We have a “Camp Allen” bishop Ed Little going begging to Rowan Williams to let the cause of the tearing of the Anglican Communion have a full invitation. Pathetic. Stephen Noll had a comment once that traced the progression of orthodox bishops. I forget the name of the original larger organization. Then we had Windsor, then Network, then Camp Allen bishops who performed so ignominiously at the September HoB meeting. Chris Seitz is now lists 4 or 5 bishops which we could call Communion partner plan bishops (in which Ed Little, thankfully, is not mentioned). And then there will be one: Mark Lawrence my prayers are with you.
Amen, robroy. To make it worse, have we had any extended negotiations about getting in the excluded bishops that haven’t rejected Christian moral teaching – you know, the ones that share the Anglican faith of the centuries, but have the misfortune of having to be missionaries to those whose province doesn’t? But of course not. We see the Communion’s priorities, and the GAFCON decision looks better all the time.
Looks like the communion dodged a bullet. Too sad that it’s bleeding so badly from the wounds already received.
[size=2][color=red][url=http://resurrectioncommunitypersonal.blogspot.com/]The Rabbit[/url][/color][color=gray].[/color][/size]
“Throughout our conversation they referenced the “optics” involved in all of this, meaning the inter-communion perceptions and perspectives attached to +Gene’s participation”
So, Rowan, Kearon, et al would be happy to have +Gene there if it didn’t raise eyebrows… Perhaps their “optics” should be focused on scripture – they might develop an understanding of the conflict raging around them.
I cannot understand the level of hostility and the tone, Roy. Why does this seem to be something that you cannot let go of? Is there a psychological explanation? Why must it always be the case that anything associated with anything you do not ardently believe in is disparaged and elongated to some perverse purpose? 1. Ed Little did not attend the last two CA meetings; clearly he had a change of mind; is that good? not from the standpoint of what one might loosely call ‘orthodox’ concerns; 2. is there some major draining down of the ‘orthodox’ bishops of Camp Allen? It was always a mixed group. Three or so anti-WO Bishops. Duncan. The rest. The first two of these groups do not see eye to eye on WO, and it is obvious that there is not some One Plan for The Right. That is because we are in a time of judgment, and the ‘orthodox’ do not have the same problems and the same solutions in view. 3. The bishops who attended CA meetings are still the ones representing the core of whatever is associated with a Plan that may or may not survive the present HOB meeting: SC, Dallas, W-LA, TN, CFL, W-TX, TX, ND, Albany, perhaps SWFL, RI, W-Kansas, MS. That number has not changed. It is a fragile group. It does represent many leaders who have excellent dioceses and excellent theological and missional instincts. It just seems to be some kind of fixation to spend so much time finding fault with a group that is trying hard to maintain Christian witness in a difficult time. Why not just say you disagree and let it go at that? Some people have voted with their feet and joined things like CANA. Why isn’t that just a cause for rejoicing and moving on, and letting the rear view mirror driving now go? This is not an easy season, people are saying their prayers and doing what they believe God is calling them to do. Why is it necessary constantly to disparage and find fault? Ed Little is not identifying in any way with CA meetings now that he has moved in this direction, just as +Eau Claire apparently has given up whatever the direction of Wantland was.
I can’t speak for robroy, Chris Seitz, but this isn’t “a cause for rejoicing and moving on, and letting the rear view mirror driving now go” because CANA and AMiA want to be in the Communion, and believe they’re in the Communion. The only reason rhetoric and action is moving in a two-communion direction is because Rowan Williams, assisted by people like Ed Little, are more interested in making a place for those that don’t share the Anglican faith than for those that do. The message is, if one recklessly rips the fabric of our common life apart, one is rewarded, and if others quite sensibly, and in fidelity to Christian history, react in a missionary way to those abandoned, these are not welcome. I again call on you and the ACI to put your efforts into creating a safe harbor for the latter, and not the former.
ACI is doing what it has always done, which is trying to assist the bishops above, and continue to work for Communion assessment of a TEC clearly uninterested in being a robust communion member. Of course some people are rejoicing and moving on — from TEC. I was not commenting on the communion hopes of CANA et al. That is another topic and not all going this route agree about the Communion. Call all you want. We have our own understanding of what might constitute a ‘safe harbour’ and are pursuing it with all diligence. If this fails, there will be many options for people to choose from. There are now.
If I could just say one thing further, Rev. Seitz, your response begs the question. The institutional ruling seems to be that ECUSA gets the Anglican franchise here, and others need not apply. It seems those such as robroy have good reason to take continuing interest and even some anger at that franchise. When we see Canterbury put a premium on shared faith, and not whatever other criteria it’s using to give ECUSA sole billing; or when, for example, we see painstaking negotiating efforts taking place to put people like +Minns and +Bena at Lambeth, where they belong, instead of directing those efforts toward the man and institution that has nearly wrecked the Communion – then, I predict robroy and the rest of us will cease to care for what happens inside ECUSA.
If VGR is not getting a full invitation or a partial of any kind then doesn’t that basically say that he is not recognised as an Anglican Communion Bishop? If so, then New Hampshire doesn’t have a real Anglican Communion Bishop. His ordination is not being recognised by Canterbury, thus the see of New Hampshire it would seem to this naive and amatuer layperson, would be left unrepresented in the Anglican Communion. Why isn’t anyone looking at this?
Dear Chris, the hostility was directed at Ed Little who had the effrontery to plea for the man who is the personification of the Anglican crisis.
I do worry that we are losing the war of attrition. I am still an insider. The outside Anglican presence is now firmly established in North America, as you say, and it is growing. But like Bp Duncan, I would like to see success with inside strategy and do not want to see the dioceses picked off one by one (major example San Diego, lesser example of Tennessee who though still considered “Camp Allen” was a big compromise towards the left in comparison, say, to Neal Michel.) Central Florida is next, I assume. Then Texas?
“Reconciliation” is death to the orthodox. The chief proponent Brian Cox has the last orthodox parish in the Diocese of LA. Time to circle the wagons but also call for bold action.
One Day Closer (#10), You certainly have a very good point.
On another point, The Episcopal Church tore the fabric of the Anglican Communion, and continues to do so.
Instead of working on appointing a Receiver to inventory whatever is left of this compromised franchise, and moving on with re-forming, and Re-constituting, and re-launching the North American “c”hurch in conformity with the Anglican “C”hurch, Canterbury and other institutionalists are expending our limited resources and energy on fighting and insulting the missionary efforts of honorable men and women who are working hard on bringing some sense and meaning into what is left of the North American “c”hurch.
The inmates are now running the asylum and are prescribing medicine for the doctors. That is what we are witnessing: The likes of Via Media, Integrity, Gene Robinson, Louie Crew, etc. are the ones that are prescribing the treatment for the Anglican Communion. And the likes of Bishops Jack Leo Iker, Duncan, Akinola, etc. are the ones that don’t even get consulted any longer on very important Communion matters. Who is telling me this is the way to find a solution to this crisis?
Things have fallen apart, and the centre no longer holds. Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world. The fox is got the gun, and the hunter is now hunted.
Unbelievable (and very sad) development!
Lord Have Mercy!
VGR WILL be at Lambeth in front of the media. So, about twenty orthodox bishops should call their own media event. They will likely be asked something about VGR and some assertions or statements that he just made. The orthodox bishops should then just make the following statement:
“While Bishop Robinson was not invited to participate in our conference we wish to again go on record as supporting him during his recovery journey. He remains a valuable person in the Church of God. ” –End of statement. Walk away from the mikes and cameras. No questions.
Roy: Your description of affairs in TEC is unclear to me in its particulars. CFL, SC, Dallas, W-TX, W-LA, et al are in no immediate threat of being ‘picked off.’ Bauerschmidt is no liberal. I do not see any uniform ‘outside’ presence inside the US but rather a fair amount of confusion and discord over first-order matters like WO, divergent primatial plans and planners, etc. Here I take Toon, who has a huge amount of experience in such matters, as pretty sobering. Any inside hopes–I did not know you shared them–turn precisely on making sure the TEC bishops mentioned stay together and present a communion alternative for the Communion to see. That is what we have been working tirelessly for.
I differ with you in regards to the situation in Central Florida. It seems to me that chaos is reigning, and Howe is on is last legs before retirement.
As I said, probably Texas after that.
Bauerschmidt is no liberal but was a compromise. He refuses to allow parishes to join the Network from what I understand.
South Carolina is indeed the most stable.
But as San Diego shows, a diocese can go from solid orthodox to raging liberal in no time.
As I have said before, I am with Bp Duncan in desiring inside and outside strategies moving forward AND cooperating. Both sides are tenuous. Both need each other. It took the Western Allies and the Russians to defeat the enemy.
This is the headline on [url=http://www.embarqmail.com/news/news_reader.php?storyid=15888048&feedid=248]embarq (dot) com[/url]. It caused ME to do a double take, as I almost passed it up:
[b]Gay Bishop Out of Anglican Summit[/b]
2008-03-11 11:47:12
By RACHEL ZOLL AP Religion Writer
NEW YORK (AP) — The first openly gay Episcopal bishop announced he will have no official role in a meeting this summer of world Anglican leaders, saying restrictions that organizers wanted to place on his involvement had caused him “considerable pain.”
[blockquote] If VGR is not getting a full invitation or a partial of any kind then doesn’t that basically say that he is not recognised as an Anglican Communion Bishop? [/blockquote]
Personally, I hope that is the case. I wish Rowan would simply come out and say that, in his opinion, the see of NH is vacant just as I hope he will soon do with the see of SJ until their new provisional bishop is elected, but it’ll come as no surprise to anyone that Rowan lacks a great deal in being forthright. But what is good for the goose, is good for the gander: if Robinson is not invited, it should mean that he is not recognized, just as if Schofield is disinvited, it should mean that he is not recognized.
On the other hand, wasn’t there something about invitations not going out to bishops whose moral actions were questionable, i.e., that bishop in Africa whose name I can never remember? Robinson would certainly fit under this category of moral question although Schofield would not.
Do you all really believe it is true that all of us who post on this blog with one exception are idiots?
I wish there could be a little more self-awareness of one man’s wisdom in relation to that of another–in other words just a hint at Lenten humility–that our discussion here could in some way be a witness to how theological debate and church life can properly be engaged.
Discounting one another has recently become so much the weapon of choice that reasonable insights can hardly be developed from what could otherwise be a civil conversation.
Am not sure if I follow all the above, but it seems to me we have a “house divided against itself” situation, that American Anglicans and Episcopalians (and maybe members of the world-wide Communion), will find peace, together, only after a massive episcopal house cleaning of one side by the other– just as Stuarts and Bourbons excluded regicides, or the Convention hunted down aristos and Girondins. Not clear to me, for example, how reasserting clergy can ever stay in harness with those who voted for VGR, even for the sake of holding a Lambeth meeting or presenting some kind of “communion alternative.” Right now, “confusion and discord,” with no end in sight, are what we have. The only clarity comes from the five African and South American bishops who are staying away from Lambeth.
And why wouldn’t +Schofield not be recognized and invited? He is, after all, an Anglican bishop of the Church of the Southern Cone of the Americas, and all of these bishops are recognized, aren’t they? Or would you rather argue with ++Venables and the rest of his bishops? Good luck, Smuggs!
We’ve already had that discussion, cowboy. As of today, Schofield will be deposed by the HOB. He will continue to act on behalf of the Southern Cone but I believe he will be and should be put in the same category as Minns et. al. We’ve said all this before. You think I’m wrong. I think you’re wrong. Yada, yada. And as to your last question…please. I have as much respect for Venables as I do for Schofield as I do for Robinson as I do for Andrus. Nada.
Let’s see: my father, brother, uncle, grandfather were or all are resident canonically in CFL. So am I. I met with the dean of the Cathedral last Monday (together with a wider rector group from all over the US). But I am lacking humility in questioning how someone from Pueblo CO is right about the fate of the diocese?
Lenten discipline? You bet. Maybe it could be a good time to lean into CANA and let old battles go? I know I find them tiresome.
Leaving for CANA is not abandonment of commitments to an Anglican presence in the United States nor does it reflect a lack of interest in TEC…so a Lenten discipline to lean into CANA and leave old TEC interests to the past misses the point…rather CANA offers an opportunity and a community in which to stand firm against those very abuses that led to my own parishes departure from TEC, one of which was exactly the point raised by RobRoy, the Mark Lawrence affair and the dim prospects for the election of orthodox bishops in the future.
My own experience as a parish priest in the United States for thirty years and attending meeting after meeting around the Communion is that each setting has its own presenting problems and the larger hope was always that people would see beyond their own circumstances to embrace a more trans-narcissistic care of being.
CANA reaches out from an understanding of current circumstances and untenable situations to offer protection and refocused potential for gospel ministry for those abused and hindered by the larger Episcopal Church, and especially for those in aggressively hostile dioceses. But in doing so does not loose sight of the problems facing the larger body, and the overriding issues of unity in faith and the fulfillment of gospel imperatives.
If we ghettoize our work with short term goals, like simply holding a diocese intact through the remainder of the current bishop’s tenure…or keeping enough of a parish together to fund the rector’s pension…we will have lost sight of the larger problems of right teaching, gospel faithfulness, ecclesia as opposed to institution (read Brunner), and the needs and witness of the larger Communion.
It is for these reasons that respectful conversation among conservatives, rather just playing the game of who can trump whom, is essential if we are to have a larger witness and serve of greater common good.
Thank you #28. The misrepresentations could just multiply. I never offered any judgments about the ‘outside strategy’ people. Would that that would be returned as a courtesy.
#17:
My implication was that a large group of truly orthodox bishops should call their own press conferences apart from the smiling, accomodating Rowan. I’m not referring to the “mass of passive” or the “mitered malaise” like my own bishop. (He’ll be there with nothing to add or say except to nod his head in the background). It’s time for steel spines to show up and do something to overcome the left tide and the middle with their passivity.
If VGR is not getting a full invitation or a partial of any kind then doesn’t that basically say that he is not recognised as an Anglican Communion Bishop? If so, then New Hampshire doesn’t have a real Anglican Communion Bishop. His ordination is not being recognised by Canterbury, thus the see of New Hampshire it would seem to this naive and amatuer layperson, would be left unrepresented in the Anglican Communion. Why isn’t anyone looking at this?
It doesn’t mean that. When +++Rowan sent out the Lambeth invites, he explicitly noted that he was not inviting bishops whose consecrations were undertaken against the advice of the Instruments of Communion. +VGR falls into this category, as does +Minns, at least so far as the ABC sees things. That does not mean that they are not bishops, nor even that they are not bishops of the Anglican Communion; but rather that they are bishops who, because of the circumstances of their consecrations, ought not to be at a gathering which is supposed to express the unity of the Communion.
+Schofield is another question entirely. Whatever the HOB does or doesn’t do, he’s clearly not in the same category of advised-against-consecrations as +VGR and +Minns. I have no idea what +++Rowan will do with his invitation — rescind it or let it stand. Either way, he’s going to tick off a lot of people.
We have a “Camp Allen” bishop Ed Little going begging to Rowan Williams to let the cause of the tearing of the Anglican Communion have a full invitation. Pathetic. Stephen Noll had a comment once that traced the progression of orthodox bishops. I forget the name of the original larger organization. Then we had Windsor, then Network, then Camp Allen bishops who performed so ignominiously at the September HoB meeting. Chris Seitz is now lists 4 or 5 bishops which we could call Communion partner plan bishops (in which Ed Little, thankfully, is not mentioned). And then there will be one: Mark Lawrence my prayers are with you.
Amen, robroy. To make it worse, have we had any extended negotiations about getting in the excluded bishops that haven’t rejected Christian moral teaching – you know, the ones that share the Anglican faith of the centuries, but have the misfortune of having to be missionaries to those whose province doesn’t? But of course not. We see the Communion’s priorities, and the GAFCON decision looks better all the time.
Looks like the communion dodged a bullet. Too sad that it’s bleeding so badly from the wounds already received.
[size=2][color=red][url=http://resurrectioncommunitypersonal.blogspot.com/]The Rabbit[/url][/color][color=gray].[/color][/size]
“Throughout our conversation they referenced the “optics” involved in all of this, meaning the inter-communion perceptions and perspectives attached to +Gene’s participation”
So, Rowan, Kearon, et al would be happy to have +Gene there if it didn’t raise eyebrows… Perhaps their “optics” should be focused on scripture – they might develop an understanding of the conflict raging around them.
I cannot understand the level of hostility and the tone, Roy. Why does this seem to be something that you cannot let go of? Is there a psychological explanation? Why must it always be the case that anything associated with anything you do not ardently believe in is disparaged and elongated to some perverse purpose? 1. Ed Little did not attend the last two CA meetings; clearly he had a change of mind; is that good? not from the standpoint of what one might loosely call ‘orthodox’ concerns; 2. is there some major draining down of the ‘orthodox’ bishops of Camp Allen? It was always a mixed group. Three or so anti-WO Bishops. Duncan. The rest. The first two of these groups do not see eye to eye on WO, and it is obvious that there is not some One Plan for The Right. That is because we are in a time of judgment, and the ‘orthodox’ do not have the same problems and the same solutions in view. 3. The bishops who attended CA meetings are still the ones representing the core of whatever is associated with a Plan that may or may not survive the present HOB meeting: SC, Dallas, W-LA, TN, CFL, W-TX, TX, ND, Albany, perhaps SWFL, RI, W-Kansas, MS. That number has not changed. It is a fragile group. It does represent many leaders who have excellent dioceses and excellent theological and missional instincts. It just seems to be some kind of fixation to spend so much time finding fault with a group that is trying hard to maintain Christian witness in a difficult time. Why not just say you disagree and let it go at that? Some people have voted with their feet and joined things like CANA. Why isn’t that just a cause for rejoicing and moving on, and letting the rear view mirror driving now go? This is not an easy season, people are saying their prayers and doing what they believe God is calling them to do. Why is it necessary constantly to disparage and find fault? Ed Little is not identifying in any way with CA meetings now that he has moved in this direction, just as +Eau Claire apparently has given up whatever the direction of Wantland was.
Forgive the dumb question-
Has +Mark Lawrence of SC not been invited to Lambeth? If so, why?
I can’t speak for robroy, Chris Seitz, but this isn’t “a cause for rejoicing and moving on, and letting the rear view mirror driving now go” because CANA and AMiA want to be in the Communion, and believe they’re in the Communion. The only reason rhetoric and action is moving in a two-communion direction is because Rowan Williams, assisted by people like Ed Little, are more interested in making a place for those that don’t share the Anglican faith than for those that do. The message is, if one recklessly rips the fabric of our common life apart, one is rewarded, and if others quite sensibly, and in fidelity to Christian history, react in a missionary way to those abandoned, these are not welcome. I again call on you and the ACI to put your efforts into creating a safe harbor for the latter, and not the former.
ACI is doing what it has always done, which is trying to assist the bishops above, and continue to work for Communion assessment of a TEC clearly uninterested in being a robust communion member. Of course some people are rejoicing and moving on — from TEC. I was not commenting on the communion hopes of CANA et al. That is another topic and not all going this route agree about the Communion. Call all you want. We have our own understanding of what might constitute a ‘safe harbour’ and are pursuing it with all diligence. If this fails, there will be many options for people to choose from. There are now.
If I could just say one thing further, Rev. Seitz, your response begs the question. The institutional ruling seems to be that ECUSA gets the Anglican franchise here, and others need not apply. It seems those such as robroy have good reason to take continuing interest and even some anger at that franchise. When we see Canterbury put a premium on shared faith, and not whatever other criteria it’s using to give ECUSA sole billing; or when, for example, we see painstaking negotiating efforts taking place to put people like +Minns and +Bena at Lambeth, where they belong, instead of directing those efforts toward the man and institution that has nearly wrecked the Communion – then, I predict robroy and the rest of us will cease to care for what happens inside ECUSA.
If VGR is not getting a full invitation or a partial of any kind then doesn’t that basically say that he is not recognised as an Anglican Communion Bishop? If so, then New Hampshire doesn’t have a real Anglican Communion Bishop. His ordination is not being recognised by Canterbury, thus the see of New Hampshire it would seem to this naive and amatuer layperson, would be left unrepresented in the Anglican Communion. Why isn’t anyone looking at this?
Dear Chris, the hostility was directed at Ed Little who had the effrontery to plea for the man who is the personification of the Anglican crisis.
I do worry that we are losing the war of attrition. I am still an insider. The outside Anglican presence is now firmly established in North America, as you say, and it is growing. But like Bp Duncan, I would like to see success with inside strategy and do not want to see the dioceses picked off one by one (major example San Diego, lesser example of Tennessee who though still considered “Camp Allen” was a big compromise towards the left in comparison, say, to Neal Michel.) Central Florida is next, I assume. Then Texas?
“Reconciliation” is death to the orthodox. The chief proponent Brian Cox has the last orthodox parish in the Diocese of LA. Time to circle the wagons but also call for bold action.
One Day Closer (#10), You certainly have a very good point.
On another point, The Episcopal Church tore the fabric of the Anglican Communion, and continues to do so.
Instead of working on appointing a Receiver to inventory whatever is left of this compromised franchise, and moving on with re-forming, and Re-constituting, and re-launching the North American “c”hurch in conformity with the Anglican “C”hurch, Canterbury and other institutionalists are expending our limited resources and energy on fighting and insulting the missionary efforts of honorable men and women who are working hard on bringing some sense and meaning into what is left of the North American “c”hurch.
The inmates are now running the asylum and are prescribing medicine for the doctors. That is what we are witnessing: The likes of Via Media, Integrity, Gene Robinson, Louie Crew, etc. are the ones that are prescribing the treatment for the Anglican Communion. And the likes of Bishops Jack Leo Iker, Duncan, Akinola, etc. are the ones that don’t even get consulted any longer on very important Communion matters. Who is telling me this is the way to find a solution to this crisis?
Things have fallen apart, and the centre no longer holds. Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world. The fox is got the gun, and the hunter is now hunted.
Unbelievable (and very sad) development!
Lord Have Mercy!
Fr. Kingsley Jon-Ubabuco
Arlington, TX
VGR WILL be at Lambeth in front of the media. So, about twenty orthodox bishops should call their own media event. They will likely be asked something about VGR and some assertions or statements that he just made. The orthodox bishops should then just make the following statement:
“While Bishop Robinson was not invited to participate in our conference we wish to again go on record as supporting him during his recovery journey. He remains a valuable person in the Church of God. ” –End of statement. Walk away from the mikes and cameras. No questions.
[i] Slightly edited by elf. [/i]
Roy: Your description of affairs in TEC is unclear to me in its particulars. CFL, SC, Dallas, W-TX, W-LA, et al are in no immediate threat of being ‘picked off.’ Bauerschmidt is no liberal. I do not see any uniform ‘outside’ presence inside the US but rather a fair amount of confusion and discord over first-order matters like WO, divergent primatial plans and planners, etc. Here I take Toon, who has a huge amount of experience in such matters, as pretty sobering. Any inside hopes–I did not know you shared them–turn precisely on making sure the TEC bishops mentioned stay together and present a communion alternative for the Communion to see. That is what we have been working tirelessly for.
I differ with you in regards to the situation in Central Florida. It seems to me that chaos is reigning, and Howe is on is last legs before retirement.
As I said, probably Texas after that.
Bauerschmidt is no liberal but was a compromise. He refuses to allow parishes to join the Network from what I understand.
South Carolina is indeed the most stable.
But as San Diego shows, a diocese can go from solid orthodox to raging liberal in no time.
As I have said before, I am with Bp Duncan in desiring inside and outside strategies moving forward AND cooperating. Both sides are tenuous. Both need each other. It took the Western Allies and the Russians to defeat the enemy.
This is the headline on [url=http://www.embarqmail.com/news/news_reader.php?storyid=15888048&feedid=248]embarq (dot) com[/url]. It caused ME to do a double take, as I almost passed it up:
[b]Gay Bishop Out of Anglican Summit[/b]
2008-03-11 11:47:12
By RACHEL ZOLL AP Religion Writer
NEW YORK (AP) — The first openly gay Episcopal bishop announced he will have no official role in a meeting this summer of world Anglican leaders, saying restrictions that organizers wanted to place on his involvement had caused him “considerable pain.”
Choir Stall, I think they WILL call their own media event…..and why not?
Roy: you do not know enough about CFL. Your information is wrong.
[blockquote] If VGR is not getting a full invitation or a partial of any kind then doesn’t that basically say that he is not recognised as an Anglican Communion Bishop? [/blockquote]
Personally, I hope that is the case. I wish Rowan would simply come out and say that, in his opinion, the see of NH is vacant just as I hope he will soon do with the see of SJ until their new provisional bishop is elected, but it’ll come as no surprise to anyone that Rowan lacks a great deal in being forthright. But what is good for the goose, is good for the gander: if Robinson is not invited, it should mean that he is not recognized, just as if Schofield is disinvited, it should mean that he is not recognized.
On the other hand, wasn’t there something about invitations not going out to bishops whose moral actions were questionable, i.e., that bishop in Africa whose name I can never remember? Robinson would certainly fit under this category of moral question although Schofield would not.
Do you all really believe it is true that all of us who post on this blog with one exception are idiots?
I wish there could be a little more self-awareness of one man’s wisdom in relation to that of another–in other words just a hint at Lenten humility–that our discussion here could in some way be a witness to how theological debate and church life can properly be engaged.
Discounting one another has recently become so much the weapon of choice that reasonable insights can hardly be developed from what could otherwise be a civil conversation.
Am not sure if I follow all the above, but it seems to me we have a “house divided against itself” situation, that American Anglicans and Episcopalians (and maybe members of the world-wide Communion), will find peace, together, only after a massive episcopal house cleaning of one side by the other– just as Stuarts and Bourbons excluded regicides, or the Convention hunted down aristos and Girondins. Not clear to me, for example, how reasserting clergy can ever stay in harness with those who voted for VGR, even for the sake of holding a Lambeth meeting or presenting some kind of “communion alternative.” Right now, “confusion and discord,” with no end in sight, are what we have. The only clarity comes from the five African and South American bishops who are staying away from Lambeth.
And why wouldn’t +Schofield not be recognized and invited? He is, after all, an Anglican bishop of the Church of the Southern Cone of the Americas, and all of these bishops are recognized, aren’t they? Or would you rather argue with ++Venables and the rest of his bishops? Good luck, Smuggs!
I meant to say “And why WOULD +Schofield not be recognized?”
We’ve already had that discussion, cowboy. As of today, Schofield will be deposed by the HOB. He will continue to act on behalf of the Southern Cone but I believe he will be and should be put in the same category as Minns et. al. We’ve said all this before. You think I’m wrong. I think you’re wrong. Yada, yada. And as to your last question…please. I have as much respect for Venables as I do for Schofield as I do for Robinson as I do for Andrus. Nada.
#26–presumably the comment is directed to me.
Let’s see: my father, brother, uncle, grandfather were or all are resident canonically in CFL. So am I. I met with the dean of the Cathedral last Monday (together with a wider rector group from all over the US). But I am lacking humility in questioning how someone from Pueblo CO is right about the fate of the diocese?
Lenten discipline? You bet. Maybe it could be a good time to lean into CANA and let old battles go? I know I find them tiresome.
Make tht #20. Lenten best wishes.
Leaving for CANA is not abandonment of commitments to an Anglican presence in the United States nor does it reflect a lack of interest in TEC…so a Lenten discipline to lean into CANA and leave old TEC interests to the past misses the point…rather CANA offers an opportunity and a community in which to stand firm against those very abuses that led to my own parishes departure from TEC, one of which was exactly the point raised by RobRoy, the Mark Lawrence affair and the dim prospects for the election of orthodox bishops in the future.
My own experience as a parish priest in the United States for thirty years and attending meeting after meeting around the Communion is that each setting has its own presenting problems and the larger hope was always that people would see beyond their own circumstances to embrace a more trans-narcissistic care of being.
CANA reaches out from an understanding of current circumstances and untenable situations to offer protection and refocused potential for gospel ministry for those abused and hindered by the larger Episcopal Church, and especially for those in aggressively hostile dioceses. But in doing so does not loose sight of the problems facing the larger body, and the overriding issues of unity in faith and the fulfillment of gospel imperatives.
If we ghettoize our work with short term goals, like simply holding a diocese intact through the remainder of the current bishop’s tenure…or keeping enough of a parish together to fund the rector’s pension…we will have lost sight of the larger problems of right teaching, gospel faithfulness, ecclesia as opposed to institution (read Brunner), and the needs and witness of the larger Communion.
It is for these reasons that respectful conversation among conservatives, rather just playing the game of who can trump whom, is essential if we are to have a larger witness and serve of greater common good.
[i] Please! It’s time to return to a discussion of the original post or close this thread. [/i]
-Elf Lady
Thank you #28. The misrepresentations could just multiply. I never offered any judgments about the ‘outside strategy’ people. Would that that would be returned as a courtesy.
#17:
My implication was that a large group of truly orthodox bishops should call their own press conferences apart from the smiling, accomodating Rowan. I’m not referring to the “mass of passive” or the “mitered malaise” like my own bishop. (He’ll be there with nothing to add or say except to nod his head in the background). It’s time for steel spines to show up and do something to overcome the left tide and the middle with their passivity.
#10 One Day Closer says:
It doesn’t mean that. When +++Rowan sent out the Lambeth invites, he explicitly noted that he was not inviting bishops whose consecrations were undertaken against the advice of the Instruments of Communion. +VGR falls into this category, as does +Minns, at least so far as the ABC sees things. That does not mean that they are not bishops, nor even that they are not bishops of the Anglican Communion; but rather that they are bishops who, because of the circumstances of their consecrations, ought not to be at a gathering which is supposed to express the unity of the Communion.
+Schofield is another question entirely. Whatever the HOB does or doesn’t do, he’s clearly not in the same category of advised-against-consecrations as +VGR and +Minns. I have no idea what +++Rowan will do with his invitation — rescind it or let it stand. Either way, he’s going to tick off a lot of people.