(Church of Uganda News)
The Episcopal Church USA (TEC) has clarified its commitment to continue on their path to abandon the Biblical and historic faith of Anglicanism. They, in fact, have decided to walk apart, and we are distressed that they are trying to take the rest of the Anglican Communion with them.
We cannot take seriously a statement from TEC that merely pledges “as a body” to not do something. TEC betrayed the Anglican Communion when it elected and confirmed as bishop a divorced man living in a same-sex relationship. We were further betrayed when its Presiding Bishop agreed to the Communiqué from the 2003 emergency Primates’ Meeting that he deeply regretted the “actions of the”¦Episcopal Church (USA),” and immediately proceeded to assert at a press conference that he would preside at that consecration. He then explained that the Primates believed their statement “as a body,” but individual primates were free to disagree.
Now, TEC has told us that they pledge “as a body” not to “authorize public rites for the blessing of same-sex unions.” We have every reason to believe that individual bishops will feel free to disagree and continue to permit blessings of same-sex unions in their dioceses, rationalizing it as part of the breadth of their pastoral response, and all the while denying their complicity. This is unacceptable.
TEC has lost the right to give assurances of their direction as a church through more words and statements. They write one thing and do another. We, therefore, cannot know what they mean by their words until we see their meaning demonstrated by their actions.
–The Most Rev. Henry Orombi
I think we can see why the JSC member from Uganda has not signed the report. We can only speculate why not the dissent.
I am a member of Christ Church, Savannah. I am delighted to see my new Primate speak with such clarity and forthrightness. What a refreshing change from the dishonesty of my previous Primate!
[blockquote]He then explained that the Primates believed their statement “as a body,†but individual primates were free to disagree.
Now, TEC has told us that they pledge “as a body†not to “authorize public rites for the blessing of same-sex unions.â€[/blockquote]
Somewhere in 815 about now we hear that familiar refrain….
Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggghhh! Griswold!!!!! 🙂
This may well be the money quote of the year:
[blockquote ]We cannot take seriously a statement from TEC that merely pledges “as a body†to not do something. [/blockquote]
+++Orombi succinctly reveals the ruling party of TEC for what they are: Sophists.
Rocks, it’s not Griswold. He’s but one example of a culture of dishonesty, and a reflex to lie–yes, not nuance, but lie–that has infected almost all of the bishops. And Windsor bishops by acquiescing in that statement (with some even defending it) are even part of that culture now. There is little in the statement that is not dishonest in letter or in spirit, and that was made plain by the smirking Bp Bruno, and the remarks of the PB in San Francisco, and other things said and done after New Orleans. At least they would get points for honesty had they come forward, as Abp Anis invited them to do, and say, “No, we won’t do what we were asked. We will consecrate gays. We will bless and marry gays. We won’t help the orthodox. We won’t stop suing.” But instead they lied, and congratulated themselves for their cleverness in how they lied. Abp Orombi is right to call them on this. It is one thing to be heretical, and honestly believe you are right. It is another to be heretical, and to have no honesty about you–to seek deliberately to deceive. That should be deeply troubling to anyone who is an Episcopalian–because it’s not just Frank Griswold. Chances are it’s your bishop as well–even if it’s a bishop who used to be called a Windsor bishop.
I think this comes as a result of the American lie of the “rugged individualist.” We see it in the creeds in the new prayer book where we declare that “we believe,” not “I believe.” I’ve heard some say something like “well, we do believe that as a body, but I don’t.” If you don’t believe what the body believes on something as essential as the creeds, then are you really part of the body or are you just on the edges of the body and not fully part of it?
As Americans, we need to realize that our identity outside the body is one of sin and being lost. Like that rugged individualist, the Prodigal Son, we wander in a far country and wonder why we are hungry. We need to repent and rejoin the family. Our father waits by the gate for us. Will we arise and go to him?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
VaAnglican:
[i] That should be deeply troubling to anyone who is an Episcopalian–because it’s not just Frank Griswold. Chances are it’s your bishop as well–even if it’s a bishop who used to be called a Windsor bishop. [/i]
It’s definately true of John Howard of Florida. 🙁
[blockquote]We cannot take seriously a statement from TEC that merely pledges “as a body†to not do something. [/blockquote]
Only when we see Bishops Bruno and Chane inhibiting and deposing their priests for performing same sex blessings would TEC HOB have any credibility at all. I’m not holding my breath.
VA,
I was saying 815 would be screaming about Griswold not because he lied but because he had used that lie already and so it wasn’t working for them. Ah, trying to be funny is hard….m’kay? 🙂
Got it, Rocks: I should have seen that.
libraryjim: you’ve pegged Howard, that’s for sure. Go back and read his letter he required to be read in every parish after the 2006 GC, and it makes your point very nicely. Stunning mendacity or amazing naivete: there really isn’t another option.
[blockquote] We have every reason to believe that individual bishops will feel free to disagree and continue to permit blessings of same-sex unions in their dioceses, rationalizing it as part of the breadth of their pastoral response, and all the while denying their complicity. [/blockqute]
*Cough* BRUNO *Cough*
A real leader, this man.
Nope, he’d never make it inside TEC. I can understand exactly what he is saying and he is consistent. I do hope some of that rubs off with those under his charge. Reading anything by +Orombi is so refreshing compare to what TEC or ABC has said, his “yes” is “yes” and his “no” is “no” just like were commanded. It’s a breath of fresh air!
It’s a shame to see a leader who has acted out of conscience and principle, rather than a need for power, make such a statement:
We cannot take seriously a statement from TEC that merely pledges “as a body†to not do something.
He is saying ‘We asked you to give your word, but your word isn’t good enough.’ This is sad.
[blockquote] TEC has lost the right to give assurances of their direction as a church through more words and statements. They write one thing and do another. We, therefore, cannot know what they mean by their words until we see their meaning demonstrated by their actions. [/blockquote]
Polite-ese more rudely translated as follows: “They lie.”
Given the bit quoted by #15 Br_er Rabbit, it will be interesting to see what happens if Lind+ is elected in Chicago.
If it happens that a majority of the bishops do, in fact, decline to consent, then that will take at least some of the wind out of the sails of the realignment crowd. The ABC and the JSC would be able to say, “See, they really did mean it; there’s no need for schism here,” and the moderate or undecided provinces would be much more likely to be swayed with such evidence on the table.
Contrariwise, if it happens that she does get her consents, then that would of course pretty much prove the point of ++Orombi and the others, and the ABC and the preserve-the-Communion-at-all-costs types would have a much more difficult time of it trying to keep TEC in… if they didn’t just give us up as a lost cause at that point.
Or, of course, she might not get elected in the first place; which will be taken as proof of nothing in particular.
Archbishop Orombi IS absolutely right to call them on this! If they are going to go right on doing the things they’ve been doing…….even if they publicly said that they won’t……..they should at least be honest enough to admit that they lied about it. when they said they wouldn’t!
“We, therefore, cannot know what they mean by their words until we see their meaning demonstrated by their actions.”
That sounds like, “Trust, but verify.”
Who said that?
Ronald Reagan.
Trust, but verify. Works for me. The words from TEClub can not be trusted.
Re No. 1: Dale, correct me if I am wrong, but from appearances it seems to me that having declined on principle to participate in the HoB’s meeting and the formulation of the its response, Abp Orombi was not afforded the opportunity to participate in the evaluation. Since the JSC’s product was an evaluation of the degree of compliance of the response rather than a recounting of the JSC members’ participation in the process, it is not clear to me why this would be so, especially since the JSC’s report was issued in the name of a committee of which Abp Orombi was a member.
Why should ++Orombi be afforded the opportunity to participate in the evaluation? HE WAS NOT AT THE MEETING. He didn’t participate in the discussion, observe the demeanor and hear the words of HOB members, he didn’t experience the ambience of the meeting. Therefore, he has no business commenting on the JSC report. As for what he said about the HOB statement, I agree with Brian, #14. This is not a matter of “trust but verify”; there is no trust on ++Orombi’s part, and there hasn’t been for a long time. I wonder why he even bothered to issue another statement.
20. Bob from Boone:
“This is not a matter of ‘trust but verify’ .
Bob, you might be able to convince me if you contend with the facts/unfacts of Dr. Orombi’s arguement. IS it true about his “as a body” statement? If it is true you are failing to meet your objective. If it is not true then Dr. Orombi is failing his objective.
In the land of Double-Talk, Bruno says while he does not aurthorize same-sex blessings, he won’t stop his clergy for doing them.
Then, you have the Bishop of Vermont stating that he will essentially ignore the document that he just signed and go full steam ahead.
And now we are told that the Sept HOB meeting answered the Primates Feb. concerns. What utter garbage.
I’m glad to know that a few Primates have their antenna tuned to the HS and His discernment.
H
Re #19: [i]Why was Abp. Orombi not allowed to participate in the formulation of the report?[/i]
I cannot agree with #20 that the issue is that Abp. Orombi was not at the HoB meeting and therefore cannot report on the discussion there. The problem is somewhat different.
On its face, the report purports to be a recitation of the discussions and conclusions reached at a formal called meeting of the Joint Steering Committees of the Primates’ Meeting and Anglican Consultative Council held in New Orleans on Monday, 24 September 2007. In effect, it is the minutes of that meeting. Nothing that Abp. Orombi could say or do after the fact could change what happened at that time in that place. The discussion was what it was.
My county commissioners do not allow a member who was absent from a meeting any input on preparing the minutes from that meeting. The absent member invariably abstains from voting to approve the minutes because he or she has no personal knowledge about their accuracy.
In this case, there were 13 members actually at the meeting (and there may have been staff present at times as well). Only those people know what happened, what was discussed, and what the conclusions were. Ten of the 13 agree about all that, and agree that the report accurately summarizes it.
One of the 13 has refused to sign the report and has issued a “dissent” expressing his personal views, but I see nothing in his document denying that the actual discussion at the meeting was what the report says it was. Bp. Anis simply disagrees with the conclusions the majority reached. Similarly, one of my commissioners can vote against approving the minutes of a meeting where he was outvoted because he is unhappy about it, but that doesn’t mean that the vote at the prior meeting wasn’t what the vote was.
Two others of the 13 have effectively abstained from signing either the report or the dissent. It may well be that they (like Bp. Anis) oppose the conclusions that were reached, but agree (like the 10)that the report reflects those conclusions. Given the possible consequences for people from West Africa or Uganda if they were perceived to support TEC, it’s hardly surprising that they have chosen to remain silent rather than bolster the report with their signatures.
Re # 23. Rather than proceeding directly to answer the underlying question (why Apb Orombi’s participation in the writing of the report was not sought), Dale Rye introduces the argument that the JSC report constituted minutes of their meeting and it would have been inappropriate for him to participate since he was not there.
It is hard to see the basis for this argument. The report does not purport to be the JSC’s minutes; it is not written in the form of minutes; and (contra Dale) it does not purport to be a recitation of discussions among the JSC members. The second paragraph of the report says the committee “had the opportunity to agree together the main outlines of how they might wish to respond in the light of the various options facing the House of Bishops.” (emphasis added) Of course at the time the committee met, the House of Bishops had not issued its statement. The report could not properly have constituted minutes because it took into account and incorporated statements and other developments subsequent to the JSC’s meeting.
So the technical legal argument fails and the underlying question remains: regardless of the JSC members’ purpose in meeting with the bishops and their involvement in the discussions (the extent of that involvement not being recounted in the JSC’s report), why the formulation of the JSC’s evaluation of the statement that in fact emerged from the House of Bishops exclude members not present in New Orleans?
Again, committees do not write things… they approve things that individuals write. The JSC had a formal meeting that reached certain conclusions “in main outline,” and asked someone (we still do not know who) to write up those conclusions systematically and in detail, with specific reference to the committee’s agreed response to the option the HoB would actually choose. The resulting draft was then submitted for consideration to the committee members who were present at the meeting to see if the write-up accurately reflected the sense of the gathering. Ten of the 13 agreed that it did, and none of the other 3 have said that it did not.
That is the way that Anglican bodies always do things. I would bet a bank that both the CAPA Communique and the CAPA Primates’ Communique (like House of Bishops or Lambeth Conference Pastoral Letters) were generated through the same process of general discussion, individual write-up, and then collective ratification. I don’t think that the folks who actually wrote those communiques contacted anybody in the Sudan for their comments on what occurred at the Mauritius meeting they missed, and nobody asked the Sudanese Primate or CAPA representatives to sign the communiques. They weren’t at the meeting, any more than Abp. Orombi was at the JSC meeting.
Re #25: Dale Rye, in #24 I was responding to your #23 in which you argued the committee was forced to proceed in the way it did because the JSC’s report constituted minutes of their meeting, as to which those not present wouldn’t legitimately have input.
Your argument now seems to have changed to (a) this is what they did and (b) that is the way things are done. Point (a) isn’t really the issue although in your first paragraph you are stretching beyond what the JSC actually said about whether and to what extent agreement was reached in NO. If point (b) is your argument, fine. Putting aside that it’s not the way things are always done, I was looking for a substantive argument as to why what was done was proper and made sense under the circumstances already mentioned, which I won’t repeat.
One could also ask whether Abp Orombi was ever given notice that a purpose of the New Orleans meeting was not only to listen to the U.S. House of Bishops but to take definitive action on an evaluation of their (then hypothetical) response to be sent to +Rowan and passed on to the Primates.