A palpable sense of apprehension was in the air as the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church gathered at Camp Allen in Texas on 16 March 2007, for their five-day spring meeting. Everyone was in a dither about the recently issued Communique from the Dar es Salaam meeting of the Primates of the Anglican Communion, calling for an ‘unequivocal’ response from the American bishops to the Windsor Report requests for a moratorium on the blessing of same-sex unions and the consecration of any bishop living in a same-sex partnership. The bishops have to give an answer by 30 September 2007.
Gracious conversation
In the days leading up to the meeting, all the bishops had been peppered by emails and letters from the lesbi-gay lobby group to ‘just say no!’ to this interference in our internal affairs. The Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, preparing to preside at her first meeting of the HOB, wrote to all the bishops to assure them that no decisions were to be made on the Communique at this meeting and to publicize that fact to others. This was to be a time for gracious conversation and careful listening to one another. Decisions were to be put off until the September meeting of the House in order to comply with the Primates’ deadline.
However, the liberals were not buying that approach and were determined to take a stand now, perhaps not on the issue of the requested moratoria, which could wait until September, but certainly on the proposed Pastoral Scheme that would undermine the canonical integrity of TEC. A small group of bishops had been discussing a paper that they would spring on the meeting near its end and had arrived at Camp Allen with draft copies in hand. Their urgency was driven by a fear that the Archbishop of Canterbury was moving too quickly in the formation of the Pastoral Council and the selection by Windsor Bishops of a Primatial Vicar who would minister to those congregations and dioceses who were alienated from their church by recent actions of the General Convention.
So after much talk and prayer, as the final day approached, a business session was called and the bishops moved into the legislative mode, adopting two ‘Mind of the House’ resolutions, ‘A Communication to The Episcopal Church,’ and a pastoral letter entitled ‘A Message to God’s People.’
Two resolutions
The first resolution, while affirming the desire for TEC to remain a full member of the Anglican Communion, called the proposed Pastoral Scheme ‘injurious to The Episcopal Church’ and urged the Executive Council to ‘decline to participate in it.’ Never mind that the Communique never asked the Executive Council to do anything about the Pastoral Scheme and that the Presiding Bishop had declared her support of such an arrangement at the Primates’ Meeting; the majority of the bishops felt the need to act quickly and decisively to protect ‘our own polity and canons.’
The second resolution, proposed by Central Florida Bishop John Howe, a member of the Anglican Communion Network, again affirmed a ‘passionate desire to remain in full constituent membership’ in the Anglican Communion, underscored that ‘we are unable to accept the proposed Pastoral Scheme,’ and went on to cite ‘an urgent need’ for the HOB ‘to meet face to face’ with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates’ Standing Committee ‘at the earliest possible opportunity’ The resolution even went on to give the assurance that such a meeting would be ‘at our expense for three days of prayer and conversation regarding these important matters’ But, one might ask, why the need for such an additional meeting? Do they expect the ABC and Standing Committee to repudiate the requests for moratoria made by the Windsor Report and reaffirmed by the Primates? Is it an opportunity to explain once again the unique polity of TEC that all orders – bishops, priests and laity – have to be involved in making policy decisions for this church? Is it just an effort to delay the inevitable decision to walk apart? The resolution was adopted without dissent.
Then it was time to perfect the ‘Message to God’s People,’ which some bishops had been working on for days in advance of arriving at Camp Allen ‘for conversation.’ After carefully pointing out the international make up of TEC – ‘we represent fifteen sovereign nations, the fifty United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, The Virgin Islands, and Micronesia’ – the statement trumpets the ‘ health and vitality of our Church.’ Mention is made of the Millennium Development Goals (but of course!), the work of the Covenant Drafting Committee, the war in Iraq, and the progress of the Bishop’s Task Force on Property Disputes. Then comes the heart of the matter: the Communique from the Primates.
Millennium development goals
In a rather self-serving and defensive fashion, the statement goes on to say (once again!) that though we really want to remain in the Anglican Communion, we must do so on our own terms. Down with the Pastoral Scheme, down with the appointment of a Primatial Vicar and Pastoral Council, down with foreign interference in the life of TEC! The Primates are chastised for the Communique’s failure to draw attention to ‘the pressing issues of violence against gay and lesbian people around the world, and the criminalization of homosexual behavior in many nations of the world.’ The statement concludes with the promise of ‘a teaching guide’ that will be provided for the study of the Communique and the proposed Covenant. We can hardly wait!
As for the last document, the pastoral letter – it contains more of the same. You really must read it to believe it! It is the most robust defence of our rights and privileges as American Episcopalians that I have seen to this date! The Windsor Bishops and the Anglican Communion Network have yet to make a specific response to the Camp Allen decisions and declarations. And as for the HOB of TEC, they shall meet again in the fall for more graceful conversation and careful listening.’ As we say in Texas: ‘Well, bless their hearts!’
–(The Rt. Rev.) Jack Iker is Bishop of Fort Worth; this article appears in the May 2007 issue of New Directions Magazine
TEC bishops are weak and confused. Bishop Iker is one of the exceptions. He is on a par spiritually with Henry Orombi, Drexel Gomez, and Gregory Venables. May God bless him indeed.
Most men are weak and confused. Some get strength, position, and power through their office in an institution such as ecusa, others are exceptions like Iker. The Ikers stick out like sore thumbs in any case as even without the current troubles he would prove an irritant to his peers.
Sometimes I think that Yeats was right (“The Second Coming”) in his description of
as that describes most of the life of the church in this world. You can read the same irritation with current persons even in Acts, and certainly in the patristic fathers.
Alice and Tom, here’s how your and +Iker’s comments come across: “No right-thinking person could differ with our view of the authority of the Bible in today’s world. Whosoever expresses any doubt about that view automatically proves him- or herself to be weak and confused, unworthy to be in any position of religious authority.”
Was Bishop Iker there? I had the impression he boycotted the meeting.
D.C.,
And flipping that around to read from the perspective of the KJS and the rest of the HOB, how is it different? The fact of the matter is that TEC is slogging through two different versions of “the truth.” I am pessimisstic (or perhaps just realistic) about the fact that all of this talking and communiqueing are just the dramatic flourishes of a pathetic fan dance before an irreparable split.
It it good to hear the truth come out about the nature of the March meeting. God bless Bishop Iker.
“What you hear whispered in your ear, proclaim from the rooftops!”
Bernini [#5] asks: “And flipping that around to read from the perspective of the KJS and the rest of the HOB, how is it different?”
One obviouis difference is that it’s not +KJS and the rest of the HoB who have been hurling anathemas at those who disagree with them, insisting that they either “repent” (read: conform) or be banned from fellowship.
The “reappraisers” (I prefer “reexaminers”) are also quite a bit more willing to acknowledge (1) that we don’t know everything, (2) that what we do know is always provisional, and (3) that the First Commandment calls us to accept the possibility that God might be revealing new things to us. Too many traditionalists seem to categorically reject all three of these propositions.
“it’s not +KJS and the rest of the HoB who have been hurling anathemas at those who disagree with them, insisting that they either ‘repent’ (read: conform) or be banned from fellowship.”
that’s true, they’ve been hurling lawsuits, not anathemas……
#6 Bwer Wabbit
Truth always comes out in the end, I have found but are you advocating a whistle-blowers’ charter there in the Bwiar Patch?
We shall have to be careful of radial ears flapping there from now on for careless talk costs, um something or other.
I think “weak and confused” is an adequate description of the overall complexion of the Episcopal Bishops. Something so divided on the whole cannot be strong or purposeful.
D.C. I completely reject your arguments and claims as false and deceptive and incongruent with scripture.
From the Questioning Christian’s ‘acknowledgments’:
1: “we don’t know everything”
True. We only know those things that the Almighty knew we absolutely had to know, i.e. the revelation of the Word of God preserved for us in the Holy Bible.
2. “what we do know is always provisional”
Not fully True. What we know from revelation (=God reaching out to mankind), such as the First Commandment, is never provisional. What we have deduced from our own theology/theologies (=mankind reaching out to God) must indeed be provisional.
3. “the First Commandment calls us to accept the possibility that God might be revealing new things to us.”
Questionable, specifically from the scripture quoted. How does the First Commandment (OT) or even the Greatest Commandment (NT) say this, and what hermeneutic did you use to arrive at this novel conclusion? One of the things we know for sure (=not provisional) is that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. None of the new things that God may choose to reveal to us will ever refute or overturn what is already revealed in his written Word.
#9 Pageantmaster:
The whistleblowers hang out over thar in the laffin’ patch.
D.C., If expressing doubt were the issue, I would agree with you. I have doubts about many things. The issue is TEC’s rejection of mutual accountability in the Anglican Communion in order to advance its “prophetic” vision.
I disagree with D.C.’s comments regarding comments 1 and 2. I think the earlier comments were that Iker is 1) a leader; and 2) a person willing to fight for his beliefs – both true. I think DC fails to understand the weakness and lack of clarity of those Bishops who have been riding the fence. One cannot hold both TEC’s new theology and ECUSA’s theology circa 1960 at the same time – they are mutually incompatible. There have been honest “leaders” on the other side ie Pike and Spong. However, many Bishops during the (70′, 80’s and 90-‘s) have been less than upfront with their flocks ie saying homosexuality is a sin – but yet not really believeing it. I think what the left of the Church does not understand is the bitterness on the right about the decitfulness and the political manuevring by which the new thing has been brought about (the changes did not reflect majority opinon only majoirty activist opinion). Until 2003, the liberals did the boil the frog slowly approach. What I am shocked about the traditionalists is that they think that the left respects the same set of rules. Because they have different values they also play by different rules.
“It it good to hear the truth come out about the nature of the March meeting …”
And no one has any concerns that what +Jack Iker is offering is “the truth” about a meeting he didn’t attend?
Well Susan, why don’t you refute it with an “accurate” telling of what happened rather than just showing up to throw bombs?
It’s goofy to try to dismiss +Iker’s summary because he wasn’t there. Did anyone have to be there to understand that the HOB said, “(once again!) that though we really want to remain in the Anglican Communion, we must do so on our own terms. Down with the Pastoral Scheme, down with the appointment of a Primatial Vicar and Pastoral Council, down with foreign interference in the life of TEC!” To note that the HOB statement was prideful and self-serving is rather obvious, no attendance required.
And as for the autumnal “graceful conversation and listening” planned by the HOB, I’ll concur with the church lady, “Isn’t that special !?!”
Ah! So I was right in my impression that Bishop Iker wasn’t there.
I think it is irresponsible for a Bishop who has deliberately absented himself from a meeting of his House of Bishops to complain about what went on. He should have been there and made his contribution. It was his duty to do so. He might have made a difference. He would certainly (if the views expressed here are any guide) have prevented motions passing unanimously.
Why wasn’t he there?
Mike L … Well, for starters, I wasn’t there either.
And help me understand how just asking the question whether anyone was concerned about statements professing to offer “the truth of the nature” of a meeting being offered by someone who wasn’t there. Not a bomb. Just a question.
(3) that the First Commandment calls us to accept the possibility that God might be revealing new things to us.
And reappraisers alone get to decide what those are. Pass.
Susan, the manner in which a question is asked is what makes it a “bomb”. And is it impossible to make judgements regarding what was done at a meeting without actually attending said meeting? Apparently, only when said judgement conflicts with ones point of view. I’m sure you could give your take on the “truth” of the meeting as well from your sources, instead it seems it’s easier to simply make implications on another’s opinions than make a presentation of our own. That too is a “bomb”.
I think the fact that Bishop Iker was not present raises serious doubts about the credibility of the report in the New Directions Magazine, and concers about the Bishop’s credibility, as well. I am also curious to know if the original report made any admission that Iker was not present or attribution as to who he consulted as his sources of information. The tone of the narrative with phrases like A palpable sense of apprehension was in the air would suggest an eye-witness report.
#22 has a point. Iker’s narrative, with its on-the-scene air about it, would be better taken if he were free to reveal the sources of his information–or at least to acknowledge that there are un-named sources.
If we compare Bp. Iker’s second-hand report to the late Bp. Kelsey’s first-hand report, it is quite obvious that Bp. Iker got it wrong. Here is Bp. Kelsey’s report:
http://upepiscopalnewz.blogspot.com/2007/03/jim-kelseys-report-on-spring-bishops.html
The “liberal” bishops did not arrive at the meeting with a draft already prepared. The final statement grew out of the discussions held at that meeting.
I think that the thrust of the comments above pretty much confirm what Alice and I said in 1+2, especially my quote of Yeats.
I found especially interesting the avoidance of the concept of something being objectively true, or not. Instead we see #3 of D.C. pushing strawman arguments suitable for his purposes. Obviously, I reject DC’s assertion of what my #2 might imply. “Right thinking” is an objective self contradiction that implies an dialectically acceptable, subjective viewpoint. The “rightness” can only be asserted by some argumentum ad populum or argumentum ad verecundiam, or perhaps the Gadarene Swine Fallacy
.
Tom Roberts [#26] writes: “I found especially interesting the avoidance of the concept of something being objectively true, or not. Instead we see #3 of D.C. pushing strawman arguments suitable for his purposes.”
Say what? Father Jake [#24] squarely addressed the issue of “objective truth” by citing the post-meeting report of (the late) +Kelsey, who was there, versus that of +Iker, who wasn’t. Moreover, Susan Russell, properly refusing to take the bait, declined to speculate herself about what happened, precisely because she wasn’t there either.
Tom, if you think it’s irrelevant whether someone was actually present at an event he’s purporting to report, you’ve got a really interesting mindset. If anyone is avoiding the concept of objective truth, it’s those who are singing hosannas about +Iker’s report solely because it says what they want to hear.
As for my #3 being a strawman argument: It wasn’t an argument at all. It was an opinion, about how comments #1 and #2 come across.
——————
Finally, Tom, concerning the logical fallacies you cite: Those philosophical principles do no more than warn us that the truth of an assertion is not determined by the number of its adherents. Duh.
Here we’ve got a different issue. Sometimes we have an assertion whose truth is disputed, yet we still have to decide whether or not to act as though it were true. The question then becomes: notwithstanding the dispute, are we confident enough in the assertion to act.
In that situation, most folks consider it relevant to ask how many people believe the assertion to be true, versus how many don’t. While perhaps there’s no truth in numbers, there is at least some confidence to be gained — as opposed to certainty — which is not to be scorned.
(That’s why, for example, in a criminal prosecution, only a unanimous jury is allowed to send the defendant to prison or death row.)
—————–
On average, the two major camps in The Current Disputes seem to have very different approaches to logical reasoning. That’s making it even more difficult for us to explore whether any kind of consensus is possible.
A useful thing about T19 is that it gives us opportunities to identify where our disagreements are being exacerbated by the differences in our respective approaches.
This report was written for a magazine and reflects that style of journalism. It is very possible that Bishop Iker had some editorial help with the opening paragraph. It is also evident that the piece was written to inform conservatives about attempts of the “lesbi-gay” lobby to sway opinion. That isn’t news for most of us, but it might be for some conservatives who haven’t followed the many years of gay rights activists insinuating their agenda at every ECUSA (and now TEC) venue.
30…I’m not buyinig the naivety.
Non-celibate homosexuals are not a homogeneous group. Some are conscious of the sinfulness of their lives. Some reject the Bible’s teaching that sex between persons of the same gender is sexual immorality. Those who have become activists are politically active onmany fronts. In The Episcopal Church Louie Crew has been especially effective in galvinizing non-celibate homosexuals. Their agenda is to gain recognition as having a lifestyle that God created and therefore blesses.
The rub comes when you compare their agenda with apostolic teaching. Paul speaks to the matter in I Corinthians 5:9-12: “In my letter, I wrote to you that you should have nothing to do with people living immoral lives. I was not including everybody in thsi present world who is sexually immoral, or everybody who is greedy, or dishonest or worships false gods – that would mean you would have to cut yourselves off completely from the world. In fact what I meant was that you were not to have anything to do with anyone going by the name brother who is sexually immoral, or is greedy, or worships false gods, or is a slanderer or a drunkard or dishonest; never even have a meal with anybody of that kind.â€
Apostolic teaching on the matter is very clear. The faithful follow these instructions. That is why Global South Anglicans will not take Communion with the leaders of TEC. That is why they will not attend another gathering of bishops designed to “dialogue†with those who call themselves “brothers†but live unrepentant lives.
(Forgive me if I offend. I too am a sinner in need of God’s mercy daily, but I believe that what Paul teaches should be followed. Had those who claim to follow the Bible followed these instructions 4 years ago, we all would have been saved much anguish.)
D.C. writes:”In that situation, most folks consider it relevant to ask how many people believe the assertion to be true, versus how many don’t. While perhaps there’s no truth in numbers, there is at least some confidence to be gained — as opposed to certainty — which is not to be scorned. ”
If we apply this reasoning to the assertion of those in the Anglican Communion (and other churches) who believed that the TEC was acting in haste (consecrating Gene Robinson as bishop), then surely, TEC should have not scorned this confidence?
34. great…you can spell but you can’t perceive an agenda? right.
35. Those argument don’t work either. Read the gospels and notice how often Jesus quotes, refers to or illustrates the Old Testament. You are demonstrating your agenda and your less than honest queries. You cannot in anyway justify homosexual behavior with scripture. You are proving Shakespeare:
“Even the devil can cite scripture for his purpose..
O what a goodly outside falsehood hath.”
#31 fyi–it looks like it can go either way…you shouldn’t be so stringent, ha ha
WordNet –
naivety: noun :lack of sophistication or worldliness
American Heritage Dictionary –
na·ive·ty or na·ïve·ty (nÄ«-Ä“v’tÄ“, nä-, nÄ«-Ä“’vÄ-tÄ“, nä-) Pronunciation Key
n. Artlessness or credulity; naiveté.
Info: It isn’t hard to find an agenda. You are clearly trying to deny that a group such as Integrity has an agenda? Here is a brief summary of it: “Integrity has been the leading grassroots voice for the full inclusion of LGBT persons in the Episcopal Church and our equal access to its rites.” That is one of a hundred such groups that have an agenda regarding homosexual behavior in contrast to scripture.
But the burden is on you to show us from the New Testament where the Old Testament is disregarded, as you do with it. And show us where scripture supports homoerotic behavior or the same gender sexual relationship. So, follow your grandpappy’s suggestion and answer this question. How does scripture support homosexual behavior as acceptable to the Christian life, and how is Integrity’s agenda not an agenda?
Support this statement of yours with any scripture or reason: “And if it’s OT, then it’s by definition not Christian teaching” This statement contradicts Christ’s ministry in light of Christ’s many references to the Old Testament such as this one from Mark: “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”
This has nothing to do with the acceptance of a person or their value but on the congruency of a behavior with scripture.
DC, your #27 edges on incoherence. Indeed, #1 and 2 were opinions, but #3 is argumentative. Unfortunately, it fails to rise above the level of opinion. So if you wish to deem it as mere opinion, which anybody might put forward with no link to reality, I’ll withdraw my “strawman argument” assertion.
As to #24, I fail to see what is objectively stated other than that one man was there and the other was not. “Bp. Iker got it wrong. ” is the first assertion, and that is not coherently stated as “it” is undefined. Perhaps “it” refers to the second assertion: “The “liberal†bishops did not arrive at the meeting with a draft already prepared. The final statement grew out of the discussions held at that meeting. “? Reading Kelsey’s cited report, Kelsey never directly contradicts Iker despite their comments coming from two entirely different positions. I’m not saying Iker is 100% correct, but saying that he was not there and saying he is incorrect are two entirely different matters. Your posts ignore this simple logical fact, ergo my concern that you are perfectly willing to distort objective truth when it serves your argumentative purposes.
So when I don’t find #24’s post definitive, it is because it either is hopelessly vague on what “it” refers to, or simply is a statement of the obvious (e.g. “The final statement grew out of the discussions held at that meeting.”). As Kelsey never contradicted Iker on whether preliminary drafts were done before the meeting by individuals who may or may not have been part of Kelsey’s “A drafting committee of five bishops was asked to begin work on a draft statement, ” I didn’t think it necessary to point out this obvious logical fact.
You might consider in the whole that two persons might assert two different versions of events. If those versions complementary, then there is no reason to presume that they are contradictory, as you have been so willing to do.
Finally, “duh” is not a opinion changing mode of debate and it shows clearly the level of discourse of the writer.
That is the most absurd piece of logic I’ve read in quite awhile, Tom.
Bp. Iker claimed that a draft was prepared before the bishops arrived at camp Allen. Bp. Kelsey claims the draft was developed while the bishops were at Camp Allen. One of them is wrong.
Since Bp. Iker boycotted the meeting, but Bp. Kelsey was present, it is fairly safe to assume that Bp. Kelsey’s report is the more accurate one.
Spin it how you want. The facts speak for themselves. Bp. Iker got it wrong.
Ex-Catholic [#33] writes:
It wasn’t scorned, just outweighed by other confidence-generating factors that tilted in the other direction.
#42, surprised you could not see the obvious possibility that the two men were talking of two completely different drafts. Drafts, like opinions, can proliferate endlessly. No spin in this, and I really don’t know who is right and personnally could not care. But not attending the conference, I doubt if you could contradict either story yourself. I am amused that DC and you have chosen to twist Kelsey’s cited article into a contradiction of Iker on that one, rather small, point. And on that issue hangs your whole argument?
Incidently #24+42, what was “it” in “Bp. Iker got it wrong. “ ? Never could pin down your meaning precisely.
Sorry info, Christ taught from the OT, not the NT. He said not one jot or tittle would pass from the law, and that he came to fulfill the law. When he met the disciples on the road to Emmaus he “opened the scriptures to them” and that would have been explaining the OT. The OT and NT are seamlessly related. Jesus’ worship life would have been entirely OT. Gagnon has done a marvelous job of compiling relevant scripture on the subject of sexual immorality, OT and NT, so you apparently have not done your homework. No point in repeating on a blog entry what has already been done so thoroughly! On an earlier story on the HOB meeting, I read that it had been advertised as one in which none of the current unpleasantness was going to be discussed. Those who were absent certainly have an inside track to getting the complete description of the meeting from fellow bishops who were there. So. whether he was there or not is irrelevant. Don’t bishops frequently bring their diocese up to date on events they did not personally attend, such as meetings of the primates and other councils?
47. Throw out the Old Testament…right. Check out Jesus preaching “Jesus” on the road to Emmaus. What did he use? The Law, the Psalms and the Prophets…after he had risen. Info…you are making up your own reality. The Lord desires those who worship in Spirit and in Truth. The Holy Spirit is the “Spirit of Truth”. Peter says that the prophets spoke as they were “carried along by the Holy Spirit” The O.T. is inspired by the Spirit of Truth. I don’t think he would appreciate you throwing it out.
infopro,
If you would like to read more about the gay agenda or to just see that it is real I would direct you to this book.
I am still on the fence concerning the blessing of gay relationships but am by no means what is referred to as homophobic. God has not given me permission to be the judge of anyone. But…
That still does not negate the idea that there is a planned, organized, well funded movement towards full acceptance of homosexuality as a normal and natural way of being. “I” would call that an agenda.
“After the Ball – How America will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 90s.” – Penguin Books, 1989
by Marshall K. Kirk and Hunter Madsen
#50 “infopro”
“+Iker lied, & there’s no question of it. Is that being too blunt? Possibly, but the truth it remains, regardless of who likes it or doesn’t, or who is willing to admit it or isn’t. He tried to sell a bill of goods about what happened at a meeting he willfully chose to boycott, then tried to present it as though he was actually a participant. ”
Your last conclusion is not supported anywhere in Iker’s statement. It is a conjecture on your part in order to support a presumption of your argument. It diminishes your argument to nothing; something that blows away in the breeze.
infopro, your argument is purely interpretive. It has no logical, objective basis. It is merely interpretation as Iker objectively claimed what you say he claimed. As before, your semantics blows in the wind. No goat is needed to be gotten, on my part at least. At this point you have had three chances to state objectively how Iker lied, and have failed.
Excuse the omission, #56 should be
“infopro, your argument is purely interpretive. It has no logical, objective basis. It is merely interpretation as Iker did not objectively claim what you say he claimed. As before, your semantics blows in the wind. No goat is needed to be gotten, on my part at least. At this point you have had three chances to state objectively how Iker lied, and have failed. “