The discussions about change during this meeting have their roots in the council’s decision in October 2009 to reorganize and expand the number of its standing committees. The theme of structural change came to the fore again during the last two council meetings, beginning with remarks made by Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori at the October 2010 meeting as well as those by House of Deputies President Bonnie Anderson in February.
“We continue to work toward adaptive change rather than technical change,” Jefferts Schori told the council in her closing remarks June 17. Calling it a “significant shift” in the council’s attitude, she said “we have, to some degree, left the culture of fear and entered into a culture of the future.”
[Bonnie] Anderson said that “ever since we arrived [at the conference center], our energy and creative tension have been signaling to me that we’re on the cusp of breaking through to authentic, creative change.”
Doesn’t sound good but not to worry we”ll always find monies to fund the litigation against those pesky schismatics.
You’ve got to love–in a heavily ironic way–the Orwellian language:
“We continue to work toward adaptive change rather than technical change,” Jefferts Schori told the council in her closing remarks June 17. Calling it a “significant shift” in the council’s attitude, she said “we have, to some degree, left the culture of fear and entered into a culture of the future.”
The key phrase there is “to a degree.”
I think that a neutral, rational observer would be entitled to hear this statement and say, “If they can’t speak plainer and shoot straighter than that, then no thanks.”
Then this–
Anderson said that “ever since we arrived [at the conference center], our energy and creative tension have been signaling to me that we’re on the cusp of breaking through to authentic, creative change.”
Again, key phrase: “on the cusp.”
I think that TEC’s politicians think that just using certain words–like change, authentic, and creative–will get the job done at least halfway. But do they realize what a turn-off this kind of tired, warmed over, middle-aged, bureaucratic, mealy-mouthed language is?
And, more substantively, do they realize that too much change too fast is precisely what got them into this horrendous fix?
“While the council may not yet have the right words and plans…”
Rational, neutral observer: “Oh, brother, call me when you’re through sloganeering and posturing and you’ve got something to say for real.”
Anderson said: “We need to foster vibrant mission and ministry in local communities where it transforms people’s lives and helps create the realm of God.”
WE “create” the kingdom of God?? Whose theology is that?
“And if we truly believe in this way of being the church…” Whenever I hear the pious-sounding cliche “this way of being the church,” I drop it into the “Sentences we never finished” category.
If TEC really wants to see how and why it has squandered its rich patrimony, then it could profitably start by looking inward–at how it speaks, thinks, and acts. In my view–badly.
Adaptive, authentic, creative, not technical change.
Change you can’t believe in, because you can’t understand what they mean.
You know, I don’t actually understand what the words mean – I can feel they’re intended to have a positive emotional resonance – but what they refer to, I really have no idea.
Drivel from the New York socialite drivel-sayers. They are, after all, in NY and they are smarter, a good deal smarter than any of us, and certainly they can be counted upon to interpret scripture better than you and me. Oh, sorry, they never mentioned scripture did they? That’s right, they have emotionally resonated past the blather of scripture. They are creatively tensioning the realm of God. I, sadly, will miss this as I have moved on and am deeply rooted in scripture. Somewhere there are Anglican priests who have passed away and are somehow aware that I and others are finding the Trinity in the Word, and they are smiling from the new heaven.
Hmm, I got out my handy calculator and totalled up the figures, and came up with $2,800,000 for the phony Diocese of San Joaquin. This includes the $1M that they had already been [i]loaned[/i], and that has still to be [i]repaid.[/i] The article mentions that the $2.3M includes [i]more loans,[/i] and I wonder just how they intend to repay those loans?
Or is it money just tossed down the sewer?
The TEC supports a “two-state solution in Israel/Palestine” Does that mean that the Palestinians are free to form their own state provided they don’t try to take any property with them?
According to another blog these “Episcopal buzzwords” should sound sincere and mea nothing.
Oops! Should be “mean nothing.”
#6 – I suppose they intend to repay those loans through sales of property from a court victory. How is that for “creative tensioning”?
10. Adam, it looks to me like they’re betting a lot on a horse that might not win, place, or even show!
To Old Guy – Touche, wonderful comment.
There is nothing here to pay attention to. We have often noted that TEC uses language as silly putty. These words printed in the above are a cheap white sauce which one pours over anything to disguise insipidity, a kind of pablum a la king. Larry
No. 13 Agreed. But in a church that wants to grow–claims it wants to grow, or at least whose accountants and bankers affirm it must grow–wouldn’t you think that someone smart (anyone home?) would notice that this self-parodic language is dangerous and deadly?