The questions about who signed and who didn’t sign are all very interesting, as well as the discussions about conflict of interest, … [edited]
Regardless, the crucial issue here is that the JSC Report is a rather bald-faced lie. The requirements of Dar Es Salaam were quite clear, specifically:
That the HOB make itself clear that GC2006 meant that no bishop living in a same-sex relationship would be approved (not “exercise restraint”).
That the HOB make itself clear no same-sex blessings would take place, whether public or private.
That the Primatial Vicar scheme would be implemented–not another DEPO.
That lawsuits would cease.
Unless and until all these requirements were meant, border crossings would continue, with the approval of the Primates who agreed to DES.
The reappraisers understood this. I would ask the reappraisers to jog their memories to recall some of the rather vigorous opposition they offered to the DES Communique when it first come out.
None (I repeat, None) of the above requirements were met at NO. And everyone knows this. Why then, the reappraisers are so happy about the JSC Report is baffling to me. Either, the reappraisers are thrilled that the HOB was given a pass on a blatant deception. Or, the HOB was not being deceptive, in which case the reappraisers are thrilled because the JSC is lying when it says that the HOB said something they did not say.
Or the reappraisers are thrilled because they are being portrayed as illiterates. All your vigorous opposition to DES back in February was based on a misreading? DES really didn’t ask for the things that you all were so upset about? And your rejoicing at KJS’s claims that she didn’t actually sign anything were misplaced?
Of course, the other possibility is that the JSC is just as blatantly dishonest as the HOB statement coming out of NO. And the reappraisers are thrilled either because they approve of the deception, or they are thrilled because all that matters is a Lambeth invite, and if deception is the necessary price for a ticket to Lambeth, it is an expensive price, but one worth paying.
And the sad thing is that the latter is the most plausible likelihood.
Oh, that’s gonna hurt….!
[blockquote]all that matters is a Lambeth invite, and if deception is the necessary price for a ticket to Lambeth, it is an expensive price, but one worth paying. [/blockquote]
Hit the nail on the head! TEC has its Lambeth reservation confirmed, and, moreover, things are shaping up so that TEC will be able to claim that the GS has decided to walk apart from the rest of the communion.
For the record, the portion of William Witt’s comment that we edited out earlier this morning referred to Godwin’s Law and the previous comments on that thread. Since we had subsequently deleted/edited all of the Nazi-focused comments, we also edited out that reference in Dr. Witt’s comment.
–elfgirl
I think Philip (& Dr. Witt) is correct. In effect the ABC is calling the GS bluff. If he has guessed correctly then the AC will remian together, as a lie, and the GS will be totaly discredited. Papered over unity is all they want If he has guessed wrong then the AC itself will split and the interventions will continue.
I think many reappraisers have been trained in mainline seminaries to see pluriform truths, and are used to doing mental acrobatics in order to consider themselves “Christian” even after ceasing to believe in many core doctrinal and moral tenets of classic Christianity. This means that for many of them, the statement out of NO is perfectly fine, and not a lie at all, but quite consistent with their view of what constitutes “truth.” Trust me, having graduated from a mainline seminary, I remember Anglicans who would pray the rosary yet not even believe Mary was a virgin or anyone special…if you can be that inconsistent, you can produce and or believe your own spin. Of course, the sad fact is that the Anglican Communion time-and-time again (even recently) lets TEC get away with such nonsense. Just like a child who knows he can get away with lying because his parents have no authority, TEC knows it can prevaricate and get a free pass from the Communion, no matter how much the communion “deeply regrets” their behavior. I am going to try that on my students sometime…next time they break the rules, I am simply going to express “deep regret” with no discipline…I am sure that would work really well!
The only reason that ECUSAN bishops have their bags packed for Lambeth is because the ABC and the power makers behind him (Kearon et al) are liberal themselves. Jesus was not looking for power-makers to further His church.
Yes, as Witt says, the report is dishonest, not only in its conclusions, but in the way it was produced as Kendall noted yesterday. To come forth with a bald-faced lie and expect no one to call you on it because that might be “judgmental” or “unChristian” is certainy unsettling.
However, what pains me about this more than salt on road rash would is the dishonesty inherent in how it was produced and how all the reappraisers and TEC fellow travelers seem to be completely ignoring the things Kendall brought up in his comment yesterday, namely the FACTS concerning the dishonest way in which both the HoB and the JSC reports were produced. Are none of those people in the least bit ashamed that members of the JSC helped the HoB produce their report and then had the JSC turn around bless it? That is the kind of dishonesty that shreds the Ninth Commandment.
It is not just that not a single one of the four requirements was satisfied, and that one of them (cessation of lawsuits) was not even addressed; it is this blatant dishonesty that says, “Well, we tried really, really hard, and we got some outside help that we know that we should not have gotten (help that some too strict people would call cheating); and now those mean old nasties won’t even give us a smiley face and a hug, much less an invitation to tea at Lambeth.” And this does not even address Kendall’s point about KJS’ improper involvement. This is just maddening.
I fear that the JSC has the same agenda as the ABC. There has been ample opportunity for discipline of TEC but none has been forthcoming. Instead out of a desire to ‘keep everyone at the table’, they are hard at work ‘selling TEC’ to the rest of the Communion. As I’ve commented elsewhere,to avoid discipline TEC does not have to convince the the Global South that all is well (which they know they couldn’t), rather they just have to convince the moderates that they have done enough to comply, and the ABC and the JSC seem more than happy to help them in this task. Why else would Rowan not gather the Primates together but prefer to contact them individually?
I, too, that the heretics are fixing their names to this ribald lie. The orthodox faithful have long understood the true meaning of integrity and have know the usurpers are found extremely wanting in this regard. Now the world can see that Integrity is entirely lacking this eponymous quality.
Dishonesty abounds. #7, it is maddening and for a follower of Christ it is unbelievable. Yet, it isn’t surprising given the way the reappraiser have been for so many years. It is just so difficult for me to wrap my head around the dishonesty. I mean, this is the Lord’s business, not some secular business. The fact that many of the “othodox” Bishops would spin the NO meeting the way they have is dishonest and extremely disappointing. Come on Bishops, you know your spin is dishonest. Repent, and tell the truth, and tell us believers in writing.
The reappraisers are living a lie and under the sway of the Father of Lies. So it is no wonder they rejoice when others join them in their dishonesty. But it will all be empty victories in the end as the orthodox Anglicans will depart for truthful pastures. And that will be the overwhelming majority of the current Anglican Communion.
The Lord is in the process of pruning his Vine and I’m afraid the Western Church is going to receive the most severe pruning!
And still, the Abp. of Canterbury can prevent the schism. Measured discipline of TEC would do it. Does he have it in him? Or is he ready to lose 80%+ of the Communion, watch an ecclesiastical civil war ensue in the United States, watch his own Church begin to crack, and lose all the ecumenical progress of the last hundred years?
What is it worth?
I concur with Dr. Witt – from my sim. comment on SF:
The HoB, pagued by dishonesty, produced a dishonest statement. Many HoB members followed the statement with dishonest descriptions of the statement as well as their corporate intent. KJS, along with some in the ACC and the JSC managed to release a patently dishonest report concerning the HoB statement. Much of this dishonesty refers back to the dishonest and rejected WG report.
Will the ABC support and further this dishonesty to the point of schism? If so, the reappraising remnant of the AC will be married to and founded upon dishonesty and corruption. Is there any honor in such a prize? With such a legacy, what will become of such a remnant communion?
I also wonder if honest reappraisers are counting the personal cost to their integrity of such rampant dishonesty. What is the witness? If justice is really at stake, can it truly be achieved under these circumstances? Does anyone care anymore?
Matt Kennedy wrote over at SFIF,
[blockquote]what did the ABC know, if anything? Too much has has happened since Tanzania to discount the very real possibility that he knew of this stratagem. He certainly helped to design the assessment process incuding the prominent role for the JST and the limited role of the primates as a group[/blockquote]
and
[blockquote]Yes, I do not think the ABC was a “plotter†or that he would have micromanaged this. I do wonder whether he knew about the idea or approved it. I do think that, whatever the case, he cannot be pleased with the way the idea was executed.[/blockquote]
Actually, the HOB/JSC whitewash is entirely consistent with the ABC’s inept, poorly veiled opposition to the DeS communique as demonstrated with the reprehensible subcommittee report and the reprehensible early invitations. Now we have the reprehensible HoB/JSC travesty.
When will the orthodox stop being duped by the duplicitous ABC?
Do any of the TEC HOB, the ABC, the Anglican leaders approving/blessing the NO HOB statement ever preach anything resembling what George Whitefield preached? See e.g.,
http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/Whitefield.html
If so, I have not heard it. I determined not to cast my lot with these shepherds.
Maybemaybemaybe. You anger is fully justified. BUT, go back and read the Time and the Newsweek entries again. Now tell me what the real world is likely to think and whether your wrath amounts to anything.
Where, do you suppose the ABC is, and why is he saying nothing. Can you guess? LM
Dead on. If a dioceses knows that one of its priests is performing SSBs pursuant to his official authority, that SSB proceeds under the authority of the diocese and its bishop. It is not reasonable to state otherwise. Excellent unraveling of the twisted words and a solid, unique contribution to the discussion of the HOB response.
A friend of mine recommended I look at “The Bishop’s Gambit” programme from the BBC “Yes Prime Minister” series. It was put out in 1986 and centres around the need for the Prime Minister to choose one of the two candidates put before him to be the next Bishop of Ely.
The Prime Minister is concerned because the first two choices are between a man who doesn’t believe in God, and one who doesn’t believe the Queen should be head of the church.
If you commentary on last fortnight, I strongly recommend it!
(If you don’t know the series Hacker is the PM, and Sir Humphrey is his scheming private secretary)
Notable quotes:
1.
Sir Humphrey: The Queen is inseparable from the Church of England.
Hacker: And what about God?
Sir Humphrey: I think He’s what’s called an optional extra.
2.
Hacker: Is there anyone in the church who doesn’t believe in God?
Humphrey: Yes, most of the Bishops.
3.
Humphrey: Getting the PM to choose the right bishop is like a conjuror getting a member of the audience to choose a card. With the Church of England the choice is usually between a knave and a queen.
4.
Humphrey: Bishops tend to live a long time, perhaps because the Almighty is not all that keen for them to join him.
5.
CoE representative: We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop.
6.
Sir Humphrey: An atheist clergyman could not continue to draw his stipend, so when they stop believing in God they call themselves ‘modernists’.
7.
Sir Humphrey: Theology is a device for helping agnostics to stay within the Church of England.
and perhaps particularly relevant:
7
Sir Humphrey: Nowadays bishops only wear gaiters at significant religious events like the royal garden party.
[i]Humphrey: Bishops tend to live a long time, perhaps because the Almighty is not all that keen for them to join him. [/i]
Oh, that’s rich!
I’m not going to pretend that the HOB statement didn’t dodge the B033 question and fudge the SSB issue, because it did. And the JSC evaluation of the statement was, let’s say, generous.
But I am puzzled by one point of what some of you seem to be objecting to, namely that members of the JSC were consulted while the statement was being drafted. That seems entirely above-board to me.
The HOB response was not a closed-book exam on which they were going to be graded; they were being asked to find a position that they could agree to and which would be acceptable to the other parties involved, i.e., the Primates as represented by the JSC. Why on earth should they have been unable to consult with those representatives? It would be like trying to negotiate a contract with someone who refused to tell you whether the terms you were offering were good enough. Or trying to design a product for a customer who wouldn’t tell you what the requirements were.
MargaretG, thank you, thank you. I watched that episode for the first time a couple of years ago, and felt the simultaneous laugh-out-loud humor and the painful truth of those exquisite quotations.
[blockquote]The HOB response was not a closed-book exam on which they were going to be graded; they were being asked to find a position that they could agree to and which would be acceptable to the other parties involved, i.e., the Primates as represented by the JSC.[/blockquote]
Ross, at least one problem here is that the JSC obviously did not represent the Primates–as can be discerned by a simple comparison of what the Primates actually said at DES and what the JSC now claims they said. Unless, of course, one assumes that the Primates who wrote and voted on the DES Communique are as duplicitous as the JSC.
Based on the resulting texts of both the HOB statement and the JSC statement, it is obvious that the purpose of the consultation was not to make sure that the HOB would release a statement that would meet the requests of the Primates assembled at DES–it clearly does not–but would rather meet the fudged requirements of the JSC.
I have noticed an ominous silence ever since I wrote this initial post, and it has now been moved to Kendall’s front page. Not one reappraiser has answered the question of why they are pleased to participate in a blatant charade.
Well, I can’t help you there; I’m not particularly pleased. As I said many times, it would have been much more honest if the HOB had produced a statement saying, “We are not of one mind on this matter. Some dioceses bless SSUs using unofficial ad-hoc rites and will continue to do so, the majority of dioceses do not. If an openly gay or lesbian person is elected a bishop, it will be controversial whether they should get their consents and we don’t know what will happen. That’s where we are now.” In the end such a statement would probably have had the same practical effect as what the HOB actually did produce, but at least it would have been the simple truth.
I have sensed the silence as well.
On the topic of response, to build on #24, I would consider a responsive statement to have been:
[b]DES[/b]
[blockquote]1.“(The HOB) make an unequivocal common covenant that the bishops will not authorise any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses or through General Convention…â€
“There appears to us to be an inconsistency between the position of General Convention and local pastoral provision … we understand that local pastoral provision is made in some places for such blessings.â€[/blockquote]
[b]TEC Response[/b] – if honest
[blockquote]”We are unable to make an unequivocal common covenant that the bishops will not authorise any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses or through General Convention because we are not of one mind on the issue.”[/blockquote]