After the meeting was opened to the public and the final version was distributed at around 4:30 p.m., there was one last proposed amendment to drop language from the paragraph on same-sex blessings which stated the bishops would not authorize “public rites of blessing” for same-sex unions “until a broader consensus emerges in the Communion.” Bishop Geralyn Wolf of Rhode Island then proposed a motion for a vote on the document itself as opposed to adoption without a formal vote.
“All I wanted was for us to vote on this so as to honor the minority voice,” Bishop Wolf told The Living Church. “I didn’t expect the ”˜no’ vote to come from the conservative side and it didn’t. Bishop [Charles] Bennison [of Pennsylvania] was the only ”˜no’ vote.”
Bishop Wolf said the measure was “better than anyone could have expected. There is a clear sense that the majority did not approve of same-sex blessings in their diocese. I think we added some depth to the issue of consents as well.”
Read it all but Bishop Bennison was not the only no vote. This is why I so dislike voice votes on very important matters..
I’d sure like to know how many bishops were still there for the vote?
All of them?, some of them?, and was there a majority of the total bishops?
One would hope the “Windsor” bishops, perhaps including our own, will have something to say to explain all the ‘crowing”……
Blessings,
Gloria
Perhaps the Bishop of Pennsylvania was not the only no vote. I know Bishop Howe and others have said that they opposed the final text. What I have yet to encounter, however, is a single conservative bishop (that is, one who actually stayed to participate in the communal life of the House that led to this statement) who has not at least acknowleded/praised the constructive attempt that was made and the degree to which it represents a serious proposal for moving forward. Perhaps some will emerge. The comments thus far of Bishops Salmon, Howe, Wimberley, and others have been light years apart from the commentary of those who “walked out” of the meeting early and those who are in the professional or hobbyist commentary-offering class on the right.
Yes, #1, where are the “Windsor bishops” indeed? Thus far, all of them who have spoken publicly either support this statement or are at least very muted in their critique. The leader and convener of the “Camp Allen bishops” has said he supports this as a way forward.
Perhaps the outcry is still to come. The leaders of the “APO dioceses” have certainly made their voices heard in their typical fashion, but they’re a handful of a handful. Like the rich man in this coming Sunday’s Gospel reading, these bishops would not be convinced even if a man rose from the dead to tell them to change course. The VAST majority of the House of Bishops whose minds are not already made up, however, are unlikely to jump to issue minority reports or other screeds of protest. This is a way forward that deserves to be tried, as it represents the collective energy of the vast, vast majority of the House — left, right, and center.
I bet when the formerly Windsor bishops understand the fury at their weakness, there will suddenly be a lot of bishops claiming they muttered ‘no.’ Kendall is right: this was entirely too important for a voice vote, and certainly a formerly Windsor or CA bishop could have forced a counted vote if he or she had cared to.
Matt Kennedy was there. He heard one ‘No’. That’s one (1), not several. Bishop Wolf confirms this. There was ONE ‘NO’.
Turns out it wasn’t even from an orthodox/reasserter bishop. Even with a voice vote it’s easy to distinguish one voice from many. The windsor/CA bishops had their opportunity and it passed them by. They must now be mature adults and live with their vote and not disown it, no matter what is said 24 hours or 24 days later.
Sander, no one is saying they didn’t work hard. No one is saying there wasn’t an attempt to be constructive. Also, I do not hear people saying there was not anything accomplished.
But when the Bishops meets the most important thing that seems to take over is their working and being together. Of course I believe in the value of koinonia, but it is not just their koinonia which is at issue and the key thing is what Tanzania asked of them not how hard they worked or how they felt about one another in the process.
Why is Integrity so pleased, Sander, if it is as constructive as you say? Are you saying they misread it as a step forward?
It doesn’t change the vote overall. Or that there was only one no vote. But according to TLC there may have several who abstained. Possibly Howe.
“Although no traditionalist bishops voted against the measure, several appeared not to vote in the affirmative either. In a press conference afterward, a number of the bishops representing a broad spectrum of opinion said the final document was not perfect, but they did not disagree with it enough that they felt they must dissent.”
I’m a progressive – but even I find this odd under the circumstances. They could have at least asked for an “abstain” vote. I know why KJS didn’t want anything to show the actual numbers and names of those voting. But it appears neither did the traditionalists.
I will take the word of Integrity, Ephraim Radner and Kendall Harmon over that of Sander, tht’s for sure. How can he/she not see that if falls way short of what was requested?
So Camp Allen was a holding pattern to keep the faithful in just a little longer. It worked. Windsor bishops were a potpourri of opportunists, too, it seems. But we can never be sure because there was no recorded vote so any laity can hold any bishop to any account. Oh, and by the way, neither can any one else. But I am sure that was the whole point of this exercise. It merely accomplished a softening of the tone of the March HOB response. Barring some letter of explanation with signatures, Windsor Bishops and Camp Allen bishops are indistinguishable from run-of-the-mill liberal revisionist non-Windsor compliant new thang bishops. That is too sad.
The one thing this HOB shows is the lack of principle or action on principle in any of the bishops prior to Lambeth. Why Integrity isn’t claiming they were thrown under the bus and decrying the abdication of their bishops is beyond me. Clearly conservative bishops did not act so as to distinguish themselves.
But perhaps I am being to harsh. Perhaps the principle was acted on: go along to get along. I merely wonder if that accords with Bishop Epting’s understanding of the NYC gospel. Perhaps it will keep the bishops out of the pillories of public opinion there.
And it is very helpful that our PB has a degree in oceanography so at least one person will understand when I say that this response is bathetic.
There seems to be the general notion in the reasserter blogosphere that somehow, and at some point, the reappraisers are going to have their heads handed to them.
By whom, I ask?
Drop the question mark…
RE: “I will take the word of Integrity, Ephraim Radner and Kendall Harmon over that of Sander, tht’s for sure.”
Ah, but CSSAdmirer, “Sander’s” comments are that which fall in the category of what Sander called the “professional . . . commentary-offering class” [only of course on the left, rather than the right] which Sander just decried. How convenient. ; > )
For the umpteenth time, I’ve read words re: “+Salmon’s response.”
What “response”, when? where? Point me to any response by any of the Bishops who stayed, except perhaps +McPherson who said it was “OK”…..
Otherwise, the silence is deafening..
Gloria
Kendall [#5], I’m beginning to wonder about your seeming belief, expressed several times in various ways in recent months, that the House of Bishops is somehow required to “[do] what Tanzania asked of them.”
(Some liberal bloggers and commenters have expressed similar sentiments; they just wanted a different answer than you did.)
There seems to be a misconception that, just because the Primates collectively posed a question to the HoB, that fact alone required the HoB to give a direct, on-point answer. That may be true in a chain-of-command situation when a person in authority directs a question to a junior. It may be true in court when a recalcitrant witness is being cross-examined. But neither of these is the case here.
Anyone with any media training knows that sometimes the prudent course is not to answer the question. The House of Bishops seems to have made that judgment call. On that point, other things being equal, I’ll go with the judgment of elected bishops, accountable to each other and to GC, over that of self-appointed commenters (of any persuasion) who are accountable to no one.
D.C. you once again mischaracterize those with whom you disagree.
I did not say it was required. They could clearly reject it, or modify it.
But mutual interdependence has implications. If my wife asks me to do something to repair a breach in our relationship, is it the loving thing to do to change her request into my words and my terms? I am not required to do her request, but it is loving to take it seriously on its own terms.
This statement by the TEC Bishops is not just a failure of truth, but a failure of love.
#14: I agree whole-heartedly! The Egyptian Bishop made the challenge which the HoB ignored: This is about maintaining the Unity of the Faith in the bonds of Love, responding to the Truth that is in Christ Jesus. The HoB simply refuses to acknowledge that this is about anything other than “letter of the law” compliance and re-asserting our precious autonomy.
The HoB saved its passion for chastising foreign intervention and supporting Gene Robinson. NO response to the call to repent of their practice of permitting (and even encouraging) the immoral sexual practices of their flock in the their dioceses. And, as you have noticed on another thread, no response to the call to stop the legal battles over property disputes. An amazing contempt shown by the HoB. I hope everyone hears it clearly.
This Mind of the House response is completely institutional, stubborn to the bone, and utterly devoid of biblical, creedal, spiritual integrity.
I should have said I dislike voice notes in group and consensus votes on important matters.
D.C., I would say that one of the requirements of Communion is that we owe our Communion partners at the very least the courtesy of answering their questions. No, we’re not “required” to do so in a formal sense, but we owe it to them out of fellowship.
I think that TEC is right in principle to bless same-sex unions. I think that TEC is right in principle to consecrate openly gay or lesbian people when a diocese discerns that person is the one who is called to be their bishop. But our decisions here have caused enormous pain to our Communion partners, and they have “torn the fabric of the Communion,” and even if we think we were right to act as we did we still need to own responsibility for that pain. Being honest to the Communion about where we are and what we’re doing — even if that honesty is “We’re still arguing amongst ourselves” — is only the first part of that responsibility.
Sander, this isn’t a “way” to be tried. This is the same way we were doing things last week – with not one change – and that way was found wanting.
I suspect the fruition of your plan to cleanse ECUSA of mainstream Christians is at hand. Congratulations to you and your 815 colleagues. I hope you’ll pause, at some point, for at least a few minutes to wonder what in God’s name you’ve done, and whether the destruction of this institution was worth it.
Kendall, I agree wholeheartedly with #14 (“the love of Christ compels us”), and with most of #5. But I do have to ask about one comment: “Also, I do not hear people saying there was not anything accomplished.”
I do certainly feel profoundly discouraged and disappointed with the HoB, and what I perceive to be an utter failure of the reasserter bishops to speak in the end when it mattered most. (And I am disappointed in those who left for the Common Cause HoB as well, for thr record; I think they should have stayed to be heard.)
And all in all, I can’t see that anything was accomplished, or that TEC life is in any way different than it was last week. Can you offer some hope? What do you see has been accomplished? I apologize, I’ve read the other threads, and if you’ve already offered this, I may have filtered it out in my admittedly sinful despair.
Peace…
Kendall [#14], there you go again with the marriage metaphor. It’s not at all persuasive for those of us who see the Anglican Communion as an extended family, NOT as a marriage. (Also, I don’t at all believe I mischaracterized what you said.)
Ross [#17], personally I would have answered the question. But I’m not one of the guys (and gals) on the front line. We elected the bishops to do a job. This isn’t an issue on which it’s appropriate for those of us in the galleries to be micro-managing them, second-guessing how they chose to do that job.