We elves and some of our friends have been busy analyzing TEC bishops’ statements. We’ve found a troubling pattern. We hope this analysis will be helpful, and encourage you to circulate this widely. (please credit T19 if you do circulate this)
—-
Important Update: In the course of discussing this with readers, I’ve realized I made a mistake in lumping together the five bishops who included the “breadth of response” language in their responses to the New Orleans statement. In particular [b]+Ed Little[/b] should not just have been lumped in the list as if he was trying to exploit some loophole. Upon re-reading his statement, that would be clearly UNTRUE. Please see my comment #44 below. Apologies for the confusion and not giving +Little’s statement more careful attention. It shouldn’t have been just lumped in the batch. –elfgirl
Some TEC Bishops try to exploit a perceived loophole and hide the truth
In my work the other night compiling and organizing various TEC bishops’ letters and statements following the New Orleans HoB meeting, one phrase began to leap out at me as it was repeated and emphasized by quite a few TEC bishops. Some among the TEC bishops, notably +Jack McKelvey, seemed to be claiming that the public same sex blessings occurring in their dioceses fall under the Primates’ allowance of a “breadth of private pastoral response.”
Two examples should suffice, though at least 5 bishops, and perhaps others, have highlighted this phrase in their discussions of the New Orleans HoB meeting:
We also articulated, again as requested, the fact that this church has never authorized the blessing of same gender unions. We spoke clearly to the fact that a majority of dioceses already function on this matter in the way that we do in this diocese. We also made reference, as the Primate of Australia suggested we do, to the fact that the Primates themselves have affirmed that pastoral care for our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters requires the Communion ”˜to maintain a breadth of private response to situations of individual pastoral care.”
+Jack McKelvey of Rochester, (a bishop and diocese who are on record (see pp 11 ”“ 13) as supporting and allowing public SSBs for nearly 30 years):
We quoted the Primates in their May 2003 statement saying that we have a pastoral duty, “to respond with love and understanding to people of all sexual orientations.” They further stated, “. . . It is necessary to maintain a breadth of private response to situations of individual pastoral care.” This will be honored in the Diocese of Rochester and I believe in many dioceses throughout our church.
+Larry Benfield of Arkansas(a diocese which had just recently, under +Benfield’s predecessor +Larry Maze, begun to allow public SSBs to be conducted by its clergy; +Benfield may be changing the policy in the diocese, it is not yet totally clear.) also specifically cited “breadth of private response” language, as did +Henry Parsley of Alabama and +Ed Little of Northern Indiana.
So, what were the Primates actually affirming in May 2003, and is the TEC HoB’s adoption of this phrase consistent with the original usage or intent? It appears that this is a key question. Let’s trace the history of this language and the intent behind the original language, first looking at the actual use of this phrase in New Orleans.
1. TEC HoB Usage of the Phrase “Breadth of … response” in New Orleans
On Sept. 24, in the midst of the TEC HoB meeting, TitusOne Nine published the proposed draft of the TEC response to the primates. That draft response included this section:
5. Because we are a liturgical church our actions concerning blessings are expressed in public liturgies. No rite of blessing for persons living in same sex unions has been adopted or approved by our General Convention. We wish to make it clear that the House of Bishops has not voted to authorize such liturgies. Even in the absence of such public rites, we acknowledge that the blessing of same sex unions, no matter how public or private, is unacceptable to some of our brothers and sisters in our own House, in our church, and in the Communion. The issue remains perplexing for us as we seek to balance these concerns about rites of blessing and the pressing pastoral need that confronts us. We wish to offer respect for these differing viewpoints.
We are grateful that the Primates have articulated their support for meeting the individual pastoral needs of gay and lesbian persons. In 2003 they wrote “there is a duty of pastoral care that is laid upon all Christians to respond with love and understanding to homosexual persons.” The Primates have written that there must be a breadth of private and pastoral responses to individual situations. It is the case that for many decades, the Episcopal Church has explored the most faithful ways of ministering to and with gay and lesbian people who are part of our common life. We acknowledge that in some of our dioceses this includes the blessing of same sex unions.
Note how here the proposed text explicitly acknowledges the public blessings of same-sex unions occurring in various dioceses and tries to claim that such blessings fall under the “breadth of … pastoral responses” envisioned by the Primates. The TEC bishops suggest and appear to want to believe that the only matter of concern to the Primates was the official authorization of liturgical rites for same-sex blessings at a national level, in spite of the fact that the Dar es Salaam Communiqué explicitly stated the Primates’ concern about TEC’s “pastoral provision” in various dioceses.
In the final statement from New Orleans, that section re: Same-sex blessings was modified to read as follows:
Blessing of Same-Sex Unions
We, the members of the House of Bishops, pledge not to authorize for use in our dioceses any public rites of blessing of same-sex unions until a broader consensus emerges in the Communion, or until General Convention takes further action. In the near future we hope to be able to draw upon the benefits of the Communion-wide listening process. In the meantime, it is important to note that no rite of blessing for persons living in same-sex unions has been adopted or approved by our General Convention. In addition to not having authorized liturgies the majority of bishops do not make allowance for the blessing of same-sex unions. We do note that in May 2003 the Primates said we have a pastoral duty “to respond with love and understanding to people of all sexual orientations.” They further stated, “…It is necessary to maintain a breadth of private response to situations of individual pastoral care.”
Again, the TEC bishops are trying to claim that the Primates’ 2003 statement would encompass and allow the current practice of public same sex blessings occurring in many TEC dioceses.
As noted, the language in question goes back to the May 2003 Primates’ Communiqué following the Primates meeting in Gramado, Brazil. Let’s look at that more closely…
Read it all (you can also download this)
So, are you surprised? Why? You’ve known the whole time that there would be no turning back. Whats the point of overanalyzing this further?
I believe that this subterfuge is all the more egregious as with it they expect the more liberal provinces to wink and turn a blind eye and with respect to the more orthodox they either now discount them as uneducated, fundamentalist, or inferior. I pointed out on Thinking Anglicans the numbers represented by the response of the Global South Primates are a huge percentage of the members of the Communion, particularly if you accept Ruth Gledhill’s recent comments on numbers. The response was utter disdain amongst the bloggers there. That same disdain is hugely present in the Global North. Unless or until that attitude is severely moderated we will have to endure both this subterfuge and the persecution of the orthodox that continues unabated in many places.
Personally I view the split as concretized and Joshua’s challenge is for us – “Choose this day whom you will serve – as for me and my house – we will serve the Lord.”
Lambeth I.10 and all subsequent reaffirmations of that eviscerate any credibility to this loophole exploitation attempt.
Wow Elf-girl, thanks for this! While I agree that no one SHOULD be surprised by this on the reasserter side, it is good to have all this documented in well documented, well researched, well written English. I hope someone forwards this to Phil Groves with the Listening Process Commission. And the next time a reappraiser tries to change the conversation, what a great link to send them!
Of all the well-written criticisms of the HOB’s tightrope walk, the best has been Canon Harmon’s, which is that we are in a broken marriage here, and fixing those bonds requires real generosity and a serious attempt to address the substantive reasons for the breach. TEC is instead playing word games.
That problem is way more fundamental than playing with the Dar Communique. That is a breach of the listening process itself. The Anglican Communion has been set up to work without having to resort to juridical rules, but it requires an abundance of patience and good faith on the part of every member. TEC has exhibited neither patience nor good faith. That is the fundamental reason why TEC should be suspended.
Additional evidence that TEC is fundamentally dishonest, and no one should trust what they say. Watch what they do, and you will know where their heart and intent is. Their heart and intention is to continue to push their new theology on the rest of us, worldwide.
#1 who says there is a tone of surprise here?
If any of you have problems reading or downloading PDF files, feel free to contact the elves by e-mail, and we can send you a text version.
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. But I do not think it means what you think it means.
Humpty Dumpty: Words mean what I want them to mean, nothing more, nothing less.
both paraphrased. Both applicable to TEC
Canon Harmon, its nice to speak with you. The word surprise had a question mark attached to it in my comment and apparently from your response, there is no surprise at all. We now know; but we have always known what TEC is. We’ve had several years of “process and dialogue.” We’ve given them a chance to turn back. We’ve asked them to do so in a very Christian way, and they simply will not. Instead, as you aptly point out, they attempt to deceive people.
So my very simple point is, whats the point? We know, what we have always known. Your church rebels against God, opposes His word, twists His word, encourages others to do so, and will not stop.
Whats next?
I am a teacher. One of the things I teach is “constructing meaning”. This is a shorthand phrase for the activity of reading a text, understanding what is meant in the text, then putting the content of the text into one’s own words.
The Bishops have shown themselves incapable of constructing meaning from the Bible. They take the text In the beginning God and construct the meaning In the beginning no God. They take the text God made man in His image and construct the meaning that man came into existence by accident.
They take the New Testament and turn it into a contract between equals (the covenant of baptism).
The facts are otherwise. We are created beings, and our lives and our world are sustained by His Will. Persons not agreeing with this fact do not belong in any holy order (Deacon, Priest, or Bishop). Persons not agreeing with our being created were once denied holy orders. Now it seems that you must first deny creation before you are even declared eligible to attend a seminary.
So there should be no surprise at the comments listed in this thread. The Bishops are unable to get their facts straight.
And it does not help things that they are enabled by the ABC and others.
I think the GS Primates already have this one figured out. Didn’t ++Orombi say something about having learned not to trust TEC words but instead to look at the actions?
Mike L, exactly. In fact we quote +Orombi in the final two paragraphs of the document.
So, yes, this will not be a surprise to GS leaders or those who have followed TEC matters closely for the past 3-4 years. However, there are still so many regular folks in the pews in dioceses such as Alabama, Mississippi, Northern Indiana who haven’t followed these matters. Those dioceses are generally moderate. They may think “all is well here because we don’t have public SSBs occurring, and anyway, our bishop says the Primates’ allowed for a “breadth of response” so there’s no problem.
We hope that this document may convince some to look behind the bishops’ facile words and study the matter for themselves to compare what was requested by Anglican leaders versus what was offered by TEC.
RE: “We’ve had several years of “process and dialogue.†We’ve given them a chance to turn back. We’ve asked them to do so in a very Christian way, and they simply will not. Instead, as you aptly point out, they attempt to deceive people.”
Who is “we”, William? Certainly not you — you left the Episcopal church very happily several years ago.
RE: “So my very simple point is, whats the point? We know, what we have always known. Your church rebels against God, opposes His word, twists His word, encourages others to do so, and will not stop. Whats next?”
William — there is no “point” for you. There does not appear to be a “what’s next” for you in ECUSA. “What’s next” I expect, for you, is the joy and peace that you find in your new Anglican church — a wonderful thing! There is a point for those traditional Episcopalians who are working hard in this church. But I do not expect — after four years — for you to ever know or understand that point. And I’m okay with that. It does not trouble me that you do not see “the point” . . . because you are happily, I assume, gone and did not see “the point” in staying years ago, which seems understandable.
So my only suprise is that you are over here still questioning that there are still traditional Episcopalians within the church, working hard.
Thank you elves, for doing this. I’m emailing the article off right now to a layperson who is engaged in “sharing dialogue” with his bishop, who is attempting to say just what you have so nicely exploded.
; > )
There are people who can help you out of abusive relationships. If you are serious about your faith, and remain in TEC, then you are probably in an abusive relationship.
Get help.
… an abusive relationship with your church that is….
Ah yes, +Duncan Gray-a theological chameleon if there ever was one. He is possessed of the extraordinary ability to talk out of both sides of his mouth while sitting on a fence in the middle of the road.
the snarkster
I posted this before, but must have gotten lost in the move.
There is already clear and unequivocal evidence that some Bishops in TEC will continue to allow same-sex blessing. There are also clear and unequivocal statements by one or more that the JSC did not understand that same-sex blessings would continue as a pastoral provision. So this exercise in parsing words becomes like Lot’s game with God: “If I can find 5 Dioceses who don’t allow SSBs…”
A nice piece of close reading here, but of course, no surprise. However, the pattern suggests a programmed intiative, something decided at, perhaps,New Orleans, in an attempt to find a common structure which will present a common front and a constructive and “traditional” ambiguity which carries a superficial gloss of propriety. This appears to be planned, does it not? There is something singularly unpalatable about bishops scheming to deceive in a coordinated way. LM
If the HOB had more truly apostolic leaders who cared about the people, they would better represent II Timothy 2:14-17
[blockquote] Remind them of this, and warn them before God that they are to avoid wrangling over words, which does no good but only ruins those who are listening. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved by him, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly explaining the word of truth. [/blockquote]
The depth to which this HOB sinks is a source of great grief. Even worse is the fact that we – lay and clergy – elected them or consented to their consecrations.
Brian from T19 – I agree. The N.O. Bishops Statement is quite clear that ssbs have and will continue to take place as part of a local pastoral response. It said, however, that a majority of dioceses do not permit such ssbs. The HoBs have been clear and honest. It is the Joint Committee that has muddied the waters. The question before the Primates is whether, at this time, ssbs on the local level, performed in a minority of diocese’s is the basis upon which they want to “realign” the AC. Certainly, in order to have some integrity about the matter they will likewise have to deal with Canada and the Church of England, as well.
#20, Brian. I see the point you’re making. Still there are those who are being deceived by TEC’s pretense, and I believe we as Christians have an obligation to shine the light of truth on deceit. If this helps change the minds of some who are still intent on denying the “clear and unequivocal evidence,” as you call it, it will have been worth the effort.
Elfgirl, what a wonderful job you have done! Thank you so much! I am sure we shall hear our bishops use the “breadth of private response” defense many times in the next two years, until GC 2009. This refutation will make it easy to respond. LM, #21, I pray you are wrong about “bishops scheming to deceive.” Unfortunately, credulity would seem to point in the direction that you may be right. God have mercy on our church.
#23 C.B., I think you have a really hard case to make that the HoB was “clear” in its statement! I mean newspapers managed to spin the thing 3 or 4 different ways. Some say TEC complied fully. Some say TEC stonewalled and refused the Primates request. Some say TEC’s response was mixed but might be accepted.
Clear as mud.
As for honesty, perhaps on one level yes. Perhaps the HoB was honest to the extent that this was all it could possibly agree to “as a body.” But I do believe it is a form of deceit to speak partial truths and leave the reader to infer something you’ve actually not said nor intended. And I believe that’s what TEC has done.
Here’s an analogy: (one that’s actually way too close for comfort. I’ve been in similar scenarios and said similar things, much to my shame.)
Boss asks: Have you finished the report?
Me: Actually, I’m just working on the footnotes now.
Boss infers, “ah the report is just about done! Great!”
I didn’t ACTUALLY say that, but it’s what I wanted him to think.
In fact, I still have 10 pages of the text to write, but was fiddling with minor formatting of some of the footnotes at the time of my conversation with the boss. So, my statement was “technically true,” I was working on the footnotes. But deceitful in intent, it’s that word “just,” and the knowledge that most folks would assume that work on the footnotes means a document is nearly done.
And I fear TEC may well have done something like this.
I think it was Jim Naughton who this week acknowledged that what TEC bishops have done is a tactical move. It’s an attempt to say what they think the JSC or the ABC wanted to hear. Just enough to get them to Lambeth. It doesn’t seem there was much conviction that what was done was RIGHT on either side of the spectrum. And that’s terribly sad. The bishops should be men and women of truth and integrity and faithfulness and stand for what they believe. The New Testament has some pretty strong words for “people pleasers” — those that fear men rather than God. And I see many TEC bishops stumbling in this area.
And that may be what all this is about. Just get to Lambeth. By next Lambeth Williams will no longer be the ABC and if the AC breaks up it will not be on his watch, but on that of his successor.
Thanks for the excellent history and analysis. I wasn’t familiar
with the True Union document and where the “breadth of private response” language had its genesis. It’s clear to me now that it is
being used in a way in which it was never intended.
From a non-TEC US Anglican…
Sarah, you should have said “who’s ‘we’ sucka,” then I could have said, “Me, Smith, and Wesson.” The reason I say “we,” if I may humbly remind you, this brouhaha relates to your church’s place, or future non-place in the Anglican Communion, among other things. Since I am under the authority of Archbishop Kolini, I don’t think its unreasonable for me to say “we” in that context.
As to the “point,” perhaps someday those of you who are “working hard” in TEC apparently forever, will share with us what it is you are working hard to do, why, and when you think it will happen. There’s a word for that; its called “leadership.” If people such as yourself who feel called to exercise it expect to do so successfully, you might have clued some of the rest of us in, at some point, and perhaps we would have followed you and not left. But you haven’t and apparently you won’t.
Four years ago, I said on this blog that the Network would cease to exist as an agent for change within your church if it did not make plain what it was going to do, and when. Of course that prediction came true. I can remember reading on this South Carolina blog about Plano–now Plano is in AMiA, and South Carolina did not even show up at the latest meeting. Its all, gone.
People get rather tired Sarah of vague or even secret plans packaged in Lord of the Rings analogies; the wit of “roistering” wears thin because this is not a story, but real life and real death for real people who need the Gospel to avoid damnation.
The real problem I have with you and people like you is that you refuse to see how you are aiding and abetting the enemy. When PB Schori says theres no real problem or crisis because only a handful of parishes have left, well, the roistering Episcopalians prove her right each time, don’t they? And when they refuse to openly fight TEC over control of their parishes and property they free up money for TEC to fight those who leave, your supposed allies, don’t they? And when you put your money in the plate to keep your parish afloat, thats money TEC doesn’t have to spend, isn’t it? And when you make that payment for your beloved priest into the Pension Fund, well that same pension fund ensures the job, position and retirement of every TEC heretic and apostate who wears the cloth of God, doesn’t it?
If you really think that what you are doing is what should be done, and instead does not actively aid the enemy’s cause then so be it; you do have the God given right to be wrong.
Hey Venbede. You’re welcome. That is EXACTLY why we wrote this. I’m sure you’re not alone in not knowing this history. It was a surprise even to me. I’d not read True Union for 3 years and thus had not realized how badly this was all being twisted until I re-read it.
I who follow all this stuff VERY closely didn’t know where the “breadth of response” language came from. Kendall can vouch. I must have IMed him 4 or 5 times. “I can’t find that quote!” “It’s not in Dar!” “It’s not in Dromantine!” “When and where did the Primates say anything about this?” (of course there were plenty of references to “May 2003” but I kept missing them.) It took a while before all the pieces fit together.
RE: “The reason I say “we,†if I may humbly remind you, this brouhaha relates to your church’s place, or future non-place in the Anglican Communion, among other things. Since I am under the authority of Archbishop Kolini, I don’t think its unreasonable for me to say “we†in that context. ”
Great, William . . . then I believe that you have answered for yourself “what’s the point.” Thanks so much for doing that . . . so why did you ask?
RE: “As to the “point,†perhaps someday those of you who are “working hard†in TEC apparently forever, will share with us what it is you are working hard to do, why, and when you think it will happen.”
If by “us” William you mean “people like me that is ‘William'” I see no reason to do that at all. You manifestly do not value the things that I do and am working for, and so many others as well are working for — and that’s fine! Not all of us can value the same things and work for the same things. But I certainly have no intentions of attempting to make you value the same things or work for the same things that I am and others are. I am sure that you are happy elsewhere working for other things, in other parts of the vineyard.
RE: “If people such as yourself who feel called to exercise it [leadership] expect to do so successfully, you might have clued some of the rest of us in, at some point, and perhaps we would have followed you and not left.”
I have no desire for you to “follow me” nor do I desire to “exercise” “leadership” for anyone — those who are working hard within ECUSA are doing just fine “getting it” and all of us work hard together as best as we are able. Some people have certain gifts I don’t have — and I am grateful. I have certain gifts others don’t have — and they are grateful. But all of us work hard together, William, who see a purpose in working within ECUSA.
Those who didn’t see that purpose very consistently and rightly departed ECUSA. And that’s as it should be — I have always vocally supported those who believed they needed to leave.
RE: “Four years ago, I said on this blog that the Network would cease to exist as an agent for change within your church if it did not make plain what it was going to do, and when. Of course that prediction came true.”
Not sure what you mean. I’m not in the Network and never have been. The Network appears to be pursuing its goal of helping to lead the Common Cause Partnership, of which it appears that you are a part. Be happy William!!! You are a part of that. So how “that prediction came true” I don’t know.
RE: “People get rather tired Sarah of vague or even secret plans packaged in Lord of the Rings analogies; the wit of “roistering†wears thin because this is not a story, but real life and real death for real people who need the Gospel to avoid damnation.”
Sorry that you’re so annoyed, William. ; > )
But I don’t really write or talk for folks like you who don’t see any point in it all or for whom it’s “wearing thin”. Those like you who are “tired” of whatever it is that I have said or will say in the future are certainly welcome to not read — certainly people shouldn’t read things they are tired of, or that they see no point of. And maybe you don’t know whatever it is you think is out there because you simply aren’t a part of all that — not really engaged in that stuff, which is understandable since you have other fish to fry.
RE: “When PB Schori says theres no real problem or crisis because only a handful of parishes have left, well, the roistering Episcopalians prove her right each time, don’t they?”
Oh dear . . . if we are to construct our lives or determine our actions by fear of what PB Schori says, then we are all in for a heap of trouble. As you well know, people smile in their sleeves when Schori says such things . . . even the NY Times reporter. It’s merely the rather ponderous babbling of a delusional and desperate person who is trying to deny the radical consequences of the Episcopal church’s decisions at the highest level. I certainly will be making no decisions at all based on what she says or does not say.
The rest of your questions I deny as well, William.
The real question for me — yet again that I have asked now several times over the past three years of your comments here — is why? Why William, are you still so bitter, so angry, as you were in 2003, even before you had decided to leave ECUSA.
By all rights and accounts you should be joyful, beyond all of this, at peace and free. You are in a new Anglican entity — full of mission and ministry.
And yet you continue haunting Episcopalians on this blog. You don’t seem to be able to let go. There are many many many traditional non-Episcopalian Christians on this blog, who check in out of interest. There’s not a one who berates with such focus and intensity of purpose as you do. There’s not a one that seems as unable to let go.
Where is your freedom and joy, William? If you are free, why not act so?
Sarah:
I appreciate your concern very much. Please do not worry about me, I am fine. I do get frustrated at times with people such as yourself who do not see things as plainly as I and others do, but truth does come to different people at different times. I apologize if that comes across the wrong way. The journey I am on right now is quite miraculous, actually. The only sadness that is yes, sometimes bitter and even angry are all the friends I have lost over this.
You have been very helpful to me today and I thank you for that. You’ve helped me see how toxic and joy robbing looking in the rear view mirror can be. When someone like you, whom I respect very much and agree with on many many things, constantly responds to me with such anger and sarcasm as you do, I think its best to just say goodbye and move on. I have tried to be a witness to the truth here, on T19, and Stand Firm, and you have made me realize that season needs to end.
Peace,
William
Re #31: A question I have often asked other folks. I can perhaps understand why people who are not in TEC might be concerned about those of us who still are, but why do they express their concern as anger and aggression? Why does it matter so much?
I assume that they do not get similarly angry when other denominations they don’t belong to do things they don’t approve of. I assume they permit infant baptism, but I doubt they log onto Baptist blogs and attack the people there. I’m sure they are Trinitarian, but do they haunt Unitarian websites to post personal comments about the other participants? Once having turned their backs on TEC and become Ugandan or Roman or Orthodox, why don’t they knock the dust from their feet and move on?
Things are stirred up enough in the Anglican Communion without those who aren’t in it whipping up more commotion. Many of those who are leaving TEC are doing it just because the atmosphere is so poisonous with conflict, and many of those are ending up as unchurched burned-out cases. People have told me that they won’t join a New Anglican parish because they haven’t been offered any reason to do so except “We’re not Episcopalian.” A body that defines itself largely by what it is [b]not[/b] cannot sustain itself in the long run.
Let’s get back on thread, gang, ok?
The ‘loopholes’ for the TEC bishops are and have been glaringly evident for years now. And because they refuse to discipline their own membership, bishops will continue to take full and artful advantage of said loopholes. So what’s new about it?
Now it’s up to the primates, to whom I address this plea: The time for action was YESTERDAY! Please, please, please don’t abandon orthodox Anglicans in TEC & Canada. PLEASE set up an alternate province NOW!!!
William#2. Your arguments are devastating. I think you’ve hit a nerve. Ordinarily I enjoy Sarah’s wit, style and class. I’m a bit surprised by the anger, dripping sarcasm and downright nastiness displayed here. Maybe you two have a history I’m not aware of. I would like to know if there is anything moreTEC could do that would cause Sarah to leave and for her to urge others to follow her.
Please let’s NOT continue the line of discussion that’s developing re: those who leave and are still concerned. It’s OFF-TOPIC.
I’m getting very tempted to delete William and Sarah’s exchange as it is diverting folks from the topic and this is an important thread. Please note if we do see FUTURE off topic replies we WILL delete them.
Remember, you can always send private e-mails (which do not give away your e-mail address) to other commenters. Please do that if you want to respond to some of the off-topic stuff above. If you need to know how to Private message someone, e-mail us.
Let us remember that the “or until GC ’09” language is a huge step backwards from restraint. It telegraphs the intent to enact SSBs at GC ’09. And that confirms the underlying intent to walk apart. What’s the point of saying, “Sure, dear, we can go to councsling. But I will divorce you in a year and a half.”
Fyi, Dio of No. Calif. has a proposed resolution calling upon GC ’09 to enact SSB rites.
———-
[i]thanks for the heads up on the Dio. of Northern Cal. resolution. It’s actually already been in the queue to post for a few days. Probably it will show up tomorrow morning.[/i]
I am wondering something for the elves. In the article it was mentioned that at least five bishops had used the “oh, ssb’s fall under the old ‘breadth of private response’ category” . . . would you say that the five bishops were largely on the “moderate to conservative side” or the “moderate to revisionist side”?
I have my suspicions, but would like to know what the elves noticed.
Such is the dissembling & doublespeak shown by these bishops, they clearly should make Bill Clinton an honorary (or actual!) Episcopal bishop.
“It depends on what the meaning of “official” is.”
“It depends on what the meaning of “is” is.”
#33-Dale Rye,
You ask a very good question. Why don’t those of us who have come to realize TEC is corrupted beyond repair, and so have left, just drop the matter? If I can’t answer this myself soon, I will “move on” & stop reading this blog.
It’s kind of like passing a car wreck on the highway. Once the police, fire, & ambulance are at the scene, there really isn’t much you can do to help, so you should just drive on by. We are not proud of this, but for some reason, we still stare at the wreck.
Meanwhile, I have a question for you: Why do Episcopal clergy, who have turned their backs on the Creeds & Christian morality, who doubt the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, the Ascension, the Last Judgement, & just about everything else, why do they not just “move on” to Unitarianism or some other amorphous, new-agey thing? Why do they stay in their salaried positions with the church & pervert the Gospel?
I know I’m off topic, but I enjoy reading T19, SFirm, and Virtue as a non-TEC Anglican because all these developments are interrelated and I’m a student of history. Could there be a more fascinating time?
#39 Sarah, with the exception of +McKelvey who is as far to the reappraising side of the spectrum as they come, I think, 3 are very definitely moderate-conservatives:
+Little, voted No on VGR, one of the supposed “Windsor Bishops” (attended all 3 meetings I believe)
+Parsley, voted No on VGR, a self-proclaimed Windsor Bishop (attended 1 of 3 meetings, I believe)
+Gray, voted No on VGR, Windsor-bishopish. Forget it he attended any of the meetings, but I think not, yet he was still broadly in the same camp.
That leaves +Benfield who is new, but who it seems is quite a bit more moderate than his predecessor +Maze and already seems to be rethinking +Maze’s pro-SSB policy. Certainly Benfield is at the very least moving from full-blown fully approved public SSB ceremonies to perhaps more unofficial private “pastoral acts”… it’s not fully clear.
So I would have to answer: very definitely on balance these five bishops citing the “breadth of pastoral care” clause are on the moderate-conservative side.
That’s in fact precisely one of the things that motivated me to do this research. There are too many who want this to blow over so they can go back to sleep. The folks who need to know about this are in Alabama and Mississippi and Northern Indiana and similar dioceses. Since the Windsor Bishops disappointed so severely, lets get the laity in the presumed “Windsor Dioceses” riled up and doing the hard work to find out what the Primates were actually asking of TEC, rather than accepting TEC’s spin at face value!
oops a PS again in response to Sarah’s #39 again. This is IMPORTANT, and I missed it in the first reading of Sarah’s question.
Sarah wrote: [i]In the article it was mentioned that at least five bishops had used the “oh, ssb’s fall under the old ‘breadth of private response’ categoryâ€[/i]
I had probably better point out that’s a pretty sweeping statement and I think does not fairly represent what some of these bishops were saying. However, it’s a very fair inference to draw from my article, however. So I realize I’d better provide the quotes for +Little, +Parsley and +Benfield. In one case (+Little) they merely CITED what the HoB said about “breadth of response” in the context of quoting the whole text on SSBs.
So I don’t think we can say that all five bishops I named definitely think that SSB’s fall under allowed breadth of response. Perhaps the most we can say is that they thought the “breadth of response” section of the HoB statement was important and notable. And four of the five SEEM to quote it approvingly and with almost a sense “relief” (as in: ah, “this solves the conflict, we’ve hit on the right formula!”) to my understanding as I read their words. +Little is the exception.
Here are their quotes:
[b]+Parsley[/b]:
[blockquote]Throughout the communiqué we stress the love of God and of the church for persons of all sexual orientations and the dignity of every human being. Quoting the Primates’ Meeting, “we have a pastoral duty to respond with love and understanding to people of all sexual orientations… [I] is necessary to maintain a breadth of pastoral response to situations of individual pastoral care.”[/blockquote]
And [b]+Parsley[/b] says this about SSBs:
[blockquote]Secondly, we have said that the bishops pledge not to authorize for use in our dioceses any public rites of blessing of same sex unions “until a broader consensus emerges in the Communion, or until General Convention takes further action.” This recognizes and affirms the common discernment of the Anglican Communion, which the Archbishop of Canterbury highlighted in his address to us and to which many of us have been trying to appeal for some time.[/blockquote]
He just kind of throws out the breadth of response language and doesn’t offer any comment. He leaves folks to draw their own conclusions. But the whole point of my analysis above is that we are not given that choice. The breadth of response language has a source, it has a context, it has a clear definition by those who originally proposed the language. We can not allow TEC bishops to unilaterally redefine it!
Here’s [b]+Benfield[/b]
[blockquote]We stated that the witness of the church must be that the dignity of gay and lesbian persons is an unequivocal commitment. We stated that we will wait to discern the will of General Convention regarding authorized rites for the blessing of same sex unions, and in the meantime we will allow for a breadth of response to situations of individual pastoral care, as the primates themselves encouraged us in 2003.[/blockquote]
+Benfield makes a clear distinction between authorized rites for +SSBs and “individual pastoral care.” And as we’ve seen, he actually now appears to have withdrawn approval for the SSB rite +Maze approved for use in the diocese in 2006. So Benfield isn’t saying public SSBs equals allowed “breadth of response” — but he’s seems to be allowing SOMETHING and seems to suggest the move towards full authorization for SSBs should continue.
Finally, there’s [b]+Little[/b], the most conservative of this threesome, and in fact, I am quite convinced he was not trying to exploit the “breadth of response” language in any way — in fact probably quite the opposite. I realize now that I probably should have singled that out in the analysis above. Not all five of these bishops WERE looking for a loophole. But some were and are.
Little quotes the FULL section of the HoB statement on SSBs. He does not single out the breadth of response language in any positive fashion. So since it’s merely the HoB text word for word, I won’t quote that part of his statement. What is perhaps most interesting is that +Little saw some of these loopholes and apparently tried to push for their closure:
[blockquote]Many are of course asking: Does the House of Bishops’ statement honor the primates’ specific requests? […] the answer to the second [request] somewhat less so [i.e. unambiguously clear] (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 [b]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;[/b] 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;[/blockquote]
So, we cannot say +Little is exploiting any loophole. In fact he is one of the few trying to close them. Apologies for any confusion and misunderstanding my lumping together these 5 bishops in the analysis above may have caused!
RE: “So I would have to answer: very definitely on balance these five bishops citing the “breadth of pastoral care†clause are on the moderate-conservative side.”
I suspected as much. The reason is that they are the ones — with more conservative constituencies — who NEED to try to pretend as if there is such a loophole in order to explain the fact that their parishioners know good and well that SSBs are going on all over the place.
The person to whom I emailed your article link, elves, has a bishop in the same group — moderate to conservative. It’s frightening how easily one can predict, now, the responses of various bishops based on what they need to be perceived by their constituencies.
Thank again for your hard work — much appreciated, even though elves, in general, should probably be kept penned away from the general population.
; > )