At the news conference on Friday, Archbishop Williams said that other Anglican leaders who attended this week’s meetings would be “reading and digesting what the bishops have to say” and would share their opinions with him next week. He said he would also talk to primates and others in the coming weeks before giving his own opinion about what to do next.
After years of discussion, some Episcopal and Anglican leaders seem to have reconciled themselves to the fact that some kind of break within the Episcopal Church or the greater communion is inevitable. If several months ago a sizable number of bishops would have argued for the unity of the communion at almost any cost, far fewer would do so now, several bishops said.
Bishops also said that while the conversation this week was respectful, they felt disappointed it was so brief. And they said the archbishop and other Anglican leaders had failed to grasp and respect how the Episcopal Church was governed. Other provinces are much more hierarchical and bishops can legislate church policy, they said. Episcopal bishops assert that they cannot govern without the votes of clergy members and lay people, too.
One bishop who spoke on condition of anonymity said, “What was said to us was, ”˜All this talk of laity aside, if you acted like a real bishop, what would you do?’ ”
And the truth that I want so desperately to say to these people is that they are (often) only listening to the laity that they want to hear.
“Bishops…said that while the conversation this week was respectful, they felt disappointed it was so brief. And they said the archbishop and other Anglican leaders had failed to grasp and respect how the Episcopal Church was governed”
Remarkable how ECUSA’s rulers continue to hype the POLITY card—as though it were decisive or as though they had little else left.
The international Anglican demands they face are nothing new: they go back to the Windsor Report, issued in October 2004. That’s right: THREE YEARS AGO. Everyone had plenty of time to respond at GC 2006. The ruling reappraisers CHOSE to be unresponsive.
The complaint quoted above is exceedingly disingenuous.
PS: Do reappraising bishops really believe Abp. Williams unfamiliar with lay representation in church government?
If they were willing to act (“like real bishops), they could, without lay or other participation, make Tanzania-type commitments about:
— who they each would vote to consecrate;
— who they each would choose to ordain; and
— what rites they would permit in their dioceses.
[blockquote]”Bishops…said that while the conversation this week was respectful, they felt disappointed it was so brief. And they said the archbishop and other Anglican leaders had failed to grasp and respect how the Episcopal Church was governed†[/blockquote]
All the revisionists want to do is point out to ++Rowan that the steering wheel is on the left in America, when what we’re telling them is that the car is going over a cliff.
Ireneaus, I have noted a clear trend among revisionists of dismissing Abp. Williams as a mere “Crown Appointment” and a civil service functionary. It is another example of how they deliberately twist clear facts when they don’t fit their agenda into something they can control. I would not be surprised if he had a better grasp of our General Convention governance than many Americans, “foreign bishops” just aren’t buying the excuses.