Dear Friends in Christ:
I returned home last night from the week-long House of Bishops meeting in New Orleans . I have much to say about that meeting, including a description of the inspiring Katrina recovery work our church is engaged in there, and further thanks to you for your contributions to it. But space (and time) only permit me to say so much in this particular medium. So, please consider this Part I of my report. (Part II will come next week.)
First of all, I want to say how grateful I am for your prayers. I was pleased, along with all the bishops, to receive a beautiful “Prayer Shawl” made for us as a pledge of prayerful support by National Episcopal Health Ministries. It was a wonderful gift, and it reminded me not just of their prayers, but of yours. I know that many of you were praying for us. I certainly felt it. I am grateful.
If you have not yet read the HOB statement entitled “A Response to Questions and Concerns Raised by our Anglican Communion Partners,” I hope that you will do so. I also ask that copies be made available in all our congregations. The text of the statement can be found on the Episcopal News Service website: http://episcopalchurch.org/79901_90457_ENG_HTM.htm
It must be said: watch out for the media reports on this matter. Even a very able reporter for our own Episcopal News Service attributed words to me which I did not speak. (I addressed the House about the problem of incursions into our dioceses from extra-provincial bishops, and my comments were largely incorporated into the final version of the Response; the subsequent article quoted me speaking on General Convention Resolution B033, about which I said not a word!) It was an honest error, but it serves as a reminder to be very careful in taking in and responding to what we read””being most especially careful (as the Windsor Report reminds us to be) with on-line communications.
The passage of the Response was nearly unanimous””there was only one dissenting voice. As expected, people are interpreting that statement in various ways, largely reflecting their various interests. I spoke with one of the more conservative bishops in the airport on the way home yesterday, and I think his assessment is basically correct: “The center held. The center has grown larger and stronger.” I agree, and. as a self-described radical moderate, I find that trend to be very gratifying.
The Archbishop of Canterbury himself told us (corroborating what we heard last March) that the Primates’ Communiqué was not an ultimatum, and that September 30 was not a deadline. Several members of the Joint Standing Committee who were with us indicated their support and appreciation. (Nevertheless, “Demands Rejected” read one newspaper headline”¦.) No matter what you may read, the HOB Response is not a defiant rejection, but a candid description of our differences, a good faith commitment to the Windsor process, and a very positive expression of desire to continue working in partnership with all members of the Anglican Communion for the sake of our common mission.
Archbishop Akinola is said to be unhappy with our Response. That is no surprise, since he has already established 4 bishops for counter-TEC work in this country. No one thought for a moment that they would stand down, even if we had given everything he says he wants from us. It is clear, then, that mere appeasement is not an option. Instead, protecting the integrity of The Episcopal Church, we are seeking to work with the Anglican Consultative Council, the Primates, and the Archbishop of Canterbury to be fully active and faithful participants in the Anglican Communion. The Joint Standing Committee has already indicated preliminary appreciation of our Response. They will meet and report to the Archbishop of Canterbury, perhaps as early as today or tomorrow; soon thereafter, we should be hearing some additional word from him.
Not all members of the House were happy with all aspects of the final Response, me included. But everyone present was listened to and valued. Everyone agreed to give something for the sake of our unity. Worship was central to our work, the serious work of building true community, and of being attentive to the guidance of the Spirit. We know that we cannot have common discernment if we do not have common prayer.
I remain committed to the Windsor Process as the best way forward for us. I remain committed to the full inclusion of all baptized Christians in the full life of the Church. These things you have heard from me before. I am pleased to report that there was ample room for me at the House of Bishops table. I am also pleased to tell you that the quality of leadership I am seeing in my fellow bishops and our Presiding Bishop is inspiring. I have great confidence in The Episcopal Church, and in the Diocese of Northern California.
Grace and peace to you all.
–(The Rt. Rev.) Barry Beisner is Bishop of Northern California
“No one thought for a moment that they [Akinola]would stand down, even if we had given everything he says he wants from us.”
I guess we’ll never know, will we, since you didn’t give anything that the MAJORITY of primates asked from you.
Well the atttitude is clear: we are going forward; we don’t care what the GS Primates say; we trust Rowan to stand with us
“I agree, and. as a self-described radical moderate, I find that trend to be very gratifying.”
What does that mean, “radical moderate”? Is that like wearing a shirt sized extra-medium, or being extremely luke-warm? Makes no sense. +Beisner should just accept the label of “Liberal”.
This bishop comes from a different planet than I am on as he wrote,
“I am also pleased to tell you that the quality of leadership I am seeing in my fellow bishops and our Presiding Bishop is inspiring. I have great confidence in The Episcopal Church, and in the Diocese of Northern California.â€
I cannot agree with a single part of this particular statement. I have lost all hope for TEC, I see nothing inspiring about the way ++Katharine is leading us out of the Anglican Communion. I am also confident that a majority of the HOB intends to walk away from the communion, and that his diocese is being led astray from Holy Scripture…all to follow an agenda.
[blockquote] I remain committed to the full inclusion of all baptized Christians in the full life of the Church. [/blockquote]
This is the new mantra, the new justification for ordaining and elevating those who fail the tests set forth in Titus 1:5-11 and 1 Timothy 3:2-7 (“sober, just, holy, temperate” etc.). All it takes is baptism and you’re qualified for anything.
Accordingly, I think it’s time to put this mantra to the test.
For the next opening for a bishop in one of these non-Windsor compliant dioceses, we should start a campaign to nominate a newly baptized baby for Bishop.
This is a slogan, not thinking.
The phase “radical moderate” is telling and convincing. The phrase itself, as we can all see, is an oxymoron. It is quite meaningless. To the writer however, it must mean something, but what? I take it he means that in the class “radical” he is at the midline. This is, however, just a guess.
However, this misuse of language, this tendency to force commonplace words to identify an uncommon agenda, this belief that words mean what you want them to mean and so it should be, the use of a moderate word in a radical context so that its connotations are shifted leftward, is a sign of semantic bankruptcy, a deep failure to grasp the fundamental connection between customary use and meaning. This is why their writing so often seems to be floating, slippery, and unconnected to Standard English. VGR’s prose is an excellent example of this emasculation of clarity. See the dialogue several entries below. This is soapy writing, slippery and filmy, not so much vague as it is phantasmal.
The necessity for them to use this practice is fairly obvious, but the practice has made it impossible for one side to communicate with the other. I don’t know when I have seen in American English such an extraordinary breakdown of denotation. LM
The phrase “radical moderate†has been around for awhile – I recall professional Republican cabinet secretary Elliot Richardson used it as the title of one of his books, [i]Reflections of a Radical Moderate[/i] over a decade ago.
I just did a Google book search and can confirm this. Here’s what Richardson says in page xv of the Preface:
“…my commitment to this fundamental kind of moderation has become increasingly strong, tenacious, and deep-rooted—hence, radical.”
I don’t know this Bishop at all, but I suspect he is confused — he is not a radical moderate, but a moderate radical. He want to push the envelope of TEC, just not as fast as the Spongs et al. It reminds me of the story that Terry Mattingly tells:
http://www.getreligion.org/?p=2151
[blockquote]I remain committed to the Windsor Process as the best way forward for us. [/blockquote]
I have to admit, my first reaction to this was “Huh? +Beisner is claiming to be a Windsor Bishop?”
When you get right down to the lick log, he may well be as much a “Windsor” bishop as any of the other so-called Windsor bishops who rolled over and played dead in New Orleans. Aside from his being an unrepentant serial monogamist, that is.
the snarkster