The schismatics have been pinning their hopes for action against the Episcopal Church on a statement from this working group that the Episcopal Church's response to Windsor, is insufficient and phony.
This report calls the Episcopal response positive and sufficient. It is a major blow to the schismatics' attempt to divide the Episcopal Church and the Communion.
Preliminary reports of the press briefing affirm that both our Presiding Bishop and the Abp. of York were seated at the Primates' Meeting without dispute.
Finally - People who can see the forest for the trees. It is a major setback to the reasserters. Any spanking of TEC will be seen as baseless and for political purposes only. Note that the ABC is a member of the sub-group who wrote the report. He is not going to support a punishment of TEC. He wants the covenant process to determine where TEC comes out. The only question is whether the GS will take it's marbles and go home.
C.B.
Excellent that KSJ was seated and that no one ran for the hills. Of course, i didn't think that was going to happen because how could the African primate try to run the show from the wilderness. it was all hot air.
As for the report; the neo-con-Aglicans are going to dismiss it and say taht there wasn't one of "right mind, a proper christian" on the committee, so it's nothing but rubbish. zIt will be seen as another proof that the liberal sinners have taken over and they have to leave.
JMOP any road.
James - I believe the Archbishop of Central Africa who is a member of GS was on the subcomittee who wrote the report. Woops!
C.B.
Yes, but since he disagreed with the neo-con-Anglican position, he will be proclaimed to have 'lost the faith'. they have to justify their position that the report is "crap" by some means and besmerching character -- in this case spiritual character -- is the way to do it. Or they might say he was bought off by the enormous amount of money that TEC funds the WWAC. :)
Ruth Gledhill goes to her source for analysis.
Per Gledhill, Kendall Harmon appears to be crying in his beer.
I guess you get to the point where you are dizzy enough that further spinning becomes a trial.
James - But if the GS is looking for uniformity amongst its members in order to reject the report and somehow punish TEC or establish a second province, they have to wonder who their true allies are. Akinola and Duncan must be very concerned about their options at this point. Clearly, the ABC is not going to go for it. So they'll have to muster the required support from elsewhere. But does enough of fit really it exist? And on what basis, now??? Schism on the AC may still be in the offering, but only if Akinola takes the initiative to leave. And is this what the CANA churches and other reasserter congregations bargained for???
C.B.
C.B.
This is one more reason why B033 was a bad idea. We have given the mistaken impression that we don't intend to repeat the "offense." If the Anglican Communion can't survive our honest declaration of our intentions, then it shouldn't survive.
I find the use of the word "offense" offensive. We would have to have transgressed legitimate authority for there to be an offense. There is no offense and nothing to apologize for. We obeyed the will of God, as discerned through the structures of the Episcopal Church.
Archbishop Williams is ignoring a very good piece of advice I once received about putting out fires. Let them burn. If they burn themselves out, "great." If they burn even brighter, then they eliminate the rank undergrowth that permitted them to exist in the first place. The underlying dysfunctional dynamics are not undone by attempts to smooth things over.
It is good news that Bishop Katharine has her place at the table. At what price, however? If B033 is part of that price, then we have already paid too much. We need to stop paying the extortionists. If you want a relationship with us that means all the baptized, including our LGBT faithful--laypeople, bishops, priests, and deacons. I am more encouraged by Bishop Katharine's remarks at the Urban Caucus and by the fact that the radical right consistently overplays its hand.
The howls of outrage on Stand Firm, along with promises to swim the Tiber or become Orthodox, are abounding. So much for that crowd's assertion that they're the real Anglicans.
The part of the ACC report that is clearly a rebuke for all the border-crossing and church-snatching seems to be provoking some of the worst outrage. Why these folks didn't think that all provisions of the Windsor Report didn't apply to them when they were trying to paint the WR as Holy Writ for everyone else is almost astonishing in its hypocrisy.
BO33 bought this day. KJS wanted it as much as anyone. And she is as supportive of gays and lesbians in the church as anyone. The ABC wants to give Anglicanism as it was once understood a chance to survive. TEC is not perfect. It HAS made mistakes. It has renounced nothing, repented of nothing. But it has acknowledged and regretted what needed to be acknowledged and regretted. People, congregations, even bishops are being swept up in the fires of schism, perhaps not fully understanding what they are being asked to do, believe and give up. They are inflamed by lies and deceit. TEC wanted and took a fire break- BO33. Of course it cost us something. For now. But for now, maybe people who wouldn't otherwise do so will have reason to step back and pause before they leap too quickly or too far. It was done as much for them as anyone. And IMHO it was worth it.
C.B.
C.B.
I agree, Karen, and, for once, find some well-deserved humor in the cackling at Stand Firm, where the once-vaunted Anglican Communion has suddenly become, well, you know, "apostate."
No, CB; this isn't what they bargained for. Akinola was counting on calling the shots and the ABC kissing his butt. The report takes all the sails out of Akinola’s plan. Now, there is nothing to put bite into his vitriolic bark.
He still sees himself and Africa as the savior of “authentic” Christianity in the world. (Martyr syndrome? No; it can’t be that because he embarrasses people by his humility.)
If he walks away he will look like the spoiled brat who, not getting his way will take his ball and go home. I would love to know what he has said/will say to the Bishop of Central Africa. I’ll wager that it won’t be nice. As Ralph Cramden would say, “Right to the moon”
I actually do feel a lot of sympathy for Akinola and his group. They have to do something or get off the pot.
Some are statingthey are learning to "cross themselves" backwards and others are proud that they leave the filioque cause out of the creed. Sounds like they are chucking 450 years of Anglican tradition. :)
I think the ABC wants us in -- BO33 was his baby -- we bought it (perhaps with fingers crossed) & this is the payoff.
FWIW, I was in the House of Bishops when they debated the "Windsor Response" to same sex blessings & the overwhelming sentiment was that there was no need to address the issue -- it was obviously directed at the Diocese of new Westminster since General Convention had never approved rites for same sex blessings (although an earlier Convention had come very close indeed -- GenCon2000, IIRC).
It's sad what the Snarkster's been reduced to over at SF: a pale parody of our tasty treat trading.
LPR
I am personally okay with B033. It call[s] upon Standing Committees
and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise restraint by not consenting to
the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life
presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further
strains on communion." (emphasis mine)
What we've done is to open this "moratorium" from simply a sexuality issue to one with more far reaching implications. Mark Lawrence+ falls into this category. His manner of life would no doubt lead to further strains on communion.
B033 wasn't perfect by a long shot, but I think it did level the playing field by putting schismatic candidates in the same thought process as homosexual candidates.
Although I agree with Bill Carroll's understanding of B033, as I said when the thing got railroaded through the Convention, it's not the end of the world. Bad as it is, dubiously legitimate though it may be, it is far from the worst thing to happen to LGBT Episcopalians. There will be another LGBT bishop; maybe not tomorrow, but definitely sooner than the next generation.
My wicked secret taste for melodrama is so terribly disappointed by the non-events today (Thank God!). I was so looking forward to an episode of Bishops Behaving Badly complete with liturgical dishes flying across the room, stick fights with croziers, and assisting suffragans impaled on sharp miters.
I'll end the day thankful that our PB's charm tactic was apparently quite successful. I'm happy that if they don't quite love us madly, at least they don't hate us enough to throw us out.
Well, I for one am glad that the ones in charge acted like adults.
It hasn't been even 5 years since the first out bishop. Surely after a few more years the rest of world will realize that the sky isn't falling, and that an imperfect gay, or an imperfect woman, can do as good (or better) job of taking care of a diocese as can an imperfect straight man. I suppose a lot of the middle of the road folk will discover that gays can be as boring as straights - I sometimes think that people think that gay priests celebrate HE on a Pride bar float with gyrating oiled guys in speedos as acolytes.
(At our pride, a straight woman priest from a gay-friendly parish celebrates HE in the early morning in the park where Pride is held. There are a bunch of attendees, who then toddle off to assemble organization displays or get seats along the parade route, etc.)
I also noticed that the Stand Firm (SF) crowd is moving the bar from the consecration of Bishops to the ordination of priests - not mentioned in the WR. I can understand their frustration that the WR didn't kick all non-celibate gays out of the church hierarchy including clergy, but it didn't. Gay priests have been ordained since 1975 and still are.
The SF crowd has a stronger case for blessings but I have always found the blessing thing confusing. I went to gay blessings in the Anglican Church in New Zealand at St Matthews-in-the-City when I lived there in 1991-1992. They advertise them on their website even now (as does St. John's Northcote.) I have also attended them in the Anglican Church of Canada - Diocese of Toronto in 1995 and in the ECUSA in 1994 (All Saints Pasadena). The Telegraph (UK) did an exposé where they found that 4 out of 5 Church of England vicars said ok when asked if they would do a gay blessing. Is the "crime" here that they are going on, or that the Bishop of New Westminster (after 3 Diocesian votes with increasing majorities) publically said okay? Is all this about show rather than substance?
Anyway, it looks like the TEC is not going to get the boot from the Anglican Communion (which given their financial support is really no surprise). But aren't we just delaying the inevitable? The House of Bishops may come back and say that there is no public authorization of blessings and that Bishops won't publically authorize them (in the way the Dio of New Westminster did), but we know that they aren't going to stop individual parishes from doing what they want. Is that really sufficient?
I should be feeling vindicated but I find this whole thing sickening. No one is being honest. Everyone is dancing around the issue about whether there is room in the church for people like me - someone who believes my sexuality is given to me by God and believes that God doesn't call all of us to celibacy.
Katherine is saying yes, we are all welcome. Rowan is as clear as mud and this commission seems to want to steer us back to "don't ask, don't tell" of the 1980s and 1990s.
Frustrating. I would just like a yes or no and then deal with the consequences. This is the Chinese Water Torture.
I take the radical right's response to the report to be another example of them overplaying their hand. The real danger is not from them but from the voices of pro-Windsor "moderates" (Windsor is a radical, revisionist proposal, not an example of moderation)and institutional CYA. Those voices will get a hearing in the HOB. The voices of the Network will not.
Toujoursdan
"this commission seems to want to steer us back to "don't ask, don't tell" of the 1980s and 1990s."
This is nagging at me as well. I am glad the commission recognized the effort that TEC made but to say everything is fine based on maintaining the status quo does not allow for much movement forward in the near future.
I have concerns if TEC (and possibly ACC after this June) are allowed to maintain memebership in the WWAC because they have agreed to maintain the status quo and not make any prophetic movement for a period of time. I can't even really put the concern into words. It just sits at the back of my mind nagging at me. To some extent, I guess I feel it is a betrayal of our gay brothers and sisters. It is calling on them to bear the burden of our membership. Although I do want us all to be a part of the WWAC, I don't want to to be at the expense of what we believe is God's desire for God's people.
Actually, I think this is a watershed moment - and that to reach it, we had to accept B033. (I never found anything offensive about that to begin with, I should add. That my "manner of life presents a challenge to the wider communion" has never been in the slightest doubt; it's a simple and obvious fact. What's obvious, too, is that it's the "wider communion" that has the problem here.)
Things are going to change now; this result is far, far better for gay people here and in other parts of the world than would our ideological purity have been.
Just my opinion. But then, I'm sick to death of all this anyway and wouldn't have cared if it had gone the other way. We have far better things to do than argue about absurdities with people who aren't listening anyway. We have a faith to share with others, and our hands to offer in help, and it's time to get around to that at last.
So what is everyone's take on the apology/forgiveness read? Was TEC accepting some blame for its actions by apologizing and asking for forgiveness? Interesting question.
The image of the English cathedral with the atom bomb and lightning behind it is so beyond the pale that I put it on my blog. That the crowd that was hoping that the Archbishop of Nigeria and Bishop of Pittsburg would carry the day now create this image shows to me how desperate they have become. It is oh so very sad.
"I suppose a lot of the middle of the road folk will discover that gays can be as boring as straights"
Well, this one spent most of the day digging out from the Valentine's Day blizzard which left 30" of snow in the church driveway and ramp and the guy who plows phoned to say his truck broke down. Pretty boring to me (and also back-breaking).
WG,
We asked forgiveness for not fully weighing the consequences of our actions on the life of the Communion back at GC 2003, as I understand it.
As supportive as I am of the decisions then, there was not sufficient concern offered, nor sufficient reason given to the broader Anglican Communion for our decisions as a Church (merely articulating our Provincial autonomy was not helpful, in my view.). In this sense, I believe the apology is genuine.
I think that, if the Stand Firm crowd swim either the Tiber or the Bosporus (sic), they will find themselves comfortable for a while with the level of "certainty" -- however, when that certainty extends to something they disagree with, and they get their wrists slapped for disagreeing, I wonder what the response will be. They will likely find the same if they join the Southern Baptists (swim the Mississippi?). I hope they find Peace, though.
The fantasy of Rome's authority is far better than the reality. I often argue that traditionalist Anglo-Catholics like the status of being schismatic outsiders within their own tradition, who can always appeal to the discipline of a community to which they do not belong. This is not the right way to be a Catholic in the Anglican tradition. Newman saw the trouble of this logic and took the next logical step. He is to be admired for his integrity.
Most of the hardcore realignment crowd are more tempted by the baptist option anyway, but not real baptists who believed in conscience and the autonomy of the congregation. Rather, the SBC after the fundamentalist takeover. IRD aims a similar takeover of UMC, PCUSA, and TEC, mostly driven by secular politics.
"Things are going to change now; this result is far, far better for gay people here and in other parts of the world than would our ideological purity have been."
Yes, that seems right.
And yes, it is rather a pity that these issues have so long dominated the counsels of Anglicanism, at a time when the world is ravaged by so many great ills.
I think that, if the Stand Firm crowd swim either the Tiber or the Bosporus (sic), they will find themselves comfortable for a while with the level of "certainty" -- however, when that certainty extends to something they disagree with, and they get their wrists slapped for disagreeing, I wonder what the response will be. They will likely find the same if they join the Southern Baptists (swim the Mississippi?). I hope they find Peace, though.
Grimalkin | 02.15.07 - 11:45 pm | #
You describe exactly what I saw in Dallas right after +VGR's consecration.
A few families in our parish rather vocally departed for the local Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, which they envisaged as a conservative orthodox liturgical church. They thought it would resemble the megachurches down the street - young, vibrant, orthodox and growing while retaining middle-to-high church worship and practise.
The reality is different. They were aging and shrinking like we are and slowly moving away from liturgical worship (which was never very high to begin with) to low church protestantism or happy clappy worship. They also realised that the LCMS expects its members to embrace creationism (and only gave up belief in geocentrism in the 1920s) and inerrancy - so questioning the historicity of stories like Jonah and the whale was not allowed.
Most returned a couple months later.
Given my Midwestern background, I would say that becoming Southern Baptist would be more "crossing Interstate 70" than "swimming the Mississippi." "Swimming the Ohio" doesn't do it, as there are many churches affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention in southern Indiana and southern Ohio. And "swimming the Olentangy" is just too obscure, FWIW.
Where I'm from, I suppose it would actually be more along the lines of "swimming the Chattahoochee."
I prefer to simply loll in the waters of serenity, myself.
They deserve to swim the Mississippi,...7 fold!!
I always believed,maybe I was hoodwinked that Christ Died for ALL ...not just the so-called few!!
These Idiots who think they are superior to our Lord Jesus Christ need to Get a F-K-N life!!
Thank you, Reverend Ref, for keeping this in perspective. I had been afraid when I read the response; HAD we agreed to stop ordaining HONEST people as bishops?!?! Would we only ordain liars? But, then I realized that we only agreed to restraint and to stop ordaining those who presented a challenege (personally, I hope my life presents a challenge to the wider church). Sometime soon we'll stop this nonsense. Until then, I trust in the process of TEC to listen to the Spirit.
Commenting by HaloScan
