There were a remarkable series of dynamics in play at the just concluded House of Bishops meeting in New Orleans. For starters, there was the dynamic between the Episcopal Church (increasingly identified as TEC by the rest of the Anglican Communion)”“ represented by the House of Bishops; and the rest of the Anglican Communion ”“ represented by the Archbishop of Canterbury and several leaders of the Anglican Consultative Council (the ACC). The Archbishop and the representatives of the ACC presented to us a rather united front in their disdain/concern/anger at TEC for getting out ahead of the rest of the Anglican Communion in our actions over the last three years (the more gentle presentation) ”“ or abrogating our commitment to the Communion and the Gospel (the more harsh presentation). We later learned that the ACC position may not have been so united ”“ in that some of the ACC members present, who represented different views, were not given the opportunity to speak to us. It was also troubling to learn that an edited version of the most ardent presentation was on the internet within an hour of it being presented to us.
Another dynamic in play was the sense I had that we are dealing with more than one house of bishops. The primary house is comprised of the vast majority of bishops who stayed through the whole meeting ”“ and who worked hard, and well, to build bridges and create solidarity in the midst of diversity. It appears to me that an ancillary or adjunct House is made up of a small group of dissident bishops who left the meeting as soon as the Archbishop of Canterbury did. Their media champions stayed ”“ and seemed to have versions of our work ”“ with their own unique commentary on it, out in public before we even finished that work.
To my mind, the “primary” House of Bishops was able to sort through these various dynamics, and build on the work that we did at our meeting in March. Although it may not be reflected in our final statement, there was a growing sense during the meeting that we are willing and able to honor our differences ”“ which are reflected in our differing theologies and liturgical practices. There was not an attempt to demand conformity ”“ or to diminish any particular diocesan response to the invitations and challenges of the Gospel.
As far as I’m concerned, this statement amounts to a tacit admission that there are in fact two Churches within TEC, and that the two are on different courses and are incompatible.
He says, “The Archbishop and the representatives of the ACC presented to us a rather united front in their disdain/concern/anger at TEC for getting out ahead of the rest of the Anglican Communion in our actions over the last three years (the more gentle presentation) – or abrogating our commitment to the Communion and the Gospel (the more harsh presentation).”
People are upset because TEC got ahead of the rest of the Communion? What revisionist tripe! The rest of this diatribe is deserving of a box of Pampers.
“honor our differences”…the same old cant…but some insights on the politics
Didn’t TEC ask to be called TEC?
I would love to call it ECUSA or PECUSA again, if it meant that.
This Newark, come in earth! This is Newark! Parish closing capital of the ECUSA/TEC! This is Newark! Is anybody out there?
Gotta be a Twilight Zone re-run!
Cennydd,
I think if you read this response as nothing deeper than a surface observation of basic group dynamics you might come to the conclusion that the bishop is not saying anything so profound as you are suggesting is a tacit admission.
I don’t know this guy, so I’m not sharing any insider info. Just my take on it. To be quite frank, and I want to be generous because he just got back from a very intensive time, but if this is it from this bishop, well….I’m going to say a few prayers for the Diocese of Newark.
Actually, the tacit admission you are looking for may just be the PB allowing a Visitor plan with 8 (not one or two) different bishops.
RGEaton
I keep hearing the line “the emperor has no clothes” as I read about the work of the HoB. EpiscoGroupthink allows laughable pronouncements that are seen through by a 10 year old.
BTW, the “small group of dissident bishops” left because they had real work to do. Why should they stay for the wordsmithing of a year old response?
What a bother it is to the princes/esses of the Church that there are actually ways for news to reach the people of the Church quickly and without filters! You would think that there were only conservative bloggers on the internet. And, as for this bishop and his HOB, I suggest a new patron saint, right out of the sixities: Cleopatra. Queen of De-Nile.
So, let me get this right: Christ is with those in the margins, unless they are a dissident group of bishops in TEC? I better go purchase one of those AMPD’s (“Acceptable Marginalized Persons” Detectors) ASAP, because this is clearly nothing for a layman to be fooling with!
Plus Beckwith has a really nice plug for Stand Firm though. Great job, Greg! 😉
” build on the work that we did at our meeting in March”
Building alright………..a house of cards!
Has the fat lady sung yet? God I hope so.
Let’s get on with building the Anglican Church of North America.
Peace,
Barry
When conservative bishops decide not to participate, they invite greater conflict. They didn’t have much of an interest in the proceedings to begin with. duncan, et al, don’t need my respect, but I admit, the fact that they aren’t present simply demonstrates to me that they aren’t interested in communion.
Which is the higher good: Communion with apostates and heretics or following Christ?
Unity is lovely, and desirable amongst Christians, but it is quite the opposite when Christians and unbelievers aggregate.
12, John they recognize that they are now irrelevant in TEC governance. Current TEC “moderates” such as yourself only need us to retain your “moderate” lable. Without us you become the new conservatives.
but I admit, the fact that they aren’t present simply demonstrates to me that they aren’t interested in communion.
How many times have they been to the well and come back with nothing? Not the least concern with providing pastoral care to reasserters?
And what, precisely, does communion mean to a bishop who distributes the Eucharist “to all who seek God and are drawn to Christ” ?