It’s all too sparse and informal. One can’t even determine the context. It also isn’t new news: Bishop Robinson’s inclusion is some capacity has been on the table since the invitations to Lambeth went out.
I agree with Randall. This may or may not be a paragraph from a message that the PB sent to HOB. Whatever this text is, if it is genuine but was not publically released by 815 it shouldn’t be bandied about on the blogs.
Randall and Bob–I partially agree with you. It shouldn’t be posted until it is verified. However, if it is genuine, it should be posted. The HoB is not some Star Chamber which has the right to act in secret. The insidious nature of TEC’s sickness is manifested in its unwillingness, maybe even inability, to be transparent.
I would suspect that Kendall received it from an impeccable source. It is therefore not gossip and is instead a window into the machinations of pecusa as it continues to dance around the commitments of communion membership.
Application of a hermeneutic of suspicion is only applicable to Scripture, eh? I love liberal literalism: never Scripture, but always, ALWAYS, in canons and journalism – even if they have to invent both. And they complain about this? At the least it is attributable unlike certain recurrent assertions about polygamous bishops and moola conspiracy theories. But thanks for the humour, guys!
The best T19 thread of the day has been right here, as six revisionists came bustling right over to this thread to portentiously comment about 1) how it ‘may not be genuine’ [this when it is said to be posted now over at the HOB listserve], and 2) even if it is “genuine” why it is [b]entirely uninteresting[/b] . . . which is why [i]we had to rush over to this blog and let you reasserters know how uninteresting it indeed is.[/i]
; > )
Other than the amusement of the thread, what I find interesting in this is, first, that “purportedly” KJS is working feverishly away at getting a “non-formal” invitation for Bishop Robinson which she can wave about as a real “participant” invitation but what I would guess will be an “oh, okay, let’s let him come and give lots of interviews and sit in the spectator’s gallery and alternate between figuring out whether he should play the wounded oppressed victim or claim a triumph.” [Maybe some 815 professional staff can help him figure out how it should be spun — tough call though].
And second, the mention of Bishop Little as a possible ally in the quest to “purportedly” attain an “invitation” for Bishop Robinson. Good grief, I wonder how his diocese feels about that.
dwstroudmd, my hope was to give it another hour or so and see if we could get just a couple more revisionists to gather up the energy to come on over and let us know that the whole thing “was all deadly dull and so unimportant, darling.” ; > )
But you have broken the spell, I think, and my hope has been shattered.
Oh, PS: Just in case anyone is wondering, my opinion above is my own nor am I a participant in 1) 815, 2) the Network, 3) the ACI, 4) Common Cause, 5) or Fulcrum.
You know . . . just in case anyone came over here and thought I might be formally speaking for any of these entities “for the record” rather than expressing my considered opinion about the interest of the post.
Hearsay has no place in matters this serious. We all know where the Presiding Bishop stands, what on Earth does this snippet have to do with the price of tea anywhere.
I wonder if those in the Diocese of San Joaquin give a rat’s patooty about something this silly. I doubt it, don’t you?
One of the great strengths of Titus One Nine has been what it saw fit to not print. It has not printed much of what has been seen on Stand Firm. I hope the blog returns to that standard of reporting.
RE: “my hope was to give it another hour or so and see if we could get just a couple more revisionists to gather up the energy to come on over and let us know that the whole thing “was all deadly dull and so unimportant, darling.†. . . But you have broken the spell, I think, and my hope has been shattered.”
The email has been confirmed: From the Living Church: posted on December 20, 2007
Three Bishops Seek Lambeth Invitation for Bishop Robinson
Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has appointed three bishops to “consult†with the Archbishop of Canterbury about extending an invitation for Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire to attend the Lambeth Conference next summer in England.
The Rt. Rev. Edward S. Little II, Bishop of Northern Indiana, one of the three appointed by Bishop Jefferts Schori, confirmed the authenticity of the e-mail message which he said was sent to all members of the House of Bishops on Dec. 19.
“I’ve been asked to be part of a private conversation, and before that conversation even begins, I think it is best not to discuss details in the media,†Bishop Little said, adding that he personally remains committed to the Windsor Report and its recommendations.
The others who will consult with Archbishop Rowan Williams – the Rt. Rev. Thomas C. Ely, Bishop of Vermont, and the Rt. Rev. Bruce Caldwell, Bishop of Wyoming ‑ recently attended an organizational meeting of the Chicago Consultation at Seabury-Western Theological Seminary. Part of the new group’s agenda includes ensuring there is a significant, visible presence of gay and lesbian Anglicans in England during the Lambeth Conference. The group has received a $60,000 grant in part to help with travel and expenses.
In her e-mail message, Bishop Jefferts Schori said the three bishops “hope to have a response to share with the House at our meeting in March.â€
“I’ve been asked to be part of a private conversation…”
Since when was that matter private? Given VGR’s addiction to media attention, this whole issue has always been one for public discussion, and one which is of interest to the whole church. Having four old men in some backroom of Lambeth Palace making ecclesiastical sausage isn’t the way the current situation is going to get reconciled.
It’s all too sparse and informal. One can’t even determine the context. It also isn’t new news: Bishop Robinson’s inclusion is some capacity has been on the table since the invitations to Lambeth went out.
With all due respect to T19 and Stand Firm, this really should not be posted.
Randall Stewart
I agree with Randall. This may or may not be a paragraph from a message that the PB sent to HOB. Whatever this text is, if it is genuine but was not publically released by 815 it shouldn’t be bandied about on the blogs.
Come on guys, we all like gossip. I believe in freedom of expression. Kendall was right posting it.
I also agree with Randall. At the very least it should first be confirmed as a genuine communication from PB KJS.
Randall and Bob–I partially agree with you. It shouldn’t be posted until it is verified. However, if it is genuine, it should be posted. The HoB is not some Star Chamber which has the right to act in secret. The insidious nature of TEC’s sickness is manifested in its unwillingness, maybe even inability, to be transparent.
Wow – is it now open season for publishing “rumors” as news?!
I would suspect that Kendall received it from an impeccable source. It is therefore not gossip and is instead a window into the machinations of pecusa as it continues to dance around the commitments of communion membership.
Ditto’s to #’s 1,2,3 & 5. Even if it’s authentic, so what?
Slow news day.
Application of a hermeneutic of suspicion is only applicable to Scripture, eh? I love liberal literalism: never Scripture, but always, ALWAYS, in canons and journalism – even if they have to invent both. And they complain about this? At the least it is attributable unlike certain recurrent assertions about polygamous bishops and moola conspiracy theories. But thanks for the humour, guys!
RE: “But thanks for the humour, guys!”
Boy, I’ll say — you and me both, dwstroudmd.
The best T19 thread of the day has been right here, as six revisionists came bustling right over to this thread to portentiously comment about 1) how it ‘may not be genuine’ [this when it is said to be posted now over at the HOB listserve], and 2) even if it is “genuine” why it is [b]entirely uninteresting[/b] . . . which is why [i]we had to rush over to this blog and let you reasserters know how uninteresting it indeed is.[/i]
; > )
Other than the amusement of the thread, what I find interesting in this is, first, that “purportedly” KJS is working feverishly away at getting a “non-formal” invitation for Bishop Robinson which she can wave about as a real “participant” invitation but what I would guess will be an “oh, okay, let’s let him come and give lots of interviews and sit in the spectator’s gallery and alternate between figuring out whether he should play the wounded oppressed victim or claim a triumph.” [Maybe some 815 professional staff can help him figure out how it should be spun — tough call though].
And second, the mention of Bishop Little as a possible ally in the quest to “purportedly” attain an “invitation” for Bishop Robinson. Good grief, I wonder how his diocese feels about that.
dwstroudmd, my hope was to give it another hour or so and see if we could get just a couple more revisionists to gather up the energy to come on over and let us know that the whole thing “was all deadly dull and so unimportant, darling.” ; > )
But you have broken the spell, I think, and my hope has been shattered.
Oh, PS: Just in case anyone is wondering, my opinion above is my own nor am I a participant in 1) 815, 2) the Network, 3) the ACI, 4) Common Cause, 5) or Fulcrum.
You know . . . just in case anyone came over here and thought I might be formally speaking for any of these entities “for the record” rather than expressing my considered opinion about the interest of the post.
In the interest of full and free communication I think the PB’s office should either confirm and cite context or deny authorship.
#14 — You mean Katie should lower herself to confirm anything to those she’s trying to get rid of?
I’m more inclined to email +Little and implore him to refuse, in the event the email is for real.
Blogging at its worst.
Hearsay has no place in matters this serious. We all know where the Presiding Bishop stands, what on Earth does this snippet have to do with the price of tea anywhere.
I wonder if those in the Diocese of San Joaquin give a rat’s patooty about something this silly. I doubt it, don’t you?
One of the great strengths of Titus One Nine has been what it saw fit to not print. It has not printed much of what has been seen on Stand Firm. I hope the blog returns to that standard of reporting.
How much more evidence does one need to gather to prove that the sky is blue?
RE: “my hope was to give it another hour or so and see if we could get just a couple more revisionists to gather up the energy to come on over and let us know that the whole thing “was all deadly dull and so unimportant, darling.†. . . But you have broken the spell, I think, and my hope has been shattered.”
Never mind, Dwstroudmd, my wish was granted.
The email has been confirmed: From the Living Church: posted on December 20, 2007
Three Bishops Seek Lambeth Invitation for Bishop Robinson
Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has appointed three bishops to “consult†with the Archbishop of Canterbury about extending an invitation for Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire to attend the Lambeth Conference next summer in England.
The Rt. Rev. Edward S. Little II, Bishop of Northern Indiana, one of the three appointed by Bishop Jefferts Schori, confirmed the authenticity of the e-mail message which he said was sent to all members of the House of Bishops on Dec. 19.
“I’ve been asked to be part of a private conversation, and before that conversation even begins, I think it is best not to discuss details in the media,†Bishop Little said, adding that he personally remains committed to the Windsor Report and its recommendations.
The others who will consult with Archbishop Rowan Williams – the Rt. Rev. Thomas C. Ely, Bishop of Vermont, and the Rt. Rev. Bruce Caldwell, Bishop of Wyoming ‑ recently attended an organizational meeting of the Chicago Consultation at Seabury-Western Theological Seminary. Part of the new group’s agenda includes ensuring there is a significant, visible presence of gay and lesbian Anglicans in England during the Lambeth Conference. The group has received a $60,000 grant in part to help with travel and expenses.
In her e-mail message, Bishop Jefferts Schori said the three bishops “hope to have a response to share with the House at our meeting in March.â€
“I’ve been asked to be part of a private conversation…”
Since when was that matter private? Given VGR’s addiction to media attention, this whole issue has always been one for public discussion, and one which is of interest to the whole church. Having four old men in some backroom of Lambeth Palace making ecclesiastical sausage isn’t the way the current situation is going to get reconciled.