The final day of the conference and we all anxiously look forward to heading home. One last Bible study. We will miss our time together and appreciate the new friendships. The Archbishop concludes the afternoon with his third address. Though not all are pleased, we manage to survive without any resolutions. Thanks to the hard work of a small but industrious group of listeners and writers, including the leadership of your very own bishop, Neil Alexander, we are given a set of reflections which sums up the conversations of the past three weeks. I think we have had a break through, a serious time together without winners and losers, only brothers and sisters in Christ. In his closing sermon at the Cathedral, the Archbishop challenged us to take our reflections home and put some flesh on them as in “The Word became flesh.” He called us to make this a living document; to continue to work with the same collegiality that marked this conference. Pray God will give us the will and the ability to carry that out.
[blockquote]I think we have had a break through, a serious time together without winners and losers… [/blockquote]
I think it’s very sporting of him not to take his victory lap. The revisionists won, lock, stock and barrell and he know it.
“Without any resolutions” should read “without any resolution.”
Jeffersonian,
I’m not being coy here, but curiuous…do you have any real cause to classify +Whitmore as a revisionist? From speaking with him on several occasions, I got the impression that he’s a real centrist, if not right of center. That’s why I’m asking.
Keith Whitmore is a Nashotah grad and so is largely a theological conservative. I can second Shumanbean’s judgement here (I am in the diocese of Atlanta) based on second reports I have heard.
It would be interesting to find out how +Whitmore voted in GC 2003 and GC 2006 on various issues — though he may not have been a bishop back then.
On the other hand, he is an assistant bishop. He therefore needs to show deference to Neil Alexander, bishop of Atlanta, who wrote a book detailing his crossing the isle to the Revisionist view of human sexuality and his support of Gene Robinson. So Whitmore has got to mouth vague stuff about “the conversation” and such. He certainly can’t say anything critical about revisionists or about guys in purple using prelatial power to punish dissident parishes (all those p’s were accidental, btw).
I suspect Witmore might actually be the sort who can remain theologically conservative without damning his opponents.
Jefferson might be right about… “winning” although I’m not actually sure what “winning” entails, or what the stakes were. I guess we “won” in that the reasserters were not given authority to punish evildoers. I don’t feel like I’ve won, but since I don’t feel like I’ve lost, perhaps, in Jefferson’s view, I’ve won.
It might be the difference in worldview. I think thinking reappraisers don’t think in terms of victory when it comes to theological issues. Reasserters really seem to want to defeat reappraisers. That’s fine, but if you want victory, you might get defeated. If you are indifferent, however, it doesn’t matter.
#4… It sounds like you are saying that most people who are theological conservatives “damn their opponents.” Can you clarify what you mean?
Since when has an “Affirming Catholic” come to be reckoned as “a theological conservative?” Tell that one to Bishop Wantland!
It’s amazing to me as I read the various Bishops reflections on Lambeth how consistent their messages are: It will take time to unpackaged all we learned; we developed meaningful relationships; we did not vote on any legislation, which is a good thing etc. I wonder if there’s talking points somewhere, or am I just being cynical?