“After a half day of discussion and tinkering with the language, the bishops adopted the resolution with only the Bishop of Pennsylvania, Charles Bennison voting against ”” and an undisclosed number of bishops declining to vote.”
–from the front page article in today’s Church of England Newspaper
This statement is incorrect. We now know that Bishop Salmon said no audibly. The Bishop of Dallas did not vote for it (he was already gone). The Bishop of Central Florida did not voice support either (he so told the Boston Globe). A late and rushed voice consensus vote on something this important was not helpful–KSH.
Prayers
Queen Elizabeth
Deliverance
God’s will
KHS says: “A late and rushed voice consensus vote on something this important was not helpful.”
And understatement that ranks right up there with “Houston, we have a problem.”
It is apparent that the whole thing was orchestrated to appear to appear as an unanimous vote of the House (Commumity). Very cunning.
The universal talk of how collegial the meeting went (aside from Gene Robinson’s embarassing tongue lashing of the ABC) tells how utterly betrayed the othodox were the Comm-Cons. As Matt Kennedy, the outcome seems very staged with the full cooperation of the members of the ACC, the primates standing committee AND most likely the ABC. This is entirely consistent with the ABC’s open subversion of the DeS communique all along (subcommittee report, opposition to Sept 30th deadline, early invitations, not a ultimatum or deadline, and now this document). I have only heard Bp Salmon’s voice speaking against it. Truly pathetic.
Above post corrected (previous was between cases):
The universal talk of how collegial the meeting went (aside from Gene Robinson’s embarassing tongue lashing of the ABC) tells how utterly betrayed the were the Comm-con orthodox. As Matt Kennedy pointed out, the outcome seems very staged with the full cooperation of the members of the ACC and the primates standing committee AND most likely the ABC. This is entirely consistent with the ABC’s open subversion of the DeS communique (subcommittee report, opposition to Sept 30th deadline, early invitations, not a ultimatum or deadline, and now this document). I have only heard Bp Salmon’s and Bp Stanton’s voices speaking against it. Truly pathetic.
Re #4: I’m not clear how it is “subversion” for one of the Anglican Instruments of Communion to act in a manner that might not meet with approval by some (probably but not necessarily a majority) of the members of one of the other Instruments. Part of the issue that has dogged the Anglican Communion is that we have operated for many years (at least since 1776 and arguably since 1534) as a hydra-headed creature… currently there are 38 autonomous churches (and 6 dependent bodies) coordinated by 4 separate Instruments. The Primates’ Meeting established in 1978 is only one of those instruments, not the boss of the other 3 and of the 44 churches. It is therefore hardly “sedition against the Communion” or “subversion” for an Anglican to regard the authority of the Primates’ Meeting as less than morally binding.
[blockquote]I’m not clear how it is “subversion†for one of the Anglican Instruments of Communion to act in a manner that might not meet with approval by some (probably but not necessarily a majority) of the members of one of the other Instruments.[/blockquote]
Dale, it is subversion if one of the Instruments of Communion misrepresents a statement of one of the other Instruments, i.e., September 30 is not a deadline; The DES Communique is not an ultimatum; The HOB’s ambiguous response is sufficient to meet the Communique’s requirements.
#7, that is frankly silly. The ABC is a member of the Primates’ Meeting, and in fact, he is the chairman of such. Thus, he is certainly entitled to present his interpretation of what the Primates’ communique requested. A very significant chunk of the Primates’ would certainly agree with his interpretation, be they the Primates of the USA, Mexico, Scotland, Canada, Australia, etc. Their interpretations are as valid and as “binding” as the interpretation of Primates who might read the request otherwise. All signed it on equal terms.
Finally, it should be said that, if anything, the ABC’s opinion on various matters related to unity is to be given higher credence than that of any of the other single Instruments. Why? Because he is the only person who is a member of all four of the Instruments of Unity, and the one who is recognized as the Focus of Unity. And let’s not forget that even within the economy of the Primates’ Meeting itself, the ABC is [i] primus inter pares [/i], the first among equals, and thus — if any of the Primates is entitled to an interpretation of the communique that is due slightly more deference than others — it is he, the chairman, and the theological first among equals.
[blockquote] #7, that is frankly silly.[/blockquote]
It is not “frankly silly,” at all. The DES Communique was quite clear, and needs no spin. However, if DES is indeed so obscure as to require “interpretation,” the Primates who wrote it are the interpreters, not the ABC–in which case, RW should have refused to speculate about what the response of the Primates to the HOB meeting would be until they had met and made that response.
RW’s hand-picked committee tried to interpret GC 2006 contrary to its clear meaning at DES and was roundly rebuked by the Primates. It appears the ABC may have that lesson to learn again.
I’m really not sure why Kendall+ keeps bringing up this point. What is clear is that those bishops who were against this document did not speak up clearly and distinctly in the public vote on the document — except Bishop Bennison. I believe it was their responsibility to proclaim their opposition loudly and clearly in public — not mumble something under their breath and then later say on blogs they were really against it. There was a moment to stand up and be counted — they did not do that, and that failure was nothing short of shameful.
The other thing that doesn’t make sense to me is these reports that bishops had left the meeting early (and the attendant implication that they would have voted “no” if they’d been around).
Really. What was so important that some bishops had to miss such a historically important vote? Why wouldn’t a bishop stay until the statement was crafted?