A number of Episcopal Life Online readers responded critically to the news about Cox and Schofield.
Among them, Ian Montgomery of Neenah, Wisconsin, called the depositions “a travesty and worthy of the inquisition of old.”
Greg Shore of Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, wrote that it was “shameful” to depose bishops who leave the Episcopal Church “while refusing to depose bishops who abandon the faith which they promised to defend.”
However, the Rev. Dr. Raymond Hoche-Mong of Montara, California, wrote to say that Schofield has encouraged schism. “Schofield has insisted that he and he alone has the ability to speak for the Episcopal Church and in so doing has rejected the catholicity of the Church,” he wrote.
Katherine Clark of Racine, Wisconsin, responded with a caution and a request. She wrote “to remind our Bishops that there is one group of people who are troubled to think the Church we love may not continue to seek the mind of Christ on this issue but content itself with acting responsively to those whose position against homosexuals is so strong and unbending.”
“Those who question inclusion with charity and dignity and from their own allegiance to Scripture [are] another matter altogether,” Clarke wrote. “Their opinion will surely be important as we seek the mind of Christ (which St. Paul says is already ours). I would like to suggest that this very large (and not vocal) group of laypeople who see inclusion as a Gospel mandate might be included in any acknowledgement of ‘pain’ this division of opinion is causing.”
On the one hand, ELO gives a decent array of quotes from a variety of perspectives in this article.
On the other, the piece ends with a silly editorial about the “distinct minority” of those writing in to oppose +VGR going to Lambeth. This is the usual 815 propaganda about “a very small group” that disagrees with the TEC party line. Sure, very few wrote in with that point of view – but that’s because they are posting to Stand Firm and other places, while TEC loyalists will be more heavily represented at ELO.
I have the idea that the “deposition” of the two bishops, together with proposed similar action towards two more may have a significant impact upon inter-Anglican relations. We have yet to see how the rest of the Communion reacts, but I think our bishops may have wandered into uncharted territory.
Certainly it would have been possible for some form of censure or perhaps suspension of membership in the HofB or the right to function ministerially within TEC in the USA -I’m not clear how this works in TEC’s overseas outposts – without resorting to the use of language which at best is theologically illiterate and at worst gives the impression of vengeance.
As a child of the 70’s whenever I see “ELO” I think of “Electric Light Orchestra” and rather bad disco music.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Thanks, Philip. I’m glad I wasn’t the only one. 🙂
“Schofield has insisted that he and he alone has the ability to speak for the Episcopal Church and in so doing has rejected the catholicity of the Church” —Raymond Hoche-Mong
ECUSA has insisted that it can do as it pleases, and in so doing has rejected the catholicity both of the Anglican Communion and of Christ’s universal church.
You nailed it, Irenaeus. It’s a sad commentary on whatever passes for catechism in ECUSA that Mr. Hoche-Mong could make that statement and (presumably) not see he’s created a neat package of irony and theological ignorance.
Oh Phillip, don’t bring me down!
I was kinda impressed ELO not only ran the story but included so many quotations from those critical of the deposition.
Wow, after two or three attempts to submit postings to ELO contradicting that “All is not well”, I got banned. Now, the let some comments throught that don’t tow the party line.
In one week, the Schorites depose three godly bishops over 70 who have given their lives in the service of the church and the Lord, one of whom has a son who is dying and the TEC was asked to delay this, and the other two offered their resignation so that the TEc could avoid the scandal. Mean spirited? Vindictive? Poor PR?
How can anyone compare a Bishop and Diocese leaving the church to be “un-catholic? To be catholic, the TEC must be in communion with the rest of the communion. They have proven that they are not by their actions. They have acted in a very selfish way and do not care what the rest of the communion thinks. All this dialogue that Integrity (an oxymoron if there ever was one) talks about is them talk us agree or else. That is not dialogue, that is them acting in a very selfish and non Christian way. All of the revisionists have become like Hitler’s storm troopers. They take no prisoners, you either comply or leave with a law suit following you. Why can’t people get it through their heads, this is not about homosexuality. It is about the authority of the Bible, The Divinity of Christ, and 2000 years of following Christ. Sex of any kind is just the presenting issue. The bible states that any sex, outside of the marriage of one man and one woman is sinful. It also says that homosexual acts are wrong and abominations. That has to include sinful as well. If you are not married as in one man to one woman, then sex is out of bounds. Now when Susan Russell gets married to one man, they can have all the sex they want how ever she wants it as long as it is with each other. Any thing else is forbidden. Is the Bible so confusing that she and others can not read that. Plain language should be enough. It (the Bible) doesn’t need us trying to re-write it to fit our wants. They just need to get over their own selfishness and repent. Remain celebate, and anyone is welcome.
[blockquote]Katherine Clark of Racine, Wisconsin, responded with a caution and a request. She wrote “to remind our Bishops that there is one group of people who are troubled to think the Church we love may not continue to seek the mind of Christ on this issue but content itself with acting responsively to those whose position against homosexuals is so strong and unbending.”
“Those who question inclusion with charity and dignity and from their own allegiance to Scripture [are] another matter altogether,” Clarke wrote. “Their opinion will surely be important as we seek the mind of Christ (which St. Paul says is already ours). I would like to suggest that this very large (and not vocal) group of laypeople who see inclusion as a Gospel mandate might be included in any acknowledgement of ‘pain’ this division of opinion is causing.”[/blockquote]
Uh… I think I agree with this. If I can figure out what on earth she means.
I [i]think[/i] she is saying – without quite coming out and saying she agrees or disagrees with the current “direction” of TEC – that the dominant faction needs to be a bit more loving toward those who disagree with “inclusion” and need to acknowledge that they also are causing “pain” even if they (think they) are right on on he “inclusion” issue.
Is she British?