[i]Note from the elves: We’ll accept further comments to the thread by e-mail: T19elves@yahoo.com[/i]
[i]Note from the elves: We’ll accept further comments to the thread by e-mail: T19elves@yahoo.com[/i]
[blockquote]It has been said that you are isolated and alone. We want you and the world to know that in this decision for the faith once delivered to the saints, we stand with you and beside you. [/blockquote]
This wonderful missive should allay Katherine Jefferts Schori’s concerns about Bp Schofield’s isolation!
Where are all the TEC bishops?
Note that the Good Bishop of Rochester signed.
Sadly, but not completely surprisingly, Bishop Howe from the dio of Central Florida is not among the signatories — to the further detriment of any position on orthodoxy he still somehow holds while holding place in an increasingly heterodox organization. I see nothing in the letter that should have given him pause. Why did he not sign? Guess he is utterly unwilling to stand with the 31.
Suspect he desires to go down with the ship and take the dio with him. Mass martyrdom of a sort.
Would someone somewhere (likely in a separate thread) tell us all why (without resorting to excessively flowery, pedantic, plethoric procedural language) supposedly orthodox bishops take positions such as Bishop Howe’s? By not signing, he has taken a position, by the way.
# 2 – like you, am disappointed in lack of signers. This is not an indication of intent to do the same. It is an endorsement to the fact that Bishop Scholfield is not insolated…….Silly me, I have assumed that the so called “Windsor Bishops” would still enjoy a phone call from the man, but perhaps only in secret so PB wouldn’t know about it…..Thank you to those TEC bishops who have the guts to speak up about the isolation crack….
Bishop Jackson Biggers (Northern Malawi retired) and Bishop John Guernsey (Province of Uganda) have asked that their names be added to the list.
+JLI
I am disappointed that Bishop Salmon’s name is not on the list. It is my hope that South Carolina will follow San Joaquin’s lead.
I know this is an off-topic quibble, but the incorrect apostrophe in the headline makes me want to poke my eyes out with a sharp stick.
[i] Done. [/i]
Scott K — Please don’t do it: It isn’t worth it, !.
I would hope that +elect Lawrence would add his name as well. Maybe he’s waiting until he is consecrated……
Please don’t judge +elect Lawrence until he gets his feet on solid ground. Most have NO idea what may or may not happen between now and his consecration.
There will be plenty of time to see what he’s made of, AFTERWARD.
Gloria in SC
#4 – I imagine that many of us, like a large number of the writers at [url=http://www.covenant-communion.com]Covenant[/url], find themselves sympathetic to the concerns of San Joaquin and Ft. Worth but struggle with questions of “good catholic order.” What is the ecclesiological status of a province? A diocese? Is the Communion the church in its Anglican instantiation, or is it merely a federation of provinces that are themselves separate churches? And what is the relationship of a bishop to each? These seem to be different questions than that of the relation of a parish to its bishop. Do our answers to those questions, given our creedal confession that we are one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church, have anything to do with illuminating the path of faithfulness? Have we (the Church catholic) resolved those questions already, or are they open questions that we Anglicans must now answer in our particular witness through the Covenant process? I believe that many Anglicans sympathize with the concerns of San Joaquin and other dioceses but are at different stages of discernment of the answers to these questions, and, indeed, disagree about how we are to go about the process of discernment.
Is this supposed to be “preaching to the choir” or a shot across the bow? I can’t imagine it will have much sway one way or the other. For those who agree, it’s a reason to cheer. For those who view Bishop Iker et al as irrelevant or evil, it will confirm what they already think and change no minds.
Re Scott # 8 above: Like you I noticed it straight away. The grammatical error has not been corrected on the DSJ site although I did email Van some hours ago suggesting that it be done. You could say it is demotic usage and therefore does not matter. Or you could say that it indicates a certain cavalier attitude to accuracy.
Dallasite
I think it is meant simply as a show of support and friendship to +Schofield. Once you take out the retired bishops and the bishops not recognized by the ABC, the list is quite small.
I don’t know most of the names, but at first glance it looks as though perhaps four are current TEC, another four are retired TEC, and a couple are US CANA or similar. I wonder if those bishops support Bishop Schofield’s actions at St Nicholas on Christmas Day, whether they see such actions as necessary “collateral damage” in support of an overall goal, or whether they’ve had cause for second thoughts.
Please find and read the “details” of what happened at St. Nicholas.
I will not tell you where, but its out there, and I’ll guarantee, with remarks like the above, you do not have even the beginning of the full story.
Gloria in SC
The interesting thing about this list is the somewhat alarming [for some] number of COE bishops.
RE: “Is this supposed to be “preaching to the choir†or a shot across the bow?”
I imagine it is to serve the same purpose as the communication from Bishop KJS to Bishop Schofield that he must feel isolated and alone. Whether her communication to him was a shot across the bow or preaching to the choir is unknown. ; > )
Where are all the TEC bishops? I assume you mean the orthodox/Windsor/Camp Allen bishops. They prize their precious collegiality over protecting the faith (as witnessed by their abysmal performance at New Orleans), so I certainly did not expect any else from them.
Gloria in SC,
I’d be happy to follow links to the details you allude to, please provide if possible. From the St Nicholas site, and from various so-called “first-hand” accounts, it doesn’t sound like a pleasant story.
The reason I ask my question above in #16 is that it’s one thing to rail against the establishment (815 in this case), but quite another to experience directly and personally the pain in another individual.
[i] Information is available on many sites. [/i]
The usual suspects – it is a sign of consistency of belief, if nothing else.
Leaving TEC is not part of the agenda of the Windsor Bishops, sitting is silence and protecting what is left and dying a slow death rather than a living a bold life seems to be their MO.
I wouldn’t see them doing anything as courageous as supporting their colleague John-David–but as one the Windsor Bishops sometimes says: if they are treating someone else this way, they will most likely treat you this way sooner or later.
So I suppose that as a group they are all risk such averted personalities that they are ripe to eventually be picked off one by one, with the others not raising a voice in protest as their fellow Windosr Bishops are taken to the law courts and slaughter houses.
Having sat in their meetings my expectations for this group are very low.
Don Armstrong
[i] This is not a thread about Windsor Bishops. let’s not get off topic, please. [/i]
–Elf Lady
Fr Armstrong,
Please don’t put motivations in the minds and mouths of communion conservatives. Speaking for myself, I am awaiting a communion wide solution that honors both catholic order and evangelical truth (which is also catholic truth). It took us a long time to get in the mess we are in today and it will take a long time to get out of it. You cannot know what is in the conscience of other bishops. I have trouble with my own motivations, let alone the motivations of others. Can you not honor our consciences and at least offer us your prayers rather than your scorn?
I understand what Bishop Schofield did what he did and why Roseberry+ +Minns, +Atwood, et. al. are trying to reform the communion from outside TECUSA. We are trying to reform it from within TECUSA. I commend to your prayerful consideration Canon Harmon’s keynote speech to the CLCC group in Colorado found on the Stand Frim website.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
I responded before you posted your comment to Fr. Armstrong. If you desire, please feel free to delete my comment #24 and this one.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
[i] NOW we’re done. [/i]
Guess he is utterly unwilling to stand with the 31.
Suspect he desires to go down with the ship and take the dio with him. Mass martyrdom of a sort
and
those TEC bishops who have the guts to speak up
and
They prize their precious collegiality over protecting the faith
and
sitting is silence and protecting what is left and dying a slow death rather than a living a bold life seems to be their MO.
I wouldn’t see them doing anything as courageous as supporting their colleague John-David…Having sat in their meetings my expectations for this group are very low.
In case you all were wondering, we revisionists LOVE this sort of orthodox jingoism! A house divided will not stand.
Sarah, I noticed that too. I think the number of CoE bishops is the most significant aspect of this letter.
Thanks to Phil Snyder for your #24, and to the elves for keeping it.
But then, I guess I’m a ComCon. I wish and pray +JDS and SJ well, but I think this letter would be more effective without Atwood, Minns, and Anderson.
And to Brian, there is more than enough division to go around. I’ve visited some liberal blogs over the last couple of days and seen some vicious arguments about whether 815 is doing enough to protect loyalists in SJ. I also found the way my comments were treated there to be quite instructive. And “jingoism” is a great word for this situation. I myself have never witnessed so much nationalist triumphalism as when my liberal friends talk about General Convention, the “National Church”, and the importance (or lack thereof) of the Anglican Communion. Jingoism is telling the GS they will be “enlightened” someday if only they would listen enough. Jingoism is my deacon friend saying “I’m an Episcopalian first, and an Anglican a distant second!” and a bishop friend of mine saying “It may be time to bid the Anglican Communion goodbye” rather than subvert “our polity”. Pot, meet Kettle. But you are right, this orthodox infighting does us no good. No good, at all.
And there are several hundreds who stand opposed. 31 is a very small number.
Sarah, I noticed that too. I think the number of CoE bishops is the most significant aspect of this letter.
Maybe I am counting incorrectly, but I only get 7 CofE bishops. That’s not many at all.
[i]Brian’s comment in #26 reminds me that I’d wanted to leave a comment after #4, but got busy with other things. This thread should not be used for speculation about the motives of bishops who did not sign. Unless you have specific statements from specific bishops as to why they did or did not sign, please don’t play guessing games or attack their choices. Expressing personal disappointment (e.g. “I’m sorry bishop “X” did not sign) is one thing. But attacking motives or character because of a failure to sign is out of bounds. I’m not saying #4 is out of line, but it’s close, and further similar comments will be edited or removed. –elfgirl[/i]
I don’t think it’s too hard to figure out why there aren’t many signers from pecusa. 1. There are very few orthodox Anglo-Catholic bishops left. 2. The Windsor crowd can’t approve of the actions of the DoSJ and their bishop. 3. Liberals certainly aren’t going to applaud anyone leaving their institution. 4. Non-Windsor Moderates won’t venture off the fence.
So why the surprise?
Fred,
Whether 31 is a little or a lot is immaterial. He is not isolated, and does not stand alone.
But here’s good news for Brian!
RE: “In case you all were wondering, we revisionists LOVE this sort of orthodox jingoism! A house divided will not stand.”
Reasserters of any sense are Deeply Unconcerned about what revisionists think about what reasserters are discussing amongst themselves. I expect that it will all get sorted out — after all, both sides, whether Federal or Communion, believe the gospel. That’s always a good start.
I say all of the above to encourage Brian.
;> )
The provinves of some members on the list are quite obvious, however, it would be informative to have their nationality added to their name. Also, I see this list as a beginning and I expect to see this list increase dramatically over the next few days.
It is heartening to see the English bishops (of which there are several) also listed.
Speculations and rude comments about Windsor Bishops are irrelevant to this thread. We have absolutely no way to know why a whole host of Bishops did not sign this, including +Salmon, +Stanton, +Howe, +Love, or for that matter +Scott-Joynt, +Chichester, +Chester, +Durham, et al. Are we now going to argue that +John Hind and +Michael Scott-Joynt are “sitting is silence and protecting what is left and dying a slow death rather than a living a bold life” — this kind of rude comment should be excised.
[i]Dr. Seitz, we’ve already issued a warning. I intended to intervene much earlier in the thread, but just as I was about to do so, I got an important phone call, and didn’t get a chance to get back to this thread for several hours. We fully agree with your concerns.[/i]
#24—I have sat in darn near every meeting of ‘conservative’ bishops since the founding of the Network and my perspective is that John-David and the thirty-one see what I see, and that is that nothing is going to happen without extreme pressure from the outside.
TEC will not reform from within–in fact they have adopted a strategy of intimidation and destruction of those who might even think about challenging the ‘new theology’.
[[i]Portion of comment removed pending review by Kendall. It’s his blog. He’ll make the call on this. Elfgirl[/i]
Elves–I see your note. For the record, we have been tireless in pointing out the injustice of lack of PEV’s in the US zone, and the horrible position it has placed godly men like +Schofield in. Our prayers are with him in this terrible situation. TEC has treated the issue of reception of WO in a ham-handed and mean-spirited way, leaving specific dioceses with no hope of resolution as their bishops retire.
Comments are closed
[i]We’ll accept further comments by e-mail. We received the following from Brian. We’ve not checked it for accuracy.[/i]
Brian from T19 writes:
OK
Here is what I can figure out. Feel free to correct. I put them in alphabetical order by country
AUSTRALIA (4 Current, 1 Retired)
The Most Rev. Peter Jensen, Archbishop of Sydney (Australia)
The Rt. Rev. Robert Forsyth, Bishop of South Sydney (Australia)
The Rt. Rev. Michael Hough, Bishop of Ballarat (Australia)
The Rt. Rev. Ross Davies, Bishop of The Murray (Australia-under investigation)
The Rt. Rev. David Silk, lately Bishop of Ballarat (Retired, Australia)
BERMUDA (1 Current)
The Rt. Rev. A. Ewin Ratteray, Bishop of Bermuda (Bermuda)
CENTRAL AFRICA (1 Retired)
The Rt. Rev. Jackson Biggers, lately Bishop of Malawi (Retired, Central Africa)
CHURCH OF ENGLAND (8 Current, 3 Retired)
The Rt. Rev. Michael Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Rochester (England)
The Rt. Rev. John Broadhurst, Bishop of Fulham (England – responsible for pastoral care of those opposed to WO)
The Rt. Rev. Martyn Jarrett, Bishop of Beverley (England)
The Rt. Rev. John Goddard, Bishop of Burnley (England)
The Rt. Rev. Keith Newton, Bishop of Richborough (England)
The Rt. Rev. Andrew Burnham, Bishop of Ebbsfleet (England)
The Rt. Rev. Lindsay Urwin, Bishop of Horsham (England)
The Rt. Rev. Wallace Benn, Bishop of Lewes (England)
The Rt. Rev. John Gaisford, lately Bishop of Beverley (Retired, England)
The Rt. Rev. Nöel Jones, lately Bishop of Sodor and Man (Retired, England)
The Rt. Rev. Edwin Barnes, lately Bishop of Richborough (Retired, England)
CHURCH OF PAPAU NEW GUINEA (1 Retired)
The Rt. Rev. Roger Jupp, lately Bishop of Popondota (Retired, Papau New Guinea)
TANZANIA (1 Current)
The Rt. Rev. Gerard Mpango, Bishop of Western Tanganyika (Tanzania)
TEC (5 Current, 3 Retired)
The Rt. Rev. Jack L. Iker, Bishop of Fort Worth (USA)
The Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan, Bishop of Pittsburgh (USA)
The Rt. Rev. Keith L Ackerman, Bishop of Quincy (USA)
The Rt. Rev. Peter Beckwith, Bishop of Springfield (USA)
The Rt. Rev. Henry Scriven, Assistant Bishop, Diocese of Pittsburgh (USA)
The Rt. Rev. Edward MacBurney, lately Bishop of Quincy (Retired, USA)
The Rt. Rev. William Wantland, lately Bishop of Eau Claire (Retired, USA)
The Rt. Rev. Donald Parsons, lately Bishop of Quincy (Retired, USA)
WEST AFRICA (1 Current)
The Rt. Rev. Matthias Medadues-Badohu, Bishop of Ho (West Africa)
NOT RECOGNIZED BY CANTERBURY (4 Current)
The Rt. Rev. Bill Atwood, Province of Kenya (Not recognized by Canterbury)
The Rt. Rev. Martyn Minns, Convocation of Anglicans in North America (Not recognized by Canterbury)
The Rt. Rev. David Anderson, Convocation of Anglicans in North America
The Rt. Rev. John Guernsey, Province of Uganda (Not recognized by Canterbury)
[i]Received from the Rev’d George Conger by e-mail[/i]
What some people appear to be missing is the fact that this letter was written by Bishop Jack Iker. Apart from being Bishop of Fort Worth, he is also President of the International Bishops’ Conference on Faith and Order. The IBCFO is a fellowship group of active and retired bishops who meet each year for study and fellowship … it is not a party organization. They are Anglo-Catholics who do not ordain women.
They constitute the overwhelming majority of signatures, plus an Evangelical Archbishop who does not ordain women, Peter Jensen, and the new African-overseen American bishops.
Everyone should calm down and take a deep breath and read it for what it says and is.
Regards, George Conger
[i]Received by e-mail from “miserable sinner”:[/i]
[i]The Rt. Rev. John Broadhurst, Bishop of Fulham (England – responsible for pastoral care of those opposed to WO) [/i]
Who knows more about this bishop, his role regarding WO and how such a role was established. Is it a model that could be used in this case or does it look too much like that offered by 815 and rejected?
— miserable sinner
———–
[i]Note: folks can respond to miserable sinner by private message, or send an e-mail to the elves and we will forward it or post it here.[/i]