Interesting comment at the end of the “read it all” attachment to this blog. I do not believe the elves would let it through. An old Amrerican Indian seems apropo here. “They speak with a forked tongue” When some tribes caught a brave speaking falsely in very important discussions they actually took a knife and physically split his tongue
This is what mediocrity looks like when its collar is turned. These are stock phrases, cliches, boiler plate pieties; but we note a complete avoidance of the substance of the church’s problems. This should properly be called dishonest,for these are lies, but lies of omission. I assume that these document is meant to placate and disarm his own congregations, and it may work if they have not actually been following the realities. Larry
Larry (#3),
As best I can determine, most of the upstate is wholy complacent about the issues, having been lulled to sleep by Bishop Henderson’s soothing words. In my view, the Upper Diocese has not, by and large, been following the realities. But there are pockets of resistance, even so. What they will do with this, I have no idea.
I noticed that Bishop Henderson never addressed the duplicity ol the way the HOB dealt with the issue of ssb’s. But I expected nothing less from him. A corporatist to the end.
Oh good, another committee appointed by the ABC. I must be the only Anglican in the world who hasn’t sat on one of these pointless gabfests. I hereby propose a name for this latest one: “People’s Front of Judea.”
#7 – I think you are thinking of Bishop Salmon of the Diocese of South Carolina (the lower part of the state). Bishop Henderson is with the Diocese of UPPER South Carolina.
Dear Dorsey: Nor is the idea of blessing of same sex unions, ordaining persons who are in habitual sexual relations outsde the bonds of Christian marriage, and suing each other consistent with classical Anglicanism.
Believe what you will, but don’t use specious arguments.
As a South Carolinian who fully expects Fr. Lawrence to vacate the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina shortly after the mitre is set upon his head, I hope in the reshuffling our diocese is put under Dorsey’s protection. He gets it, as far as I’m concerned, and those in the SC Lowcountry who wish to remain with TEC are lucky to have him so near.
RE: “He gets it, as far as I’m concerned, and those in the SC Lowcountry who wish to remain with TEC are lucky to have him so near.”
Since Dan Ennis claims to be a progressive, I find this statement about Dorsey to be quite insulting. Dorsey is a Windsor bishop, in all particulars.
Should Dorsey turn into a raving revisionist, then I suppose progressives could rightly claim that Dorsey is an appropriate bishop for them. But until then . . .
First, Sarah, it is very kind of you to be insulted on the Bishop’s behalf (or perhaps I’ve insulted you, even though I have no idea who you are?).
Second, I am indeed a progressive/revisionist/apostate/what have you, but I can live under a “Windsor Bishop” who is circumspect enough to point out that
A) The Primates are only one of the four Instruments of Unity
B) Demands and deadlines do not allow for careful discernment
C) Our mission has very little to do with Lambeth, conventions, covenants and resolutions, and everything to do with the Great Commandment and the Great Commission.
I know it is important to paint this debate in terms of extremes (that’s why Intergrity and Via Media get to take turns playing boogieman on T19) but in practice there are lots of “liberal institutionalists” like me in my Diocese, and when the split comes we won’t be in a position to demand leftist ideological purity from our next bishop. I don’t need a “raving revisionist” in the cathedral–just somebody who knows that this is a long game, and that it is better to play it out (even if it takes centuries) than pick up the marbles.
Interesting comment at the end of the “read it all” attachment to this blog. I do not believe the elves would let it through. An old Amrerican Indian seems apropo here. “They speak with a forked tongue” When some tribes caught a brave speaking falsely in very important discussions they actually took a knife and physically split his tongue
Comprehensive. Well-stated. Likely to be savaged here.
This is what mediocrity looks like when its collar is turned. These are stock phrases, cliches, boiler plate pieties; but we note a complete avoidance of the substance of the church’s problems. This should properly be called dishonest,for these are lies, but lies of omission. I assume that these document is meant to placate and disarm his own congregations, and it may work if they have not actually been following the realities. Larry
Larry (#3),
As best I can determine, most of the upstate is wholy complacent about the issues, having been lulled to sleep by Bishop Henderson’s soothing words. In my view, the Upper Diocese has not, by and large, been following the realities. But there are pockets of resistance, even so. What they will do with this, I have no idea.
I noticed that Bishop Henderson never addressed the duplicity ol the way the HOB dealt with the issue of ssb’s. But I expected nothing less from him. A corporatist to the end.
Oh good, another committee appointed by the ABC. I must be the only Anglican in the world who hasn’t sat on one of these pointless gabfests. I hereby propose a name for this latest one: “People’s Front of Judea.”
This man is either in deep denial or completely clueless. He needs our prayers. Pax.
Didn’t intial reports suggest this bishop had some sort of
screaming hissy fitimpassioned plea behind closed doors? What happened to pacify him?#7 – I think you are thinking of Bishop Salmon of the Diocese of South Carolina (the lower part of the state). Bishop Henderson is with the Diocese of UPPER South Carolina.
Dear Dorsey: Nor is the idea of blessing of same sex unions, ordaining persons who are in habitual sexual relations outsde the bonds of Christian marriage, and suing each other consistent with classical Anglicanism.
Believe what you will, but don’t use specious arguments.
As a South Carolinian who fully expects Fr. Lawrence to vacate the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina shortly after the mitre is set upon his head, I hope in the reshuffling our diocese is put under Dorsey’s protection. He gets it, as far as I’m concerned, and those in the SC Lowcountry who wish to remain with TEC are lucky to have him so near.
RE: “He gets it, as far as I’m concerned, and those in the SC Lowcountry who wish to remain with TEC are lucky to have him so near.”
Since Dan Ennis claims to be a progressive, I find this statement about Dorsey to be quite insulting. Dorsey is a Windsor bishop, in all particulars.
Should Dorsey turn into a raving revisionist, then I suppose progressives could rightly claim that Dorsey is an appropriate bishop for them. But until then . . .
First, Sarah, it is very kind of you to be insulted on the Bishop’s behalf (or perhaps I’ve insulted you, even though I have no idea who you are?).
Second, I am indeed a progressive/revisionist/apostate/what have you, but I can live under a “Windsor Bishop” who is circumspect enough to point out that
A) The Primates are only one of the four Instruments of Unity
B) Demands and deadlines do not allow for careful discernment
C) Our mission has very little to do with Lambeth, conventions, covenants and resolutions, and everything to do with the Great Commandment and the Great Commission.
I know it is important to paint this debate in terms of extremes (that’s why Intergrity and Via Media get to take turns playing boogieman on T19) but in practice there are lots of “liberal institutionalists” like me in my Diocese, and when the split comes we won’t be in a position to demand leftist ideological purity from our next bishop. I don’t need a “raving revisionist” in the cathedral–just somebody who knows that this is a long game, and that it is better to play it out (even if it takes centuries) than pick up the marbles.
RE: “First, Sarah, it is very kind of you to be insulted on the Bishop’s behalf . . . ”
Not certain if Bishop Henderson would agree . . . but you are quite welcome! ; > )