Do you suppose all these gentlemen are making statements trying to influence AB of C for a stacked deck? I hope he keeps an accurate tally. Sure would want him to be on the wining side…..forget what is right with the Gospel. Notice the silence of the orthodox primates, as well as other denominations, i.e. RC and SB.
On the upside, he generously said that TEC went a “considerable way,” which is a gentleman’s way of saying that it didn’t go the whole way. He also said that the primates’ demands were “reasonable.”
Notably, he said that bishops of TEC should be obliged to follow the pronouncements that they agree to just like happens in Ireland. My own interpretation of that is, if you say you won’t authorize SSBs, well, my good men and women, that was your word.
Certainly Archbishop Armagh hews to a more liberal theology, but let’s read the statement for what it is and not automatically condemn it just because of a distrust of motivations. I thought it was a reasonable statement. Reasonableness is in increasingly short supply these days.
#4, my interpretation was that it was a little more than “reasonable.” It appeared to me to be an endorsement of the TEC HOB statement as an adequate response to DES. But one would expect that from +Armagh. He endorsed B033 as being enough to satisfy Dromatine, also.
I agree, it’s appears to be clear that he is a revisionist, and I might be giving the statement greater charity than it may deserve, but I just think at the least it makes some positive contributions and that all blogs of all stripes have taken to instant euphoria or condemnation of every statement put out these days based on the person making it.
# 7: the C of I is gerrymandered – most members live in the northern, more evangelical dioceses but the voting power is held by the numerically much smaller, liberal southern dioceses – which is how Harper got elected.
7. [i]Is the Church of Ireland’s membership decreasing just like ECUSA’s and the C of E’s?[/i]
No. The latest figures show that the C of I is increasing in membership, particularly in the Republic.
9. [i]the C of I is gerrymandered – most members live in the northern, more evangelical dioceses but the voting power is held by the numerically much smaller, liberal southern dioceses – which is how Harper got elected.[/i]
Showing your ignorance I’m afraid. The Archbishop of Armagh, who is Primate, is elected by the House of Bishops themselves, by majority vote, from among their own members.
As to other episcopal elections; the C of I consists of two provinces (Armagh and Dublin). Elections for bishop take place within the respective province. Therefore, the supposedly ‘liberal’ Dublin province has no say in choosing bishops for Armagh province. The bishop is chosen by a provincial Episcopal Electoral College, comprised of the provincial archbishop, 3 bishops chosen by the HoB, 12 clerical and 12 lay representatives from the vacant diocese, and 2 or 3 clerical and 2 or 3 lay representatives from each of the other provincial dioceses. Archbishop Harper had been bishop of Connor, in the more ‘evangelical’ north.
# 10: Fortunately, I have the good manners not to call you ignorant or point out what is widely known, that the four northern dioceses which have about 82% of the membership have only 52% of the synod membership, while the more numerous, liberal-inclined southern dioceses with much smaller attendance (can you work out the %?) provide most of the bishops (who elect the archbishop). So the Irish synod and house of bishops are unrepresentative of the church as a whole. That also explains the continuing fracas over the CITC and the absence of an evangelical alternative. http://irishangle.net/nuacht/node/284
Well, if you take the statements of multiple bishops that they intend to make ssb’s official by the GC2009 and you add these western tradition readers who say that ECUSA/TEC is compliant, I think you have the perfect evidence for the Global South that words in Englixh mean nothing. What conclusion they draw from such is entirely due to their reason.
[i]”Fortunately, I have the good manners not to call you ignorant or point out what is widely known”[/i]
But you didn’t have the good manners not to accuse the C of I of ‘gerrymandering’ – the DELIBERATE structuring of the Church so as to disenfranchise a section of it. And despite your ‘good manners’ you DO immediately go on to point out ‘what is widely known’!
Of course Synod representation needs reviewing – nobody denies that. And there have been a number of plans brought before Synod to do just that. They have been rejected (including by ‘disenfranchised Northerners’) for a number of reasons – make Synod too big, make it too small, utterly inadequate voice for small dioceses, totally unbalanced, etc. The latest proposal seeks to allow the less-populous dioceses an adequate voice in church affairs, and so no diocese will have less than 12 members. To suggest that the Church is deliberately disenfranchising ‘conservatives’ is nonsense. In fact, the lowest attendance by representatives at Synod is always from the ‘North’ – so don’t complain about disenfranchisement if your representatives don’t even bother to show up!
In fact the four ‘northern dioceses’ you cite actually include 2 that are ‘cross-border’ (Armagh and Derry & Raphoe). Only 2 could be called ‘northern dioceses’, in that they are entirely in Northern Ireland. There are 6 dioceses that include parts of Northern Ireland – the two you fail to mention (Clogher and Kilmore) would also both be regarded as ‘conservative’, even though much of them is in the supposedly ‘liberal’ Republic.
Indeed, you assume the ‘North’ is overwelmingly conservative, the Republic is uniformly liberal, and the HoB ‘liberal’ biased. But the episcopal elections don’t back that up.
– The relatively liberal +Alan Harper was ELECTED to Connor (entirely in the ‘conservative’ North) in 2001.
– Conservatives didn’t have the strength to elect anyone to Connor in 2007, yet the HoB chose an evangelical for them.
– Conservatives didn’t have the strength to elect anyone to Down and Dromore (entirely in the ‘conservative’ North) in 1997, yet the ‘liberal’ HoB chose a conservative evangelical for them.
– Conservatives didn’t have the strength to elect anyone to Clogher (mostly in the ‘conservative’ North) in 2001, and so the HoB chose someone who could not be regarded as radically liberal.
– Conservatives didn’t have the strength to elect anyone to Derry & Raphoe (mostly in the ‘conservative’ North) in 2002, yet the ‘liberal’ HoB chose a conservative evangelical for them.
– The diocese of Kilmore (almost entirely in the ‘liberal’ Republic) ELECTED a conservative evangelical in 2000.
Of the 5 self-identified evangelicals in the 12 person HoB, 3 are only there because of election by said ‘liberal biased’ HoB. Of the 3 conservative evangelicals among them, 2 are only there through election by the ‘liberal biased’ HoB. So much for a ‘conservative’ North and ‘liberal-biased’ HoB.
Oh Mick, you don’t get irony, do you?
The Synod had a chance recently to alter its numbers to make representation fairer – but this was blocked by the south. *Keeping an unfair system (however is arose historically) IS gerrymandering.
“you assume the ‘North’ is overwelmingly conservative, the Republic is uniformly liberal …” – no, I don’t; the words overwhelmingly and uniformly are yours. In both cases I would have said ‘predominantly’.
The point remains: the southern dioceses are MUCH smaller, yet each has a bishop, and this gives them disproportionate strength in selecting bishops (under the CoI system). To judge by membership, there should only be 4 southern dioceses. The Connor election in 2007 was a mess.
Oh dear, you really don’t get Anglican, indeed Christian, polity do you? It is not a case of those with the biggest numbers get the loudest voice. Look at the Primates’ Meeting as a prime example. The tiny Southern Cone has an equal voice to the huge Church of England. The tiny Anglican Church of Mexico has an equal voice to the huge Church of Nigeria. Same applies to Lambeth and the ACC.
Synodical reform will come. It might have come sooner if it hadn’t been brought in the manner in which it originally was, which tainted it. There is too often a political motivation – as exemplified by your terms ‘the north’ and ‘the south’. By ‘the north’ you presumably mean two dioceses, which would control polity for the entire island of Ireland, which no-one, including any right-thinking ‘northeners’ want. And it might interest you that many ‘northerners’ both spoke and voted against the bill this year.
The fact remains, concerning a ‘predominantly’ conservative ‘north’ – they aren’t so predominant as to actually be able to elect a conservative evangelical bishop. It’s the ‘liberal’ HoB that actually has to provide them!
Do you suppose all these gentlemen are making statements trying to influence AB of C for a stacked deck? I hope he keeps an accurate tally. Sure would want him to be on the wining side…..forget what is right with the Gospel. Notice the silence of the orthodox primates, as well as other denominations, i.e. RC and SB.
What a load of doubletalk (and like the Episcopal bishops’ statement itself) saying nothing!
Pilosophically Unintelligible. Theologically Shallow.
On the upside, he generously said that TEC went a “considerable way,” which is a gentleman’s way of saying that it didn’t go the whole way. He also said that the primates’ demands were “reasonable.”
Notably, he said that bishops of TEC should be obliged to follow the pronouncements that they agree to just like happens in Ireland. My own interpretation of that is, if you say you won’t authorize SSBs, well, my good men and women, that was your word.
Certainly Archbishop Armagh hews to a more liberal theology, but let’s read the statement for what it is and not automatically condemn it just because of a distrust of motivations. I thought it was a reasonable statement. Reasonableness is in increasingly short supply these days.
#4, my interpretation was that it was a little more than “reasonable.” It appeared to me to be an endorsement of the TEC HOB statement as an adequate response to DES. But one would expect that from +Armagh. He endorsed B033 as being enough to satisfy Dromatine, also.
I agree, it’s appears to be clear that he is a revisionist, and I might be giving the statement greater charity than it may deserve, but I just think at the least it makes some positive contributions and that all blogs of all stripes have taken to instant euphoria or condemnation of every statement put out these days based on the person making it.
Bishop Harper is no Bishop Miller.
Apparently, traditional versus progressive-revisionist polarity also exists within the Church of Ireland. Just as in ECUSA and the Church of England.
Is the Church of Ireland’s membership decreasing just like ECUSA’s and the C of E’s?
Sorry, Your Grace, but this bird won’t fly!
# 7: the C of I is gerrymandered – most members live in the northern, more evangelical dioceses but the voting power is held by the numerically much smaller, liberal southern dioceses – which is how Harper got elected.
7. [i]Is the Church of Ireland’s membership decreasing just like ECUSA’s and the C of E’s?[/i]
No. The latest figures show that the C of I is increasing in membership, particularly in the Republic.
9. [i]the C of I is gerrymandered – most members live in the northern, more evangelical dioceses but the voting power is held by the numerically much smaller, liberal southern dioceses – which is how Harper got elected.[/i]
Showing your ignorance I’m afraid. The Archbishop of Armagh, who is Primate, is elected by the House of Bishops themselves, by majority vote, from among their own members.
As to other episcopal elections; the C of I consists of two provinces (Armagh and Dublin). Elections for bishop take place within the respective province. Therefore, the supposedly ‘liberal’ Dublin province has no say in choosing bishops for Armagh province. The bishop is chosen by a provincial Episcopal Electoral College, comprised of the provincial archbishop, 3 bishops chosen by the HoB, 12 clerical and 12 lay representatives from the vacant diocese, and 2 or 3 clerical and 2 or 3 lay representatives from each of the other provincial dioceses. Archbishop Harper had been bishop of Connor, in the more ‘evangelical’ north.
# 10: Fortunately, I have the good manners not to call you ignorant or point out what is widely known, that the four northern dioceses which have about 82% of the membership have only 52% of the synod membership, while the more numerous, liberal-inclined southern dioceses with much smaller attendance (can you work out the %?) provide most of the bishops (who elect the archbishop). So the Irish synod and house of bishops are unrepresentative of the church as a whole. That also explains the continuing fracas over the CITC and the absence of an evangelical alternative.
http://irishangle.net/nuacht/node/284
COE has the same problem with so-called ‘rotten parishes’ or whatnot, similar to the political problem England had and may still have on that front.
Well, if you take the statements of multiple bishops that they intend to make ssb’s official by the GC2009 and you add these western tradition readers who say that ECUSA/TEC is compliant, I think you have the perfect evidence for the Global South that words in Englixh mean nothing. What conclusion they draw from such is entirely due to their reason.
[i]”Fortunately, I have the good manners not to call you ignorant or point out what is widely known”[/i]
But you didn’t have the good manners not to accuse the C of I of ‘gerrymandering’ – the DELIBERATE structuring of the Church so as to disenfranchise a section of it. And despite your ‘good manners’ you DO immediately go on to point out ‘what is widely known’!
Of course Synod representation needs reviewing – nobody denies that. And there have been a number of plans brought before Synod to do just that. They have been rejected (including by ‘disenfranchised Northerners’) for a number of reasons – make Synod too big, make it too small, utterly inadequate voice for small dioceses, totally unbalanced, etc. The latest proposal seeks to allow the less-populous dioceses an adequate voice in church affairs, and so no diocese will have less than 12 members. To suggest that the Church is deliberately disenfranchising ‘conservatives’ is nonsense. In fact, the lowest attendance by representatives at Synod is always from the ‘North’ – so don’t complain about disenfranchisement if your representatives don’t even bother to show up!
In fact the four ‘northern dioceses’ you cite actually include 2 that are ‘cross-border’ (Armagh and Derry & Raphoe). Only 2 could be called ‘northern dioceses’, in that they are entirely in Northern Ireland. There are 6 dioceses that include parts of Northern Ireland – the two you fail to mention (Clogher and Kilmore) would also both be regarded as ‘conservative’, even though much of them is in the supposedly ‘liberal’ Republic.
Indeed, you assume the ‘North’ is overwelmingly conservative, the Republic is uniformly liberal, and the HoB ‘liberal’ biased. But the episcopal elections don’t back that up.
– The relatively liberal +Alan Harper was ELECTED to Connor (entirely in the ‘conservative’ North) in 2001.
– Conservatives didn’t have the strength to elect anyone to Connor in 2007, yet the HoB chose an evangelical for them.
– Conservatives didn’t have the strength to elect anyone to Down and Dromore (entirely in the ‘conservative’ North) in 1997, yet the ‘liberal’ HoB chose a conservative evangelical for them.
– Conservatives didn’t have the strength to elect anyone to Clogher (mostly in the ‘conservative’ North) in 2001, and so the HoB chose someone who could not be regarded as radically liberal.
– Conservatives didn’t have the strength to elect anyone to Derry & Raphoe (mostly in the ‘conservative’ North) in 2002, yet the ‘liberal’ HoB chose a conservative evangelical for them.
– The diocese of Kilmore (almost entirely in the ‘liberal’ Republic) ELECTED a conservative evangelical in 2000.
Of the 5 self-identified evangelicals in the 12 person HoB, 3 are only there because of election by said ‘liberal biased’ HoB. Of the 3 conservative evangelicals among them, 2 are only there through election by the ‘liberal biased’ HoB. So much for a ‘conservative’ North and ‘liberal-biased’ HoB.
Oh Mick, you don’t get irony, do you?
The Synod had a chance recently to alter its numbers to make representation fairer – but this was blocked by the south. *Keeping an unfair system (however is arose historically) IS gerrymandering.
“you assume the ‘North’ is overwelmingly conservative, the Republic is uniformly liberal …” – no, I don’t; the words overwhelmingly and uniformly are yours. In both cases I would have said ‘predominantly’.
The point remains: the southern dioceses are MUCH smaller, yet each has a bishop, and this gives them disproportionate strength in selecting bishops (under the CoI system). To judge by membership, there should only be 4 southern dioceses. The Connor election in 2007 was a mess.
Oh dear, you really don’t get Anglican, indeed Christian, polity do you? It is not a case of those with the biggest numbers get the loudest voice. Look at the Primates’ Meeting as a prime example. The tiny Southern Cone has an equal voice to the huge Church of England. The tiny Anglican Church of Mexico has an equal voice to the huge Church of Nigeria. Same applies to Lambeth and the ACC.
Synodical reform will come. It might have come sooner if it hadn’t been brought in the manner in which it originally was, which tainted it. There is too often a political motivation – as exemplified by your terms ‘the north’ and ‘the south’. By ‘the north’ you presumably mean two dioceses, which would control polity for the entire island of Ireland, which no-one, including any right-thinking ‘northeners’ want. And it might interest you that many ‘northerners’ both spoke and voted against the bill this year.
The fact remains, concerning a ‘predominantly’ conservative ‘north’ – they aren’t so predominant as to actually be able to elect a conservative evangelical bishop. It’s the ‘liberal’ HoB that actually has to provide them!