I am grateful for the tone of this meeting and for many aspects of the process and the contributions many bishops from very diferent perspectives made to it. I wish that such openness and frankness, and serious discussion, had characterized earlier meetings. (And here I refer to 15 years of such meetings!)
But the final result, I must confess, is disappointing to me. I do not believe the answers requested by the Primates have been given. I do not believe we have moved very far ”“ if at all ”“ from where we were before this meeting in terms of the assurances sought. I certainly think that internally, the House of Bishops changed its dynamics in a number of ways that are welcome. But for all that, we still seem, as one bishop has said, “stuck.”
It seems that, even with the best of intentions, we simply cannot get beyond the thought that we might learn from what the Archbishop of Canterbury called “common discernment;” in other words, that our decisions as a House might be wrong and at any rate ought to be subject to the advice and concerns of our Communion bothers and sisters. Many bishops argued for ambiguity as the most “honest” statement of “where we are.” Perhaps that is true. That is the effectual outcome of this meeting.
Bishop Stanton has provided an excellent, careful analysis, and as an ACI board member, his will serve as a good evaluation, which we will forward to the proper people in the UK, etc. I only skimmed blogs yesterday but wanted to second very strongly the comments of Mr Brad Drell I read, in respect of McPherson. He was very strong at DES and has been so as well at CA meetings. The dynamics in New Orleans are slowly becoming clear. Grace and peace, and thanks to the many/several who have spoken appreciatively of ACI/SEAD’s work—now going back to 1998 and Lambeth 1.10 (huge work of Bishop Stanton).
Excellent analysis and history.
Off thread: I just wish the bishop’s web person and others who post .PDF files would learn how to do it in HTML or even plain text. Even a .DOC format would be better than .PDF.
w.w.
Very helpful analysis on two major issues, yes. But on the issue of alternative primatial oversight? Total silence.
“Many bishops argued for ambiguity as the most “honest†statement of “where we are.†Perhaps that is true.”
A friend just commented to me about this recurring problem: If God is one mind and one will, why do His followers spend so much time and energy arguing amongst themselves? Answer: Because they aren’t all seeking His will. There is only one, so there shouldn’t be anything to argue about.
I’m not obtuse enough to argue that my orthodox friends are better at seeking his will…What is apparent though, is that confusion, obfuscation, and ambiguity are NOT fruits of the Holy Spirit. Those conditions are only in the best interests of our enemy. Look to the fruits. The ambiguity IS their message, their response.
The conservative bishops, blogosphere, et al. are not buying it. This fact has been established.
So, now what happens?
Nothing?
[i] Deleted by elf- off topic. [/i]
Dr. Seitz,
Thank you for your comments, it seems to me that you are on target. My prayers ascend for ACI’s influence in the coming weeks, and for Bishops Stanton & McPherson.
[i] Refers to deleted comment. [/i]
[blockquote] Akinola believes that only he is right, and that all other liberal-minded Episcopals are wrong. [/blockquote]
++ Akinola and the majority of the rest of the Primates believe the Bible is right. They are also in concord with the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.
TEC apparently believes it knows better than everyone else in Christendom including the Gospel writers and the 2,000 years of Christian teaching since.
[i] Refers to deleted comment. [/i]
#8, for having so ‘evolved’ and ‘progressive’ a mind, you certainly haven’t added anything intelligent to the conversation.
This is great infomation. The break down on how the final draft came into being is very enlightening and perhaps gives us a little glimpse into what happened in NO. Thank you Bishop for taking the time and effort to create this document. It should be mandatory reading for all trying to figure out the HOB.
All of which doesn’t alter the fact that, to the watching world, and especially to the ABC, the other instruments of unity (minus the more staunch Primates), the courts, and the rest of the Church Catholic, the HOB statement was all but unanimously assented to. No minority report. No public dissent when it mattered. Despite the undoubted goodness and orthodoxy of what we once called the Camp Allen Bishops, they played into the enemy’s hands and have, however reluctantly, inflicted what may very well prove to be a fatal blow to those who hoped for an alternate orthodox province in North America in communion with Canterbury. Very, very sad.
Thank you, Bp. Stanton, for this honest, careful and well-thought out analysis and report. This is truly clarity, where there is none from the Episcopal Church.
The Episcopal Church has not done what the Primates wanted it to do. Will the ABC and Primates accept this work anyway? I hope not.
The time for reports and statements and delay is over, I think. The Anglican Communion has to decide if it wants to be a vibrant, Spirit-inspired life-giving church and ministry of God, or if it wants to be a bureaucratic quasi-governmental secularized social service agency, like the General Convention (Episcopal) Church.
Dear Vosh,
There is a huge difference between thinking something is good public policy and whether or not it is biblically sound.
All very interesting. Clearly Bishop Stanton’s conclusion reflects his hope that the outcome wasn’t the outcome.
But to me NO was not the time for conservatives to be negotiating and trying to reach compromise. If it was, then whatever the outcome it would fall short of what was required. I have to say I am left disappointed that Bishop Stanton et al were not more fiercely contending for the gospel and for clarity. He writes almost dispassionately as if he were some uninvolved observer.
Forgive me if I’m wrong. I just hoped for the likes of Bishop Stanton to themselves be clear – rather than resign themselves to salvaging what they can from a chaotic mess of fudge.
Rich Anglican Fudge, With Nuts!
#19: “It is interesting to me that you continue to draw race into the question when 1. I’m clearly talking about Akinolas thought process and 2. You’ve no knowledge as to my own race”
I only see a correlation of race in your comments due to YOUR initial comments. You compared the African Primates to apes, and called the comparison apt. I don’t know your race, but it wouldn’t make your tone or comments any less offensive or idiotic.
Don’t feed the trolls!
I’ll have what Bishop Stanton is having, please.
Oh, so THIS is how TEC wages reconciliation?
Vosh – I will agree that humans have made progress in the last 2000 years. We are not able to kill each other with greater efficiency. Anyone who can believe the myth of human progress in the face of the 20th and early 21st centuries staring them in the face has got to be a fundamentalist – the fundamentals are just different.
We are the same selfish people who insist on our own way as we were 2000, or even 20,000 years ago. Now, we just have a thin veneer of “civilization” to cover it up. If you doubt that the veneer is thin, simply look to WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulags, Mao’s regiem, the killing fields, the Batan Death March, the Middle East or any number of events of the last 100 years. We’ve “progressed” alright.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
#25 should read: “We are [b]now[/b] able to kill each other…”
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
For those crying out, “Where is my Minority Report?!”, check out the Bishop of West Texas’ response (From the Covenant site): “Fifth, some have asked why the Windsor Bishops have not issued a “minority report.†After various conversations, we decided to wait for the response to this statement from those who asked the questions. Over the past several years, the Windsor group has met numerous times. We have issued signed statements, minority reports, principles, etc… and the prevailing view is simply to hear the response to our response. Another minority report isn’t going to have much effect at this point. If the House’s response is deemed inadequate, there will be an effort to gather a significant number of bishops to discuss the next steps. This gathering would likely be larger than previous Windsor gatherings.”
Makes sense and sounds promising.
I’m surprised that so many people are captivated by +Stanton’s (now pointless) display of drafts of the NO statement. I thought his general comment and rather pleased tone were part of another sorry rationalization. Why were our conservative bishops so hypnotized at the meetings? Why weren’t they pointing out that BO33 is not only no answer to the primates’ concerns but it is also a particularly nasty tool for politicizing elections? It can be used to claim that holding conservative views is the wrong “manner of life”–and was so cited by some who withheld consent to the chosen bishop in SC. The very core of the TEC statement is objectionable, and yet conservative bishops felt they were basking in a step forward? What they achieved is the greatly increased marginalization of real conservatives (the “radicals” who can now be dispensed with) and the rationalizers like these “Windsor Bishops” who will just go on in the Episcopal Church and become indistinguishable from the hard core there.
#24. Which “Covenant site”??? Could you please provide the link?
Thank you.
Widening Gyre, thanks for the info.
mactexan, Widening Gyre is talking about “covenant.communion.com,” an interesting newish site.
yohanelejos,
Thanks so much for the link. I was not aware of this site; I look forward to visiting it.
I join with many others here in praising this report for its excellent detaiil and description of the process of drafting and reaching the final communique. I also appreciate Bp. Stanton’s acknowledgement of the hard work that the bishops did collectively in creating a more irenic spirit in the meeting, listening to one another and showing a desire to find a way to come together on these contentious issues. With all of the flak directed at the HOB for their statement, I am happy to hear one of the major conservative figures speak so well of his colleagues.
To Widening Gyre: a slight correction — that ought to have been covenant-communion.com (note the dash)
Bob,
It is not that there are differences in the HoB, but that they put out a statement that is meant to obfuscate and disguise these differences. ITSM that they are not being honest with us or with TECUSA or with the Anglican Communion. If a bishop believes that God now blesses (or we should recognize that God has always blessed) homosexual unions, then (s)he should say so and then do one of two things. Either openly allow/authorize/permit priests to bless same sex unions and not participate in the wider communion other than as a voice or stay in the communion and abide by the teachings (and not allow them in your diocese and discipline those priests that perform them) and work to change that teaching. To passively permit SSBs while saying that you are not authorizing them seems to be a clintonian dodge of the first order. Hiding behind semantics is not letting your “yes” be “yes” or your “no” be “no.”
More honesty would be appreciated by our Bishops.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder