The House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church pledges itself in covenant to refrain from making local pastoral provision for same sex blessings in their dioceses until and unless a new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges and will discipline any bishop who permits local pastoral provision for same sex blessings in his or her diocese.
Note carefully that this language has a time period specified, it uses the language of the Tanzania Communique (“local pastoral provision for…blessings”) and the Windsor Report, AND there is discipline within the province for those who defy the covenantal pledge.
DOA
Nor so sure: I think it will get quite a few votes.
I like it very much but am not sure how you get the covenantal pledge language to work better–somehow that could be better phrased.
The best part is the specificity of the blessings, the time frame and the discipline.
Of course, people could get on you for not specifying HOW there will be discipline but that would be up to the bishops.
What does “consensus” mean here, and how ascertained? 50% plus 1? 67%? 99%? And of whom — provincial synods, primates, diocesan bishops, diocesan synods, etc.?
If you set the bar so high as to basically make it impossible that a “consensus” could emerge and proven any time within the next 10, 20, 30 years, well, it certainly plays well with the home crowd of reasserters, but why on earth would anyone expect reappraisers and moderates to support it?
Where is there any “radical solution” in this? Offering reappraisers and their moderate allies the right to capitulate for the next few decades is hardly “compromise.” Just look at Susan Russell’s reaction: “DOA.” What incentive has she to support it?
Alas; neither reasserters nor reappraisers seem able to grasp what it would take to truly compromise such as to keep our Anglican family together, even if it means less-than-perfect solutions which nonetheless allow each camp to fundamentally retain its own integrity.
I despair, if this is what “radical solutions” look like. It’s just more of the same winner-take-all.
Actually, it is winner take all… the rules are written in Scripture and sent to us by God. It isn’t now, nor never has been, a compromise. Hence, the problem.
Here’s the deal: compromise is, and should be, dead. Can death compromise with life? Can bigotry compromise with liberation? Can orthodoxy compromise with heresy?
Reappraisers and reasserters, in the last analysis, view each other as wrong-headed and — a word many don’t like to use — heretical. Perhaps not hopelessly so, but there is no middle way available between the positions. Both sides believe themselves to be right; and any compromise of either position is a defeat.
An amicable divorce seems the best solution, if neither side will submit to discipline by the other.
These are nice words, but it’s way too late for that. From yesterday’s New York Times:
[blockquote]Robert Stanley, Robert Marohn
Published: September 23, 2007
Robert Walter Stanley and Robert Karl Marohn celebrated their union yesterday at All Saints’ Episcopal Church in Beverly Hills, Calif. The Rev. Gabriel Ferrer led the commitment ceremony. The Rev. Maryetta Anschutz, also an Episcopal priest, participated.
Mr. Stanley (above, left) is 36. He is an associate at Jaffe & Clemens, a Beverly Hills law firm. He graduated from the University of Florida and received his law degree from the University of Mississippi. He is the son of Ingeborg and Robert Richard Stanley of Greenville, S.C.
Mr. Marohn, 45, is a partner, focusing on new business development, with ClinLogic in Torrance, Calif., a software and consulting company that serves the clinical trials sector of the pharmaceutical industry. He graduated from California State University in Long Beach and received a master’s degree in the management of technology from Georgia Tech. He is a son of Gretchen and Robert K. Marohn of Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/fashion/weddings/23stanley.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
[/blockquote]
As Susan Russell says, it’s “DOA.” The Episcopal Church, that is.
Nadine, you have missed the point entirely. This is simply an illustration of one section of an overall proposal. I made a strong suggestion as to how all could sacrifice, involving all TEC Bishops not going to Lambeth, which has been discussed in many quarters. The point is the language matters. No more game playing.
And Michael: of course those issues have to be addressed. Please be clear about the context of the conversation.
[blockquote]No more game playing.[/blockquote]
I agree with you entirely on this. As the Good Book says, let your yes be yes and your no be no.
I still smell that rich smell of Episcopal fudge, however. It seems to me this church is at the point where it can no longer discern reality or truth.
I keep on praying for a reformation of hearts in the Episcopal Church that would allow me to come back. But I just don’t see it happening. It’s just getting worse and worse.
“Nadine, you have missed the point entirely. This is simply an illustration of one section of an overall proposal. I made a strong suggestion as to how all could sacrifice, involving all TEC Bishops not going to Lambeth, which has been discussed in many quarters.” (Kendall+ in #9)
Kendall+, with all respect, I believe I have not in fact missed the point, and suggest you refer back to my comments on the Howe+ thread.
What you characterize as being a sacrifice all around, including for reasserters, through all of TEC foregoing Lambeth is not being perceived — by both the reappraiser and moderate commenters I’ve been reading, and I concur with their view — as really a sacrifice for the reasserters. Rather, its effect would only be to strengthen the reasserting position at the very moment when reappraisers may be on the verge of not just consolidating their control over TEC but also securing their continued place within the AC; it would facilitate letting the reappraisers snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. Why would they sign up for that?
True, some reappraising bloggers initially entertained the withdrawal proposals, but they seem in full retreat now that it has been more fully considered.) For a better articulation of their p.o.v., see, e.g., http://frjakestopstheworld.blogspot.com/2007/09/withdrawal-suggestion-becomes-punitive.html (“Regarding the two previous posts in which I suggested that a voluntary withdrawal from Lambeth might be a way forward; nevermind.”) and http://anglicanfuture.blogspot.com/2007/09/no-withdrawal-no-surrender.html (“In spite of Fr. Jake, Marshall, and others who think that the idea of voluntarily withdrawing from Lambeth is a good one, I cannot agree.”).
Do you not see why your proposal would be viewed by your Worthy Opponents as being unattractive, or even as being a Trojan horse? If le tout TEC does not go to Lambeth, the burden of such absenteeism falls disproportionately as between the reappraisers and moderates; the 5, 10 or 15 absent realignment-ready orthodox are far outnumbered by the remaining 100+ absent non-reasserters. Plus, then the contingents Nigeria, Uganda, Rwanda etc. will go in full force (at least in terms of their non-U.S.-based bishops). So you’re basically asking TEC’s reappraisers and moderates to stand back and help shift the mix at Lambeth, on net, significantly toward an enhanced reasserter voice, and to greatly undercut their own voice.
If the positions were switched, would this strike you as a “radical solution” worth compromising for? Would you willingly *diminish* orthodox witness at Lambeth, while ensuring that extra contingents of +Spongs and +Brunos and +Chanes would be there instead? Would it be a “sacrifice” of the reappraisers to offer you a scenario that, on net, augmented *their* voice and vote, and severely undercut reasserters’ voice and vote?
When viewed with detachment, where is the incentive for the other side to seek compromise? Or for even the middle to fall in? Neither the reasserters nor the reappraisers are willing to give up the integrity of their views; is not the best that can be achieved therefore simply to carve out time and space for all to coexist — but with integrity — for a period, while giving Gamaliel’s Principle the chance to end the debate before the Communion collapses? If everyone keeps holding out for winner-take-all capitulations and forced acts of repentance, there will only be two halves of the Communion baby left.
Nadine, what is important is that I tried to make a proposal that involved sacrifice all around. By everyone. It did. If it did not have ANY value, no reappraisers would consider it. But they are.
Now I understand the concern about Lambeth and the question of witness. Those concerns can and should be addressed. But the point is only something like this or what Bishop Howe is trying or something better or stronger is going to get us anywhere at this late date.
I would be glad to entertain your proposal if you have a better one.
Your statement “neither reasserters nor reappraisers seem able to grasp what it would take to truly compromise such as to keep our Anglican family together” is unfair and untrue. I do understand (My Mom was a political science major at Duke).
“I would be glad to entertain your proposal if you have a better one.” (Kendall+ at #12)
You can be judge fo whether you consider it better, but fwiw, my attempt at a “radical solution” that requires sacrifice and integrity for all around, but also safeguards the integrity of all, is here:
http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/6204/#114148 (but see http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/6204/#114634 ), with follow-up comment at http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/6204/#114627
W/r/t Lambeth, the corollary from this proposal is that *all* bishops go. Period. (Whether they share in the Eucharist there is, of course, a different matter entirely.)
Critique of +Howe’s proposal (and a bit regarding yours) at http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/6204/#113898 and http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/6204/#113953 and http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/6204/#114101
Fwiw.
“Your statement “neither reasserters nor reappraisers seem able to grasp what it would take to truly compromise such as to keep our Anglican family together†is unfair and untrue. I do understand (My Mom was a political science major at Duke).” (Kendall+ at #12)
First, and most importantly, let me take the occasion to express how sorry I am for your loss of your mother. She seems to have been quite an admirable lady from what you have shared here about her. Requiem aeternam dona ei, Domine, et lux perpetua luceat ei.
Second, you are right. My statement *is* unfair and untrue — but only to the extent that it ought to have been phrased instead: “*most* reasserters and *most* reappraisers seem unable to grasp what it would take to truly compromise such as to keep our Anglican family together.†Were it otherwise, imo, we would not all be in the state we now find ourselves.
Third, though, and much as I respect your intentions and your great intelligence, I must confess that I’m not convinced you can fully see how things seem through a reappraiser’s eyes, enough to both incentivize reappraisers toward compromising and sacrificing from *their* side while offer something of a compromise from the reasserting side that reappraisers would deem a sacrifice worthy of their own trade-offs. For why I think so, please see http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/6204/#113898 and http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/6204/#113953 and http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/6204/#114101
Looks like a lot of target shooting going on.