In the interest of clarity, I would like to report to the clergy and people of the Diocese of South Carolina on the meeting of the House of Bishops in New Orleans. I am particularly concerned that you hear directly from me as the distortion in the media and on blogs is profound.
From my perspective this was probably the best meeting I have attended and at the same time the most painful.
I asked for and was granted permission to speak to the whole House beyond any contribution I made in the various debates.
The presence of the Archbishop of Canterbury was helpful in getting us to look at where we are as a Church and a Communion; and what that says about our ecclesiology.
Profound pain was experienced when members of the ACC Steering Committee and the Primate of Jerusalem and the Middle East addressed the House. They told us how the decisions made by the Episcopal Church had affected their mission and ecumenical relationships destructively in their lands. It was a moving experience.
Just as devastating was the address from Bishop Jeffrey Steenson explaining why he was resigning his orders and becoming a Roman Catholic. We are good friends and have worked closely together.
We then had a report giving us the list of congregations leaving the Episcopal Church in part or whole for other Anglican jurisdictions and the names of these jurisdictions. A number of the clergy were well known to me. Even the loss of one because of our conflict is a painful matter for me at the end of my ministry. It is a matter of great sorrow.
In my address to the House, I said that I appreciated the hard work that had resulted in the document that was before us.
I also stated that I could not support it for the following reasons:
1. It did not respond as requested to the three points raised by the Anglican Primates in Dar es Salaam.
2. It did not provide alternative oversight that met the needs of those who asked for it.
3. It placed the condition that our responses must be in keeping with our Constitution and Canons. The chaos we are in requires tremendous grace, not law.
4. There is oppression of those not in agreement, often unaware to those responsible.
5. Statements by our leadership saying that 95% of the Church was doing well or that only a small percentage were affected makes discussion impossible. The Episcopal Church Foundation says we are in a systemic decline which is significant.
I believe that the impact of these days has produced the potential for us to move because this is the first time in my memory this has been revealed to the House face to face by members of the Communion. I am committed to continue to work for that day faithfully, but I cannot support the document for the reasons stated.
–The Rt. Rev. Edward L. Salmon, Jr., is acting Bishop of South Carolina
[blockquote]”What we expected to come from them is to repent – that this is a sin in the eyes of the Lord and repentance is what me, in particular, and others expected to hear coming from this church,” he said. [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7014907.stm] -Archbishop Nzimbi [/url][/blockquote]
God Bless You Bishop! And Bless those who came from afar, to force the recalcitrant in the HOB to look beyond their own driveways to what their decisions are doing to the rest of the world.
Funny, they don’t seem to have that myopia about Human Induced Global Warming, but they do about SSB and relationships. Hmmm…
To all….KTF!….mrb
“I also stated that I could not support it for the following reasons:”
I was under the impression that Bennison was the only bishop who voted “no.”
Woops…sorry, I had not read the post preceding this one.
Wishful thinking at the end by the good bishop, but a very honorable stand. Kudos to him.
I love Bishop Salmon, but I am still profoundly disappointed. Did he explain why, if he feels this way, that he is not en route to Pittsburgh?
Did he explain why, if he feels this way, that he has invited KJS to South Carolina?
Maybe Bishop Salmon’s speech was so impassioned he developed laryngitis and his “No” couldn’t be heard.
“I believe that the impact of these days has produced the potential for us to move because this is the first time in my memory this has been revealed to the House face to face by members of the Communion. I am committed to continue to work for that day faithfully….”
I’m not exactly sure what those words mean.
Ennui.
I think he was referring to the testimony by the Bishop of Jerusalem et al on the effects to them of affliating with us in the context of the Middle Ease.
Just a guess….mrb
Okay–this is my family’s most beloved friend and father in God you guys are talking about here!
Bishop Salmon has devoted every fiber of his being to this fight–endless hours on the phone, never missing a meeting, always encouraging, holding together as well holding feet to the fire…he has been ordained almost 50 years–of course he will stay in the church and work for its reform, and yet he is the chief pastor to many of us who have left TEC, and even those who are now bishops in the developing parallel province seek his counsel.
He is a wise and holy man, and he has handled himself with grace and dignity every day of his life. Whenever primates think of someone to supervise some Communion solution in America, Ed’s name comes up as that person–from the ABC to the Global South Primates, they all respect him beyond all the other bishops of TEC–and his work with them and other bishops in the Communion is on a daily basis.
Further more, don’t you think bishops and standing committees would latch onto his attendance at the Common Cause meeting as a reason to vote against consent for Mark Lawrence—he simply can’t give the liberals that excuse.
I think his letter is clear, strong and hopeful–and exactly the right posture for him to take.
Exactly right, Don. The last thing Ed would do, in my experience with him, would be to put the Diocese he loves in any further difficulty by personal actions of any kind.
I have to echo Don Armstrong. I don’t know Bishop Salmon, but I do know Bishop John Howe, and it makes me ill to read the hateful savaging and sniping at good and Godly Bishops who are doing their best to care for their flocks and their own souls in these trying times. Those who seem willing to automatically presume the worst about men who have proven themselves solid reasserters time and time again ought to really take a step back and do some hard thinking and praying before maligning their brothers in Christ, not to mention those whom the Holy Spirit has led to leadership.
If Bp. Salmon finds the result unacceptable, why is he so worried about bloggers’ distortions?
Edward Salmon is the finest bishop, of whatever tradition, I have ever been privileged to know. I trust his word implicitly.
Listen folks, whatever else you might think about Bishop Salmon, he’s nobody’s fool. Do you think for one minute, he would prevaricate about what he said, and how he voted? There were many other people there who would love to call him out on such an outrageous lie!, not just kibitz about it.
Just because some folks didn’t hear him, doesn’t mean he didn’t say it. AND what difference if no one heard, the rest heard what he had to say loud and clear in the “closed” session.
He and I might have had our differences on church policies, but when he says something, (whether we like it or not) he means it.
Find some other Bishop whose words you can cross-examine.
Blessings,
gloria in SC
To: #11, Don Armstrong; #12, Brien; and #13, Chris Molter: Well said.
To: #6, Nasty, Brutish, & Short: I am willing to bet that the answer to your second question goes something like this: Bp. Salmon has always said that he has never known of any controversy or disagreement which was solved without people speaking to each other. He has also always said that the daily details of life are all about relationships. In other words, if you and I disagree but refuse to speak to each other or interact in any way, let alone treat each other with civility and respect, we will never be able to work out our disagreement; our chances are infinitely better if you and I both try to be respectful and civil to each other, and speak with each other. Besides, he has always been a consummate gentleman. So I imagine that has something to do with KJS. As to your first question, I think others have offered guesses which are, if anything, more informed than mine could be on that point. I might, however, also add another possibility: he might not have the time to go. (Being a bishop is exhausting – especially for the very few who actually visit all of their parishes, which altogether too many of them don’t bother to do.)
To #14, Irenaeus: Really? The fact that he disagreed with the result means he shouldn’t care if people are reporting that he agreed? Why on earth is that? (If you were in his position, don’t you think you might try to disseminate a little bit of truth?) That aside, I would venture to say that bloggers are highly unlikely to cause him to [i] worry[/i]; I imagine he simply prefers that people who have been following HoB news not get upset after reading that he supported something he actually didn’t support. (Would you like to hazard a guess as to how many nasty letters bishops receive these days – regardless of where they fall on the spectrum? Interestingly, they also all seem to get it from all sides – the conservatives are too conservative for some but too liberal for others, while the liberals are too liberal for some but too conservative for others, and the careful moderates are too liberal for some, too conservative for others, and too moderate for many. If you have to get nasty letters, at least the authors should know where you actually stand.)
To: #16, FrKimel; #17, Grandmother: Your comments were posted while I was writing mine – so I add you to my list of ‘well said’s.’
All, I too was discouraged and shocked by the lack of any obvious no vote or stand by the remaining Windsor/Network bishops in N.O. yesterday. And nothing I write here is meant to excuse the lack of a some kind of public stand yesterday, such as a minority report or something that would have indicated the opposition of some Windsor bishops [b]at the time.[/b]
But, the bits of information filtering out suggest that the process was manipulated, that the call for a voice vote may have been in contradiction to what had been agreed upon (roll call? or ballots? I’m not certain about details) in the closed session. The voice vote appears to have been steamrolled through.
None of this serves as an excuse. But it may help provide an explanation for the apparent contradictions or confusion in the story of what happened, and the uncertainty as to which bishops were opposed to the final statement.
#20 The elves. I am reminded of many union meetings in the past that always expressed how their votes on various issues were secret. Of course I became aware that “secret” meetings were quite “open” meetings. And sometimes the meeting turn quite hot amost to the point of throwing punches. It is attitudes like this that have caused union membership to plunge, and it sure looks like the TEC is going down the same road.
I believe Matt heard one voice. That said, I try to put myself in the crowd. Knowing that I would be shouted down by a bunch of 10 year olds (only excuse for what was done), I’d remain calm, speak my normal voice and say no. If they were betrayed as regards ballot vs. voice vote – shame on all those 10 year olds……if one of the adults present had called for ballots, the PB would have called for a voice vote as to whether they should have a ballot or voice vote on the statement…..guess who would have won…..the 10 yr olds….
P.S. by usual retention of 10 yr olds, they didn’t hear a word Bishop Salmon said……
I had the privlege of having Ed as my neighbor in St. Louis – trust me, he just would not be playing around with this one….
This thread may already be dead, but I have to say something about this.
Did anyone notice that Bp Salmon’s speech was given in [b]the closed session[/b]?
Folks: we do not know what all went on in the [b]closed session[/b]. It was most likely that it was there that the real debate occurred. It was there that any real vote/consensus actually happened. The “open session” was the show. It is my guess that a whole lot of folks were given some kind of opportunity to “vote” “no” previously in private — and that a lot of the far left did so as well as the orthodox — and they were asked simply to make a show of being together in public. Of course Bennison would act out; that’s the kind of thing he does. But I would be amazed if there was not a serious battle in private — which is the reason for closed session.
Bp Salmon is a no-compromise sold-out-to-Jesus Christian of impeccable integrity as are many others in the HoB, including Bp Bill Love.
Could we try to find some kind of charity and hope? I have been burned as often as anyone — probably more than many. But cynicism, “ennui” and a jaded attitude do not become those who are supposed to trust in the Lord Jesus.
Let’s entrust oursevles to Him and remain at one with the working out of His Will.
I really hope this idea is read by somone here and that this take manages to get into all the considerations of this issue because I would be willing to bet a lot that this just may be what actually happened.
On the off chance someone’s still checking in here, Bp. Salmon said that, to the best of his knowledge, there were [i] two [/i] “no” votes: his and Bp. Bennison’s.