From several emails.
My brothers and sisters:
I am grateful for the considered way in which the House worked together in New Orleans, and for our demonstration of solidarity with the people of Louisiana and Mississippi. I am finding that most of you would rather focus on the latter!
I have received from Rowan both a thank you for his time among us, and a copy of the Joint Standing Committee report. This has been posted online in a number of places, and I hope you have seen it by now.
Rowan is asking that I report to him by the end of October the sense of this Province, precisely on the following:
“…how far your province is able to accept the JSC Report assessment that the House of Bishops have (sic) responded positively to the requests of Windsor and of the Dar es Salaam message of the Primates. The report sets out clearly for us the requests that were made, both in the context of the Windsor Report and of the Dar es Salaam Communiqué; there are other issues that have been raised in general discussion around the Communion, and indeed in the TEC communiqué, but I hope you will concentrate on the very specific matters put before the Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops. I shall welcome not only your reactions but also proposals for any next steps we should take together. My intention is firmly to honour the discernment of all the primates and the wider Communion at this juncture…”
Let me note that consultation in your Diocese will undoubtedly be helpful, and if you can give me an indication of what that looked like, I would be most grateful. I have finally had time to read all of the submissions on Communion Matters, and I am struck by the breadth of comment received and its coherence. Henry Parsley and the Theology Committee are to be deeply thanked for their effective work on this, in a short time-frame.
Please note the relatively short time available to do this – let me suggest that Monday, 29 October would be a helpful target – and that what is most needed are your brief impressions following conversation in your diocese.
I remain
Your servant in Christ,
(The Rt. Rev.) Katharine Jefferts Schori
What a perfect opportunity for the “network bishops” to submit a minority report on how the JSC does not accurately interpret the state of affairs.
Why do I suspect we’ll only hear the chirping of crickets?
I would like a report from the foxes as to how things are going in the the henhouse….
KJS
“The henhouse has quieted down considerably in recent months. While the selection of hens has recently been reduced, we still have considerable eggs, hens already selected as well as this wonderful straw and real estate in our possession. In short, the state of the hen house is strong! — Bishop V. Vulpes
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
It sure makes it clear to me that this whole thing is “wired.” ++Rowan will [i]never[/i] discipline ECUSA. An old Queen will never fulfill her role as [i]fide defendorum[/i] and sack the over-educated ABC who’s destroying (in the name of saving it) the last vestiges of the British Empire. Nothing to see here … move along.
I suspect (sadly) that in five years the See of Canterbury will oversee a moribund collection of over-educated, over-fed, malled-out westerners with what is at best a politically-correct “said” faith.
Daaaummm, No 4, you put it perfectly.
Rowan would like a report back by the HoB on whether the rubberstamping by the JSC of the sham HoB “Response” is okey-dokey with the same bishops??? He expects the bishops are going to object to the JSC whitewash??? Is this a joke??? (Could I possibly use more question marks???)
If this is true, the credibility of the ABC would incredibly be decreased even further.
“Rowan”?
Kate – can I call you Kate? Let’s call George and do lunch sometime. I hear Desmond’s in town.
If y’all weren’t so busy bashing the Archbishop, you might have noticed what he is actually asking: Is the JSC Report an accurate representation of what the New Orleans meeting decided? He is asking all the provinces that, not just TEC. Some, including TEC, will say yes, while others will say no.
First, was there actually an effective commitment by TEC to not consecrate a gay or lesbian bishop? The JSC concluded that there was, since nobody can be consecrated without consent of a majority of bishops with jurisdiction and well over a majority of the current bishops pledged to withhold consent. (Note: the prohibition is on consecration, not nomination or even election, neither of which the HoB can control.) Obviously, they cannot speak for future bishops who are not yet elected, but they can speak for themselves. They seem to have done so, however grudgingly.
Second, was there an effective ban on blessings for same-sex couples? That is more a question of interpretation. A hefty majority of the bishops did commit (themselves, not future bishops) to oppose any formal authorization by TEC of liturgies for such blessings. Since General Convention is a bicameral legislature, the Bishops can block such authorization no matter what the Deputies do. It appears that a clear majority have agreed not to authorize diocesan liturgies and probably a majority have agreed not to authorize parish liturgies for public blessings. Clearly, there is a minority who will continue to authorize public blessings on a local-option basis, and a somewhat larger group who will practice a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy at least for private blessing services. Does the existence of this minority nullify the action of the majority? That will be up to the Instruments of Communion to determine.
Dale Rye seems to be engaged in creative writing. He changes “Rowan’s” words:
[blockquote]how far your province is able to accept the JSC Report assessment that the House of Bishops have (sic) responded positively to the requests of Windsor and of the Dar es Salaam message of the Primates.[/blockquote]
into (Dale’s words):
[blockquote]Is the JSC Report an accurate representation of what the New Orleans meeting decided?[/blockquote]
I stand by my take in comment #6. If “Katherine’s” quotation is accurate, it is probably the most inane exercise in Anglican history: to ask the bishops whether they approve of the JSC’s rubberstamping of the “Response” statement.
#6,#9.
I think you may be missing Dale’s main claim: that +Katherine wasn’t the only one who received this request from the ABC – that ALL the primates/provinces did. The ‘request’ makes no sense if sent only to ECUSA; it makes more sense as one of many requests sent to all provinces. I suppose the ABC could have sent it to all provinces but ours – but that would deprive the American minority an opportunity to comment.
Let’s not make a mountain out of a molehill.
Sydney, I did note that the questions would be appropriate for the other provinces but are entirely inappropriate for the TEC. (Just as it was inappropriate for KJS to participate in the creation of the JSC report.) Why is that not obvious to the ABC?
Re #8 (Dale Rye):
Dale Rye, if the undertaking included blocking authorization at General Convention, why then did the Bishops reject language offered by the Primates that would have made that clear:
and instead say,
See Andrew Goddard’s paper at http://anglicancommunioninstitute.com/images/stories/jscfinal.pdf on this point (as well as your other one).