A member of Council stated her desire to seek clarity from the Presiding Bishop about her remarks on Sunday on church governance. She noted that the Presiding Bishop’s remarks were taken by some to diminish the role of deputies in the widest governance of the church. The Presiding Bishop explained that she was not questioning the need for the House of Deputies nor diminishing their governance role, and that she views the natural tension between the two houses as healthy and necessary. She said that her larger concern was that leaders in the church ”“ bishops, clergy and laity ”“ not be afraid of exploring ways to respond to changing circumstances in a nimble way, that we “choose life” and find ways to insure that our governance enables that, and does not get in the way of it.
Out of that conversation came a renewed commitment to talk openly with one another, to challenge one another, and to trust that we all ”“ whatever our roles — are acting out of good motives.
We then heard a report from the Joint Standing Committee for Finances for Mission (FFM) about issues related to the budget. Committee Chair Del Glover explained that FFM’s work is to make sure we have the resources to do mission, and that the more clarity we have on mission, the better decisions we can make. Council adopted the budget.
Here is the real Gem from my viewpoint. From the Episcopal Life Online,[url=http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79425_125409_ENG_HTM.htm] today’s report on the actual budget[/url]
[blockquote] In other business, [The Executive] council:
authorized a letter to be sent to the Episcopal Forum of South Carolina, which had asked the council and the House of Bishops to investigate a series of actions which it said “are accelerating the process of alienation and disassociation” of the diocese from the Episcopal Church. The letter says that the council and the presiding bishop are “committed to doing what we can to help the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina continue to participate fully in the life, work and mission of the Episcopal Church,” but notes that “there are canonical limits to how her office and the Executive Council can intervene.” Jennings told the council that those limits prevent the investigation that the forum requested.[/blockquote]
[] are mine as those words were not in the original.
Limits?! On the EXECUTIVE COUNCIL?! Those folks not responsible to General Convention who aligned the EcUSA/TEc with the RCRC by star-chamber fiat (http://www.rcrc.org/about/members.cfm)? Say it isn’t so! Limits on their power?! O, how are the mighty fallen! And apart from their inability to regulate the missions-by-lawsuit to which every budget item must bow, they are running out of moolah! The gnashing of teeth is heard throughout the chamber, nearly drowning the calls for transsubstantiation of a PB to a Popessa!
‘Limits’ meaning that the courts in SC would laugh and throw them out of the room if they tried what Mrs S and her friends would dearly like to do.
The lesson history may well write is that TEC wanted to change the church’s teaching on sexuality but did not want to pay the price for that, in terms of lost membership, historical governance, and financial fallout. They tried to sue their way to conformity with causes people were unwilling to countenance. Now the money is vanishing in ways Exec Council cannot ignore, and the ’empower the laity’ idea is out of control (I don’t read the HOD listserve but gather it is exhibit A). There is the vague hope that this new Christianity has simply failed to attach itself to the american public, and when it does, all will be well. The question there is, how long before the PB and others realise that isn’t going to work either? One wonders if the great reality check is now coming in.
Alas, Dr. Seitz,
I wouldn’t get your hopes up that the self-deceived leaders of TEC will wake up any time soon. Denial is a very strong force, and I see no evidence whatsoever that the Executive Council is pulling its head out of the sand and beginning to face reality.
For example, Anglican Curmudgeon has documented that out-of-control spending on lawsuits has now passed the $20 million mark, and not even the deep pockets of TEC can afford to continue such reckless, profligate waste on scandalous, frivolous lawsuits aimed at intimidating their Anglican competition. The Executive Council is charged with monitoring the spending and making necessary adjustments between General Conventions, but did the Council show any sign of cutting back on the outrageous legal expenditures?? None that I can see. The PB continues to get away with murder (killing TEC).
What I find intriguing is the hint that ++KJS and Bonnie Anderson are starting to squabble openly. As TEC continues to implode, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see more infighting take place, and more pointing of fingers in the blame game.
But by all means, continue to hope for the best, Dr. Seitz. That is the charitable thing to do. “[i]Love hopes all things…[/i]”
But personally, I wouldn’t hold my breath, if I were you.
David Handy+
Dear David–thank you. I can assure you I find the situation very difficult. Please don’t put words in my mouth. With best wishes.
I also see in this a hint that some are finally coming to realize that much is wrong in the TEC leadership.
Not that it hasn’t been perfectly obvious for a long time.
One wonders whether the PB has assumed so much authority and power that she cannot be stopped. One wonders when she will finally come to her senses. I gather that there’s no constitutional means for removing her from office, no matter what she does.
I find it surprising that in her response to the Episcopal Forum of SC letter, the PB believes “that “there are canonical limits to how her office and the Executive Council can intervene.†Jennings told the council that those limits prevent the investigation that the forum requested”. I am not surprised that she would respond directly to that Forum, while ignoring the Diocesan General Convention’s request from last April.
Chris (#6),
I’m sorry if I caused offense or seemed flippant about a grievous and tragic situation. I don’t rejoice or gloat over TEC’s ruin.
Keep up the good work at ACI.
David Handy+
This topic is about TEC. I don’t appreciate evaluations from David Handy that don’t bother to read what is written in comment. I am not ‘holding my breath’ about anything and nor am I ‘continuing to hope for the best.’ You don’t seem flippant or gloating. Just inaccurate and misinformed.
Dr. Seitz (#10),
Again, I’m sorry if I misunderstood you. What I was responding to was that last part of your #4, i.e., the last two sentences, ending with what I took to be a wistful and hopeful: “[i]One wonders if the great reality check is now coming in.[/i]”
I took that to mean that you were hoping that at least some folks on Executive Council were finally coming to their senses. And my response was essentially, “I wouldn’t bet on it.”
Respectfully,
David Handy+