T1:9 would call “reasserters.” But [i]surely[/i] you can’t be suggesting that this is true of the majority of all people in TEC ?
(And by the way, while mainstream Episcopalians are in the minority in Dallas, we aren’t a tiny minority. I’d hazard a guess at 25% – 30%. Note that the two, largest Episcopal parishes in Dallas itself, St. Michael & All Angels and Transfiguration, are completely “broad tent” in nature and have no truck with the AAC/ACN)
Planonian, as far as I can tell, the views of the “reasserters,” painted as extreme by ECUSA, are very mainstream, both within Anglicanism and Christianity as a whole.
As far as Episcopalians, I wouldn’t be surprised if the majority agreed with the orthodox on faith and morals. OCICBW.
Mainstream in TEC is not mainstream.
Mainstream in the TEC is mainstream in the reading culture of the United States. It is not mainstream in the entire culture.
It seems that reasserters judge people by the company they keep. This is unfortunate. Rob’s suggestion that the PB should just sit down with the network bishops is… admirable, but, have they shown any desire to sit with her? No. they make demands of her.
Her main demand is that dioceses be permitted to have integrity.
She might be wrong about that, of course.
“…six (dioceses) stand by requests initiated in 2006 for pastoral oversight other than that of the current Presiding Bishop. Those dioceses are Central Florida…â€
“The eight are active diocesan bishops …Frank Brookhart of Montana, Dorsey Henderson of Upper South Carolina (based in Columbia, S.C.), John Howe of Central Florida…â€
Help, I think I am forgetting my history….+Howe has consented to be an “episcopal visitor†for those dioceses/congregations who want alternate oversight.
Isn’t the diocese of Central Florida, Howe’s diocese, one of those asking for this oversight?
How can +Howe be his own “episcopal visitor� Or has he withdrawn the request?
“Mainstream in the TEC is mainstream in the reading culture of the United States.” (from comment #28)
Hmmm, one wonders what any literate American Roman Catholic would make of that generalization…..
Now, it would be nit-picky to remark that ‘the TEC’ is redundant, wouldn’t it.
John,
Thanks for mentioning my comments. I’d like to respond to things you said in your paragraph about reassters and Network bishops.
First, most people, and I think you have even admitted over the years here on T1:9 that you do or have done the same, judge others by the company they keep, even if only briefly. That was a cheap shot.
Second, I did not suggest in my comment on this thread that the PB should just sit down with the Network bishops. I did, however, on a different thread suggest that if the PB were to be consistent with the norms of decision-making in TECusa she would gather leaders of the people affected and ask them to “choose” someone the House of Bishops could “elect” as a Missionary Bishop (effectively to reasserters) in a non-geographical diocese within TECusa (call it the Kemper Jackson Memorial Missionary District, or something). But not in this thread.
Third, do you not remember the various meetings that took place, “secretly” and otherwise, with a variety of reasserter bishops and “centrist” bishops and others with not only +Frank Griswold but +KJS? As well, there have been formal and informal discussions, where the issue has been plainly put. It is incorrect to characterize the Network bishops as being intransigent and non-communicative. The fact that some may not show up for this and previous House of Bishops meetings is not the beginning, but the end of the attempts in frustration and rejection.
Finally, what demands do you think are being placed on the table? New ones? Non-essential ones? Selfish ones? Unequivocal ones?
RGEaton
Gone back,
What +Howe and the Diocese of CFl requested was a different animal that what this proposal shows itself as at this point. There is no conflict.
RGEaton
#26 No argument from me on your first paragraph. But I think I was fairly obvious in using “mainstream” to mean “mainstream within TEC.” 😉
As for the claim in your second paragraph, on the surface it flies in the face of the simple, observable facts. TEC is a representative democracy whose actions are governed by a bicameral legislature. Both the members of the HoD and the bishops in the HoB are elected by [i]us[/i] – the laypeople and clergy who make up TEC.
The Principle of Parsimony (aka Occam’s razor, [i]”All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one”[/i]) suggests that things are as they are in TEC because this is actually representative of the majority view. If you wish to suggest that the majority of TEC actually sides with you and somehow, through a great, shadowy “liberal conspiracy” or whatever, they are being ignored by their own representative gov’t… well, based on principles of logical thought, it’s up to you to prove it (it being a more complex theory, requiring more “agents” as it were)
I think, what would help, is some degree of a change in attitude, and it is that we aren’t each other’s enemies. I stand condemned of this, myself, and it is very easy to fall into. I believe, in fact, both sides really want to split but not take the responsibility. It will require great spin.
Look, as a reappraiser, I think some of the reasserting critiques (did we think this through logically? Not really. Did we care about the rest of the world? We thought they could take care of themselves.) are valid. I don’t think they’ve answered our questions (like, why should a gay person become a Christian? Or why should we discard biblical geology and cosmology while maintaining biblical understandings of blood, semen and sexuality?), but before doing that, we should begin with the idea we’ll try to stick together, respecting each other’s provincial integrity.