Many are of course asking: Does the House of Bishops’ statement honor the primates’ specific requests? That isn’t completely clear. Cyberspace is already ablaze with radically different analyses of what the bishops said. My own assessment is that the House’s answer to the first question is a fairly unambiguous Yes, the answer to the second somewhat less so (particularly with the proviso concerning General Convention, and in the implication that some bishops do in fact authorize liturgies for same-sex unions). As a matter of full disclosure, I should say that I argued on the floor of the House for the removal of the implicit recognition (which, I fear, could be taken for approval) that some bishops authorize liturgies; but the consensus of the House moved in a different direction. Although I was not able to speak directly to the phrase “or until General Convention takes further action,” I would have preferred that those words had been removed as well: the matter of liturgies for the blessing of same-sex unions is one that should involve the whole Communion, and not just our own province.
In the end, however, I voted in favor of the bishops’ statement. It is not perfect; it could have been stronger and clearer, especially regarding the primates’ second request; yet it does, I think, move the church in a Communion-affirming direction, and demonstrate a willingness to discover more profoundly what it means to be interdependent members of a worldwide Christian family, linked together by our communion with the historic See of Canterbury. My colleagues across the theological spectrum showed remarkable charity toward one another as we crafted the statement phrase by phrase. The process was long, exhausting, and at times excruciating. While none of us can say that the statement contains everything that we would have wanted, I believe that it reflects many of my concerns, and I am able to support it with a good conscience and an open heart.
Shame!
Who at 815 created the template for these lemmings to use for their fill-in-the-blank exercise???
fairly unambiguous
less so
nada
Even without postmodern meaning shift this is pretty clearly, at best, 1 “yes” and two NO’s.
33%, giving credit that the words have their dictionary meanings.
If there are that many different interpretations, then the response wasn’t clear and unambiguous.
“…yet it does, I think, move the church in a Communion-affirming direction…”
No one cares. Everyone knows that the revisionists are “affirming” towards the Communion– i.e. they like being a part of it, and are happy enough to let bygones be bygones (as long as no one actually demands that they believe or behave in ways native to historical Anglicanism. It gives them the appearance of being a Christian Church, when everything else suggests they are not. They are not being asked to express warmth and affirmation, they are being asked to repent and submit to the teaching of the Church– both in their teaching and their practice. If they cannot do so, the honorable thing to do would be to voluntarily withdraw and erect a “church” in their own image.
To illustrate: If the Republican party in New Hampshire decided to reform itself along the principles of “Mao’s Little Red Book”, whould they be surprised when Republicans at large demanded that they “repent” or withdraw? I don’t think they would. They would know that affirmation and duplicity wouldn’t cut it– they would know that they have ceased to be Republican insofar as their beliefs and agenda were directly opposed to those of their party. They probably wouldn’t try to prolong discussions over a period of decades in order to buy themselves time, because they would know it is not their prerogative to do so. How would they know all these things? Because most people are sensible.
The painfully obvious retort that deserves a full page ad in the NYTimes is:
[b]If the HOB response was so clear… so unambiguous… then why the blankety blank blank are so many people interpreting it so differently?!?[/b]
(Which actually is not true. Most people are interpreting it more or less the same way. Because in a way… it [i]is[/i] clear. Many reappraisers and liberals – along with their conservative/reasserter opponents – understand quite well thank you what the HOB really said. Which is other than what the HOB says it said. Go figure.)
I love Bishop Little, but why does anyone have to agree with a “sense of the House” if one does not buy into it fully? Consensus assumes everyone is playing with the same deck. Not so in the HOB. Some are clearly bullies.
I love the Littles and have since I greeted Ed and Sylvia on the day the arrived at Seabury-Western in in September of ’68,
+Ed, I think you are deadly wrong about the HoB decisions.
I believe you will come to profoundly regret your actions since the Windsor Report came out and especially what occurred in NO last month.
This is quite an understatement.
The statement is completely unclear. Therefore, it is completely unclear as to whether the statement honors the primates’ specific requests, except for one.
Whatever the statement says or means, it is clearly not what the Primates asked for. They asked for a clear and unequivocal answer. The House of Bishops was unable to give one. That means “no”. Period.
I grieve for Ed Little. He is a good man, and a kind man, but he is not, and never was, a brave man. Unfortunately the times call for a brave man. Now his cowardice will overwhelm his other virtues, and I do not know if it will be possible for him to turn back.
I wish he was not a bishop. Had he been an ordinary priest he would have been a great blessing to any parish. As it is, he will go down in history as the last bishop of Northern Indiana, and he will have only himself to blame.
Yo, #6, the different interpretations reflect the ideological commitments of the interpreters. We are way past anybody on this blog or the liberal ones pretending to be neutral interpreters, I think.
How can so many people who voted for this @#$%^&*()_ thing be so uncertain as to what the $#%^ it means?
Well-said, Bishop Little. My prayers are with you today. It’s funny how quickly the mob can turn on you, isn’t it?
Widening Gyre, perhaps you know why the man voted for an answer to a question when he does not know if the answer was responsive or not?