Dear Brothers and Sisters,
It is not quite 11:30 PM here in Orlando. In London it is not quite 4:30 AM tomorrow. And Jonathan Petre of the London Telegraph has just released a story about yesterday’s meeting between four American Bishops (Howe, Central Florida; MacPherson, Western Louisiana; Smith, North Dakota; and Stanton, Dallas) with the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church.
Petre could not have been much more inaccurate! Here are his opening remarks:
“The Archbishop of Canterbury is backing secret plans to create a ‘parallel’ Church for American conservatives to avert fresh splits over homosexuality…. Dr Rowan Williams has held confidential talks with senior American bishops and theologians who oppose the pro-gay policies of their liberal leaders….
“Dr Williams is desperate to minimize further damage in the run up to the once-a-decade Lambeth Conference this summer which could be boycotted by more than a fifth of the world’s bishops….
“According to insiders, Dr Williams has given his blessing to the plans to create an enclave for up to 20 conservative American bishops that would insulate them from their liberal colleagues.”
No, Dear Friends. Here is a summary of what we presented to the Presiding Bishop yesterday. We were not quite ready to release it, but in the light of this significant distortion, I am doing so tonight:
Communion Partners
In the context of the Episcopal Visitors concept announced by the Presiding Bishop at the House of Bishops meeting in New Orleans, a number of us have reflected a need for a larger gathering which we are calling Communion Partners. We believe such a gathering will afford us the opportunity for mutual support, accountability and fellowship; and present an important sign of our connectedness in and vision for the Anglican Communion as it moves through this time of stress and renewal.
Purpose:
Ӣ To provide a visible link for those concerned to the Anglican Communion
Many within our dioceses and in congregations in other dioceses seek to be assured of their connection to the Anglican Communion. Traditionally, this has been understood in terms of bishop-to-bishop relationships. Communion Partners fleshes out this connection in a significant and symbolic way.
Ӣ To provide fellowship, support and a forum for mutual concerns between bishops
The Bishops who have been designated Episcopal Visitors together with others who might well consider being included in this number share many concerns about the Anglican Communion and its future, and look to work together with Primates and Bishops from the Global South. In addition, we believe we all have need of mutual encouragement, prayer, and reassurance. The Communion Partners will be a forum for these kinds of relationships.
Ӣ To provide a partnership to work toward the Anglican Covenant and according to Windsor principles..
The Bishops will work together according to the principles outlined in the Windsor Report and seek a comprehensive Anglican Covenant at the Lambeth Conference and beyond.
Scope:
”¢ The Communion Partners will be informally gathered ”“ there will be no “charter” or formal structure
Ӣ Are committed to non-boundary-crossing: the relationships will be governed by mutual respect and proceed by invitation and cooperation
Ӣ Will work with mutual cooperation within and beyond the partnership
Participants:
Ӣ The Episcopal Visitors who desire to participate (EVs named at House of Bishops New Orleans)
Ӣ Those Bishops who are willing to serve as EVs
Ӣ Initially, five Primates of the Global South: West Indies, Tanzania, Indian Ocean, Burundi, Middle East
Transparency:
Ӣ Communication of activities with both the Presiding Bishop and Archbishop of Canterbury
Ӣ Respect for the canonical realities, integrities and structures of the Episcopal Church and other Churches
Our purpose in meeting with Bishop Schori yesterday was to apprize her of this plan, seek her counsel, and assure her that we remain committed to working within the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church, and that the Primates involved in this discussion are NOT involved in “border crossing,” nor would we be. We will visit no congregation without the Diocesan Bishop’s invitation and permission. We do believe this is a step forward, albeit a small one.
I hope this is helpful, and I thank you for your prayers regarding this important meeting.
Warmest regards in our Lord,
The Right Rev. John W. Howe
Episcopal Bishop of Central Florida
1017 East Robinson Street
Orlando, Florida 32801
What a mess.
The good news is that there are considerable numbers or orthodox Anglican stuck in TEC who will not give in to the untrue new theology. They continue to try to find a way to say no and stay faithful.
The bad news is that these people continue to devise plans without consulting well with other orthodox anglicans and these plans do not help the many parishes who are in difficult or indeed hostile diocesan situations.
If the TEC leadership were serious about this it would have been done a long time ago….
This stuff just gets stupider and stupider.
Of course, the poison pill in this is the following:
[b]We will visit no congregation without the Diocesan Bishop’s invitation and permission. [/b]
Which has been the problem with prior plans. How many of the most liberal bishops will give their permission for this, when all they need to do is apply the “abandonment of communion” canon to get rid of troublesome priests?
Well gosh. Yet another entity with its own name and identity that “faithful Anglicans” can belong to —
— while remaining fully compliant with the TEC structures. No boundary crossings, just some good old fashioned fellowship Wow.
OK everybody MAKE SURE YOU STAY IN THE BACK OF THE BUS
So, what we have here is surrender to ECUSA wrapped in lots of talk and more endless meetings, draft documents, conferences, and agenda for bishops who can’t meet their genuine responsibilities– and all so very devoted to the sickness that is called TEC and its presiding bishop. Pull the pox in close, accept, even seek out its embrace so that the infection spreads throughout. More fodder for chats at Lambeth teas. Nothing more. And so we approach Schori for her advice. Might as well consult the fox on how to keep the henhouse safe (slightly edited).
I’m sorry: this is collaborationism at its worst. If there were a charter, it would be called an Instrument of Surrender. Very, very disappointing move by John Howe and the others. Truly if this is the best they think they can obtain for the orthodox remnant in the Episcopal Church, there is no reason to stay–even if you are under an orthodox bishop for now.
Can someone who is still committed to staying within TEC reply what the virtues are in this? Looks like leaders who are really committed to staying in charge of a big, nice thing looking after their jobs and illusions. Not good leadership is it?
I’m sorry. I am at the point of utter uncredulity with the way that this game continues to be played by the supposedly orthodox.
This is nothing but compliance and a wonderful way to keep people compliant while imagining themselves to be able to be “faithful” at the same time. Compromising the Gospel and selling out. It is giving Katey and Company everything that they wanted from Bp Duncan and didn’t get.
This is particularly very bad news for people like the folks in the Diocese of Albany and other “orthodox” “Windsor” dioceses because our bishops can now just come to us and say, “See! We can have our cake and eat it too. We can be Communion Partners; isn’t that nice? We can be in TEC but not [i][b]of[/b][/i] TEC and be faithful without risking anything at all.” No fights; no lawyers; no being locked out of your building. Never mind all that stuff about apostasy. Just don’t think about it.
I am not kidding about the back of the bus. That’s where we are and who we are and the bus is headed for hell.
WHY, why, why are so many orthodox so concerned to keep people within TEC? What’s the point? I’m serious; I would love to understand this. TEC is nothing but an idol that keeps people from being genuinely faithful to following Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.
Wait; wait; wait.
For what?! For more sell-outs?
I’m gonna go and shovel snow. At least that has some positive use.
Let’s get this straight:
If your parish is orthodox and you find yourself in one of the Dioceses with an orthodox Bishop, you have no need of this scheme because your Bishop is orthodox.
If your parish is orthodox and you find yourself in one of the Dioceses with an unorthodox Bishop, he or she has the power to grant you access to this scheme, you just need to ask and trust him or her to say yes.
Oh, that’s alright then!
I’d say this scheme is not going to enjoy a very high take-up…..
As Matt+ says, this is just DEPO and/or the Episcopal Visitor plan with an international flair – sort of like putting a dollop of caviar on your potted meat product. It won’t taste any better in either version, but it will ruin the caviar. Drexel Gomez, beware.
As I said in my Colorado talks, the two themes are differentiation and structural relief. Those involved are at least trying for both.
Unfortunately, they have far too little of either one. Something far, far more bold and creative is needed at this late date if it is to go anywhere.
Ther is only one answer that makes any sense, & that’s to have ownership of & fiancial liability for the buildings securely vested in the local congregations, which will then affiliate with whomever they wish. If this had happened, 90% of the acrimony and recourse to lawyers could’ve been avoided.
Tec & much of the North Atlantic Anglican Communion has become a laughing stock. It’s withering on the vine while its energies are consumed in intra-mural war. Meanwhile, no mission happens.
1. edistobeachwalker wrote:
What a mess.
The good news is that there are considerable numbers of orthodox Anglican stuck in TEC who will not give in to the untrue new theology. They continue to try to find a way to say no and stay faithful.
Faithful to whom? Jesus or TEC? There was a time when it could be both. No longer.
Awake slumbering Christians within TEC and choose.
They really do think that we pewsters are stupid!
FORGET IT, Bishop Howe!
Let’s get this straight:
If your parish is orthodox and you find yourself in one of the Dioceses with an orthodox Bishop, you have no need of this scheme because your Bishop is orthodox.
If your parish is orthodox and you find yourself in one of the Dioceses with an unorthodox Bishop, he or she has the power to grant you access to this scheme, you just need to ask and trust him or her to say yes.
Oh, that’s alright then!
I’d say this scheme is not going to enjoy a very high take-up…..
Actually the title to this might be: “ONCE more with Feeling”.
I’m sure those good bishops, Seitz, and Radnor feel very good about their efforts, however, I truly wonder at their idea that they can alone speak for the orthodox.
Shame,
Gloria
ps to the above:
Thank you Dr. Harmon for speaking the truth..
Gloria
[blockquote] the two themes are differentiation and structural relief. Those involved are at least trying for both. [/blockquote]
Differentiation and structural relief are precisely the two items TEC will never allow. TEC will not suffer conservative presuppositions to hold sway within any portion of its jurisdiction – and will in fact continue to expunge any leaders who hold to those presuppositions. And TEC will not free its serfs. Other then that, TEC is willing to negotiate.
TEC offers the choice of “Submit or leave” to conservatives in dioceses it safely controls. It offers the opportunity for conservatives to hang around in dioceses it does not safely control but only until it can replace the leadership. Then the choice will once again become “Submit or leave.”
carl
Let us all resolve to pray for +Howe, all the others involved in this plan, and all the dear Christians left in TEC pews. This plan looks like a last gasp for air and final plea for help prior to going down for the third time. (Thirtieth time?) The prayers of the faithful will keep them afloat. These are desperate times for Christians, but His grace is sufficient.
[i] Thank you, CanaAnglican, for the closest we’ve come to a positive comment. [/i]
Elf Lady
Ok, Kendall. Is it “to go anywhere?” (9# 12) From where I sit, it does not yet appear that there is or will be anywhere to go.
I said exactly what Matt said only with more Celtic passion and less Anglo intellect and niceness. It is too late for niceness. Did anyone actually read the draft of the Covenant? There is NO definition of real orthodoxy, moral requirements or means of actual discipline.
I am still hoping that someone here will generously read my posting # 8 and charitably answer my question: Why are people so invested in continuing to play this game? We just seem to be continually losing more ground.
[blockquote]
And, to top it off, as others have already noticed, there is no discipline whatsoever envisioned in this plan for TEC. The orthodox are seen as the divisive and difficult ones. TEC remains uninhibited and undisciplined.
[/blockquote]
This is the real point. TEC will not be disciplined by the AC. A Church that does not discipline is not a Church. The only way forward for the orthodox is GS realignment, and if that fails to materialize, it’s to some other branch of Christ’s Body I go. Despite the best intentions of Radner and Seitz, it seems to me that border crossing is a red herring in this mess. Everyone has forgotten or ignored the primates clarification and adjustment of Windsor at Dromatine that placed border crossing at a much lower level of seriousness than heterodox moral teaching and practice, yet it is the latter that will entail no discipline, no official sanctions and consequences, that will continue unabated and uninhibited, and it is the minor issue that the primates recognized as an unfortunate necessity that is being addressed by the communion. TEC has won the battle for the hearts and minds of the Canterbury AC. The GS needs to get on with a separate structure.
The so-called Windsor bishops are a great disappointment. They are proven to be institutionalists who are too cowardly to defend the faith. Just remember their collective silence at NO that was heard around the world. How shameful. It will take only two generations for the heterodox revisionists to consolidate their hold as the remaining orthodox bishops face retirement. It is sad to see that these bishops cannot see that the political game is over; there remains only mop-up operations that will continue at full speed from PB Shori and 815.
You have to wonder who leaked the news of the secret meeting and why. But regardless, I’m glad that +Howe has set the record straight.
I’m sorry to disappoint the Elves, but I have nothing good to say about this pathetic plan. It’s Dead On Arrival. I’m sure that the four bishops, all godly, sincere men with the best of intentions, think that this is the most that is realistically feasible within the context of TEC and the AC, as they currently exist.
But that’s just the problem. The old wineskins are just plain inadequate. That’s why we need a full-fledged New Reformation.
I agree with Kendall, and would state it even more emphatically. There is FAR too little differentiation here, and NO effective structural relief at all.
I say: To hell with the structures of TEC. And I mean that literally.
David Handy+
The time for half measures is over. No more business as usual.
Well, this could work, in theory, if it actually protected the orthodox parishes in revisionist diocese. It could do so by:
1. Permitting them to select their own clergy with an orthodox bishop when current clergy leave. Parishes must be protected against the diocese just “waiting them out” and looking for excuses to depose them. This is a big concern.
2. Permitting them to control their own property. The orthodox parish could promise not to sell it to anyone else, and to give it back if they stopped using it. Nothing wrong with that, is there?
3. Not requiring them to give money to support the national church and the diocese, other than nominal amounts to cover some operating costs of the diocese.
4. Ceasing all litigation.
5. If TEC violates these, the parish can depart with property.
There, with that I think we may have a deal. Unless this is not actually intended to extend any real protection to any orthodox, in which case I’m sure it would be withdrawn in response to any real request that it be modified to actually protect anyone.
Am I skeptical? After what has happened, I suppose so. Perhaps its proponents can explain how it actually protects the former TEC common cause parishes from being destroyed by TEC at its whim. If it is intended to do so.
Re #13 and many of the other comments: [i]”There is only one answer that makes any sense, & that’s to have ownership of & financial liability for the buildings securely vested in the local congregations, which will then affiliate with whomever they wish. If this had happened, 90% of the acrimony and recourse to lawyers could’ve been avoided.”[/i]
The same could be said for the English Civil War. If the Anglicans had just given up episcopacy and joined the Roundhead congregationalists, the whole thing could have been avoided.
Unfortunately for your position, there are still a few of us out here who think that “orthodoxy” involves having an orthodox, catholic, or Anglican doctrine of the church along with the rest of the package. Extracting the notion of episcopal oversight over unitary dioceses from the package is as unorthodox to us as extracting the orthodox doctrines of the Trinity or Incarnation (or the doctrine that the church can enforce biblical teachings on morality). A bishop that can be freely chosen or unchosen by independent congregations has no oversight; he has become simply an employee at will. I think Jesus had something to say about those who chose hirelings over shepherds.
This plan may be too little, too late, but it at least tries to seek a resolution within the bounds of the Anglican self-understanding, rather than arrogantly assuming that the Holy Spirit has taught us something better.
[#27] Dale Rye
The apostate bishops of TEC are not the faithful shepherds. They are the hirelings – except these hirelings don’t flee when the wolf shows up. They open the gate, and pick out sheep for the wolf to devour.
carl
Lumen Christie my heart goes out to you. While you’re shovelling snow these guys are shovelling something else, and your Bishop will buy into it. You ask, “WHY, why, why are so many orthodox so concerned to keep people within TEC? What’s the point?” Well I’ll ask you a question in return: Is there no clerical leadership in Albany with the courage to start a CANA or AMiA mission?
I prefer the Telegraph’s version of the story, although it is a bit dramatic. You have to admire Howe’s tenacity. He certainly is determined to stay within the Episcopal church. But, is this idea really anything but the status quo? What’s preventing anyone from doing this already? And isn’t it time to begin asking this question: What are the benefits of staying in the “Anglican Communion,” whatever that is? Is maintaining those ties really worth twisting yourself into a moral and theological pretzel?
Lumen Christie wrote:
[i]WHY, why, why are so many orthodox so concerned to keep people within TEC? What’s the point? I’m serious; I would love to understand this. [/i]
Dear #8: I will not presume to answer for the all “orthodox,” but will try to clarify the position of some. I am not interested in keeping anyone in TEC. Rather, just as some have discerned the Lord’s call to shake the dust off their feet and leave TEC, some have discerned a vocation to stay. What is my motive? I do not see my call as one to reform TEC. I do not see my call as one to discipline TEC. I do not see my call as one to blindly obey TEC. I understand my call to be to preach salvation to the lost, and in particular, in the context of TEC. Almost 20 years ago I was called into the ministry to do just that. I had no illusions about the orthodoxy of TEC then. For me little has changed; the reality of TEC has just become much more obvious. Thanks for asking.
An open missive to Bishop John Howe
[i] Comment on hold pending approval of Canon Harmon. [/i]
#27, re “there are still a few of us out here who think that ‘orthodoxy’ involves having an orthodox, catholic, or Anglican doctrine of the church along with the rest of the package.”
You can count me in that number. But, if that’s so important to you, why are you Episcopalian? Deciding whether Jesus was really the Christ every three years by majority vote at General Convention isn’t “catholic” – nor is it Apostolic, which you didn’t mention, but which Episcopalians purport to affirm every Sunday when they say the Nicene Creed.
Three reasons this plan has already failed several times:
1. This plan provides no help to the consciences of Episcopalians in revisionist diocese. They would still be required to fund, support, and promote ungodliness and heresy through their diocesan structures.
2. This plan does nothing to address the real theological needs of the church as it establishes no authority to help parishes or parishioners in need.
Shallow and superficial, structureless and powerless this kind of solution gives an appearance of compromise but simply maintains the status quo.
If I understand the ACI statement on a separate thread, this plan is actually extremely limited. It has nothing to say about the global south or parishes who are persecuted revisionist diocese. The episcopal visitors thing is just a throwaway. Rather, the plan only addresses the situation of a handful of TEC diocese, such as Central Florida, where there is a desire to remain in TEC but distance themselves from the national church. A continuation of Howe’s and ACI’s views on the limited role of the national church and the direct relationship between the bishop and the ABC. So not only does the plan not engage the problem splitting the communion, it is a misunderstanding to think it was even intended to. In other words, a nonevent, except as to a few diocese, and even then from a limited polity perspective.
I’m glad Petre works to try to uncover what goes on in secret, but really, it turns out to not be a plan addressing the split in the communion at all.
Lumen Christie-
People stay because all religion is essentially local and whole generations of faithful people sit in pews, praying, practicing Christian faith while the powers swirl around them. They see no reason to leave as no one has forced them to abandon their faith. (yet)
People stay because they believe in the unity of the Body of Christ.
People stay because this is the place where they came to know Jesus Christ and can’t entertain the notion of leaving.
People stay because they don’t know where else they would go.
Priests like me, stay because no real choices have yet been presented to us of where we might go. So, until I am forced out by TEC requiring me to be something other than “Nicene orthodox” in order to remain in ministry and as long as there is breath in my body I will proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ.
Like most of the people who blog on this site I am greatly saddened and sickened by what is happening in TEC. I cringe at the thought of what we are demonstrating to the unbelieving world. But the rancor of the church is simply evidence of our sinfulness and need of real reconciliation with God. While you might find a denomination that is perfect in doctrine and practice… (I certainly long for that!) the reality is that there is no where to go that will be a “purer” place to proclaim Christ crucified and risen. Humanity is broken everywhere. There is need everywhere. The dear people I serve and those who come to my congregation as ‘refugees’ from other congregations need a faithful pastor and preacher and priest. We all stay because Christ has not called us to leave.
I am not so sure, Pendennis. As everyone is pointing out, this is– at best– a halfway measure. In your words: “there is a desire to remain in TEC but distance themselves from the national church.” This is exactly the problem. It offers a pseudo-shelter for people to huddle in on their way to extermination. That is not “help” but betrayal.
In response to number 23, the response is to question why you are even bothering to ask the question, except that it is not a “game.”
Here are some answers:
–a concern for the unity of the church
–a concern for Catholic order in the church
–an awareness that Protestantism in America is a landscape simply riddled with sects and groups and one doesn’t want simply to add one more
–A sense that the Common Cause option is not working very well and has many problems under the surface.
As I said in Colorado, it is CRUCIAL in this time to sit light with our investment in our own decisions. Many of the responses here indicate the opposite, alas.
Calley: # 31. Thank you very much for answering my query. I appreciate your efforts. It is not the preaching to the lost that I question — may God prosper you — it is the effort of the “big thinkers” to make sure that the ex-lost stay within the institutional structure of lostness. That is what I can’t understand. They are neither cowards nor are they attached to their properties.
So, what’s the payoff? I can’t leave behind my grandfather’s identity as an Episcopalian? At the end of the day, the position of Katey and the ABC: “unity trumps truth” is identical to their own position. What’s the payoff?
I have been coming to regard some of these guys as Judas-goats who are leading the orthodox into the apostates’ sheepfolds.
Ignore me or hate me — I am not alone.
And Bill — trim your sails, my friend. We are trying to give Bp Bill time to get his act together — but we won’t wait for much longer.
Thank you, Kendall, very much for answering me. I appreciate it.
However, I still don’t see how the unity of the church, or catholic order, or genuine protestant principles are served by remaining compliant with an institutional structure which has abandoned all of these.
“Fragmenting” is, of course, not at all desirable. But what is the genuinely viable alternative? I need to have one.
And sorry, I wasn’t in Colorado. We in Albany continue to labor under a total information embargo. In many ways it would be easier to live in a hostile/liberal diocese where at least we would be able to communicate directly with the folks who are involved with whatever it is that’s going on. I have heard a rumor that all is not well in Common Cause, but we remain clueless here as to what options we might possibly have.
And sorry — I don’t think this is merely a game; far more is at stake. However, TEC [i]is[/i] indeed playing us for time, which is on their side, not ours. They are trying to keep their game of “who’s got the power” going, and they can’t continue to do that unless the orthodox agree to stay in their game, which is what has been going on.
I appreciate hearing from you, and I would appreciate hearing more.
If you have the time and the inclination and would prefer to answer my question in private, please get my email address from the elves. We have spoken in person in the past.
For Lumen Christie (#40) and any others who may not be aware of where/how to find Kendall’s Colorado talks, you’ll find the audio files and the text transcripts at Stand Firm:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/8457
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/8488
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/8506
The T19 discussion threads of the first two talks are here:
http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/8466
http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/8491
(there were no comments on the Q&A;section)
–elfgirl
RE: “We in Albany continue to labor under a total information embargo.”
Yikes.
Lumen Christie — it is really the responsibility of the committed traditional laypeople in a diocese to create their own information channels. That’s the way that it works when rectors or bishops won’t.
Someone somewhere should have already developed databases, email address lists, meetings/events, and so on and so on to keep everyone who wants that in the information channel.
Has any of that happened in Albany? It has been four years . . .
#38: Kendall, I am sorry, but worrying about the weaknesses under the surface the Common Cause partnership reminds me of the temptation of Polycarp to renounce his vows to the one true God. We must all work out our salvation as God calls us and with fear and trembling. One house is full of rot and money and not a good place to raise children, another is impoverished but well lighted and humble. Both are fertile mission fields in their own way. Neither is inhabitable without the grace of God. I disagree, too, that the Common Cause Partnership is not Catholic. The point I think we all agree on, however, is that we have taken solemn vows and among those is one to continue in the Apostle’s fellowship and teaching. Dark forces are making that very hard to do now and, like Polycarp, we are being bidden to take the easy way out.
Lumen Christie (#40),
I haven’t lived within the diocese for years, but as a priest of the Diocese of Albany I am happy to testify that I get regular email reports from Bishop Love, and these show me that there is no “embargo” on such delicate matters among the clergy at any rate.
I suggest you contact Fr. Shaw Mudge in Duanesburg. He’s the Secretary of the Diocese and a friend of mine. I am confident that you’d find him personally very sympathetic to your concerns, and he could put you in touch with others. You are not alone.
David Handy+
Proud to still be a priest of Albany
[i] Comment deleted by elf. [/i]
Once more, WITH FEELING, …
How many winds can 20 bishops blow
Until they are E-visitated?
The same number of bish-ops minus 8
When they’re E-viscerat-ed?
The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the Wind.(TM),
Camp Allen, and 09’s General Convention!
The answer, my friend, is twisting in the Wind.(TM),
Camp Allen, and 09’s General Convention!
By the by, since the HOB can’t bind the GCC to any plan of action, how’s it the PB can? Has she acquired super-papal powers or is this the result of the curial actions of her advisors over and above the alleged twenty bishops curiously twisting in the Wind.(TM)?
Did the Executive Council give the PB secret powers under a protocol in Ecuador? You know, an Executive Order, as opposed to catholic ORDER. Does that qualify as foreign interference in that case?
Really, the ABC with the Panel of Reference (anyone remember them?) experience under his belt ought to have seen through this with that intellectual brilliance he possesses. IF he actually has been involved, of course.
Well, David, as you say, you haven’t actually lived within this diocese in a very long time. A few people in the “in crowd” may get emails, but most of us don’t. There is an embargo, all right –among clergy. How nice for you that you know what’s going on. The rest of us wouln’t mind receiving such emails, but no such luck. People around here who ask too many questions have been getting shut down for years. There has been and continues to be NO venue for real honest open discussion. We had deanery meetings and no one had the guts to bring up the real concerns.
I talk to Shaw regularly. You might want to drop in “back home” occasionally and find out how things really are.
The complete illogic of this proposal is really quite easy to spot; in fact, embarrassingly so.
“The Communion Partners will be informally gathered – there will be no “charter” or formal structure.”
If there is no charter or formal structure, then what is it? A new list-serv? If anything is on paper–a list of acceptable episcopal visitors, for example–then that is a “charter” or “formal structure,” albeit a very simple one. If there isn’t, then this is no more than a gentlemen’s agreement, instantly revisable with a phone call or an e-mail, endlessly malleable according to the whims of whoever joins the latest meeting–except that there can’t be a meeting, since that would be a “formal structure.”
This is a classic exercise in futility.
RE: “There has been and continues to be NO venue for real honest open discussion.”
Hi Lumen Christie — why not create your own venue — off campus — and invite those of like mind — either fellow priests [don’t know if you are clergy or not] or fellow laity, or both?
Sarah — thanks. Some people read this and other blogs. Some people even talk to each other about their concerns. However, this is not encouraged, and the result has been to be “sent to Siberia” where the actual thoughts and “plans” — if there are any become inaccessible. There is a whole culture of secrecy that has been built up over years, and the level of trust is very low. There is fear of honesty.
A para-network can’t solve these problems. It is not just a matter of checking the “public” info sources. Where will our diocese be in 3 years? we don’t know. But apparently as compliant members of TEC, except that we will believe orthodox things in our own hearts will “flying under the Radar.” It feels like living in a gulag.
This elf is concerned at the extent to which this thread is delving into such detail in discussing the diocese of Albany. Perhaps further discussions should be taken off-blog, using the private message feature to contact others. If folks need help with such off-blog messaging (either how to use the Private Message feature, or in sharing e-mail addresses), please contact us.
Thanks.
Elfgirl
I’m late to this thread, but I want to thank Patti Hale and Kendall for what they have said. Leaving is not an obvious choice for many of us, for precisely the reasons they have laid out.
Johnathan Petre reported:
“According to insiders, Dr Williams has given his blessing to the plans to create an enclave for up to 20 conservative American bishops that would insulate them from their liberal colleagues.”
Maybe I misunderstood Bishop Howe’s letter but he seemed to extinguish that hope and to show more concern for insulating them from “border crossings” than from their “liberal colleagues”.