I am writing this afternoon from New Orleans where I am attending the House of Bishops’ Fall meeting. What hangs over us a bit like a cloud””and in fact we are expecting to be hit with a severe tropical storm tomorrow””are the decisions we must make after having met with the Archbishop of Canterbury, who departed this afternoon after spending about 8 hours in conversation with us.
I must confess disappointment at most of that dialogue. The Archbishop spent most of his time listening, and only about a half hour speaking to the concerns that were raised. He was asked some rather pointed questions including why he had not invited Bishop Gene Robinson to the 2008 Lambeth conference, and what was he going to do about those Primates who had invaded dioceses in this country. Archbishop Williams chose instead to talk mostly about the nature of the office of bishop, which he understands to be “a servant of common discernment, keeping the most people at the table as long as possible because truth can only be found in conversation with the greatest number of the faithful”. That may be true enough, but what about a bishop’s obligation to protect the forgotten and stand with the oppressed?
In broad terms he asked us to postpone our own church’s agenda in favor of peace in the larger Communion. That desire was more strongly expressed by four members of the Anglican Advisory Council who spoke to us this morning. They again urged us to consider affirming in some way what was asked of us by the Primates at their February meeting in Dar Es Salaam, namely to refrain from consecrating openly gay bishops and approving same sex blessings; offer alternative primatial oversight to dioceses who wish it; and allow our church to be monitored by a council made up of other Provinces. Most of us feel again the frustration of being caught in the conundrum of wanting to walk with our world-wide partners without turning our backs on our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. Many of us also believe we have already done all we can to appease those who differ with us in these matters. It seems we are being given a “Sophie’s choice,” being ask to pick who we love more. Whatever choice is made, people will be hurt. Even the option of refusing to choose can be interpreted by both parties as rejection.
Up to now we have had the chance to revisit the same old hurts and frustrations.
On Monday we will see what we can do to create some kind of a response.
In the meantime, we are going to (literally) put on our work gloves and spend tomorrow in the 9th Ward of the City. On Sunday we will worship at various parishes. Perhaps having a time-out to work and pray together will allow us, as the Archbishop asked, “to find a way to surprise the world.”
–(The Rt. Rev.) Kirk Smith is Bishop of Arizona
“because truth can only be found in conversation with the greatest number of the faithful”
Wow, that destroys the concept of a remnant.
This does not sound good for the future of ECUSA’s membership in the Anglican Communion.
‘Most of us feel again the frustration of being caught in the conundrum of wanting to walk with our world-wide partners without turning our backs on our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.’
The orthodox/traditional Anglicans are not turning their backs on gay and lesbians sisters who are acting out their sexual behavior.
They are saying ‘deplore the sin and welcome the sinner’ since we are all sinners.
What they are saying is that as Anglicans and as part of the Church Catholic, that they cannot approve of clergy who live in an unrepentant sexual life style outside of marriage between a man and a woman, who refuse or contort the Scriptual truths of “the Faith once given” and who refuse to treat their ‘supposedly’ fellow followers of Christ in a collegial and synodic manner.
The current leadership of ECUSA is secular in its ambitions and utterances, it has demeaned and trivilialized its opponents, it has subjected Anglicans within ECUSA to the oppression of lawsuits and it has shown no true conciliatory desire to be and remain a part of the Anglican Communion.
I think Bishop Smith well captured the mood to this point; those present are sincere, worried, concerned and hit pretty hard. Further, they do not know what to do, and in a number of cases are caught up in American identity politics.
One continues to pray for all involved.
Our AZ diocese parish splits on the first of October and we walk away rejoicing that we no longer have any connection to this bishop, this diocese, or this church. Thanks be to God for his faithfulness and provision!
[blockquote]That may be true enough, but what about a bishop’s obligation to protect the forgotten and stand with the oppressed? [/blockquote]
Is he talking about the likes of Gene Robinson who whines the loudest or the orthodox who are trying to adhere the faith of our fathers are being chased from the church? No, don’t answer that!
It appears that the left and the middle of TEC are finally seeing things as they are. It was astounding to me to read, for example, a fellow priest and old friend, intelligent, lover of Jesus, tell his large congregation post-GC that essentially all was well in TEC and that the people of the Network had it all wrong, that TEC was essentially complying with Windsor. Those scales appear to be falling off. But have they gone too far down this path to turn around? Lord have mercy.
#8: I’m sure many people understand the, but the last time I looked there were no guns being held to anyone’s head…
And the consequences to actions, or as my Dad used to say, “It’s your little red wagon, you’ll have to pull it”, FINALLY hit home? Hubris denser than lead.
[blockquote] That may be true enough, but what about a bishop’s obligation to protect the forgotten and stand with the oppressed? [/blockquote]
Oppression == Being denied a pointy hat because of your sinful unrepented relationship with your boyfriend?
Man, oppression just ain’t what it used to be.
IMHO, Dr. Radner has offered what seems to be the only workable solution (http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/6142/#112942):
[blockquote]
My own hope, in light of this limited sense of the Archbishop’s desires, would be this: that the “Windsor Bishops†resolution be voted upon, and that, following that vote, there be an agreement worked out by which those who cannot, in good conscience (and here Abp. Anis’ plea provides a concrete possibility of direciton), abide by the acknowledged teaching and discipline of the Communion, by which they will temporarily withdraw from the Communion’s formal councils for an undetermined time (5 to 10 years was the suggestion of Prof. Grieb at the last House of Bishops’ meeting, a suggestion greeted with much appreciation); and during this time, those dioceses committed to the Communion’s teaching and discipline will move forward with the Communion’s life, and those congregations and clergy in dissenting TEC dioceses will be put under the oversight of Communion dioceses. When this is done, a formal request will be made to the Primates that those providing extra-geogrphaical oversight give up that role, and fold their congregations back into the Communion-linked dioceses and oversight of American bishops. TEC will not cease to exist (though, as with the Communion, not all will participate in its formal life); it will, rather, exist in a state of partition.
This will not eliminate “diversity†from the Communion, or even dissenting voices from the councils of the Communion. We are well aware that there are many, outside of TEC, who are sympathetic with elements of her general drift. But these diverse voices will have agreed to abide by the common teaching and discipline of the Communion until such time as it is consensually altered (unlike many TEC bishops). They may indeed have an influence on any future Covenant proposal, but it will be an influence exercised within the constraints of common Communion submission. I would think that, once a Covenent is adopted—and I still believe it can and should be—and adopted in a form that is agreeable to those who are able, in good conscience, to live within this Communion as it now stands (and may yet stand), TEC, in its partitioned state, may be able to make a more final determination as to its desired role within the Communion.
As I said, a way forward like this would, in fact, be congruent in certain significant ways with commitments of Canterbury, Egypt (and probably other GS jurisdictions), and liberal TEC bishops (up to a point). If there is indeed “room†in the present moment to “maneuverâ€, I cannot see that I can be anywhere but in this kind of arena of possibility. To be sure, I believe such an arena is too constricting for many to accept.
[/blockquote]
All it takes is for TEC liberals to have the guts to declare their first allegiance and the integrity to permit those who do not wish to jump off the cliff with them the ability to come under a Communion-minded bishop. In other words, all it takes is a willingness on the part of TEC liberals to give up some of their power and control.
But the TEC liberals don’t seem able to understand this.
Not to be flippant, JamesW, but the probability of that happening – in the face of a tsunami of viscious TEC lawsuits against dissenting parishes, presentments against dissenting clerics and legalistic disqualification of candidates to the office of bishop – is about equal to that of Elvis, Amelia Earhardt and DB Cooper showing up for Eucharist at the meeting.
No, like Maj. T.J. ‘King’ Kong, these guys and gals are riding that boomer down to ground zero, whoopin’ and a hollerin’.