Thinking Anglicans

Bishop Wimberly explains

The Lead at Episcopal Café has this report: Bishop Wimberly: why I did not consent to inhibition

Bishop Don Wimberly of Texas has released the following statement on his reasons for not consenting to inhibit Bishop Duncan of Pittsburgh:

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori asked me along with the other two most senior bishops (Peter Lee of Virginia and Leo Frade of Southeast Florida) for consent to move forward with two inhibitions, one for John-David Scofield, Bishop of San Joaquin and Robert Duncan, Bishop of Pittsburg[h], for abandonment of the Communion of the Church. We consented to Scofield because the Diocese of San Joaquin had recently voted to leave the Episcopal Church. We did not consent to the request for Bishop Duncan because the Diocese of Pittsburgh has not held their annual convention yet and therefore has not formalized any change to their membership within the Episcopal Church, as the Diocese of San Joaquin had. Even though waiting postpones the issue coming before the House of Bishops, I believe it is prudent to take every precaution and afford Bishop Duncan the opportunity to remain in the Episcopal Church.

The Rt. Rev. Don A. Wimberly, Bishop of Texas

It is not known whether or not the other senior bishops gave consent.

24
Leave a Reply

avatar
3000
24 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
20 Comment authors
Göran Koch-SwahneColumba GillissFord ElmsCheryl CloughGoSane+ Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
badman
Guest
badman

So, Bishop Wimberley thinks the best time to shut the stable door is after the horse has bolted?

I’m glad he’s not looking after my horses…

Pat O'Neill
Guest
Pat O'Neill

So I was right–the relevant distinction was the action of the diocesan convention. “Delaying the inevitable”, indeed.

R
Guest

It may delay the inevitable, but I appreciate the charity and internal integrity in which Bishop Wimberly grounds his statement and his decision to refrain on granting the inhibition until something definitively “actionable” occurs. It also holds Bishops Schofield and Duncan roughly to the same standard when it comes to what is considered actionable.

At the end of the day, no matter how Bishop Duncan responds, it is critical that the House of Bishops retain some degree of internal integrity about how this process is followed. In the long run, that matters to the health of The Episcopal Church.

Davis d'Ambly
Guest
Davis d'Ambly

Wimberley is right on this one. Threats are one thing, action is another.

the Reverend boy
Guest

I prefer the phrase “giving him enough rope to hang himself.”

pete
Guest
pete

Duncan has abandoned the communion of the church, even if the Diocese of Pittsburgh has not formally bolted. There is enough evidence of Duncan’s crimes against TEC to have justified his being inhibited and deposed years ago. Wimberly is protecting his right flank with places like St. Martin’s and St. John the Divine in Houston. They keep the diocesan budget afloat and have a HUGE influence on internal politics. This is a win-win for Wimberly (a lose-lose for the rest of us, of course). He gets to go to his diocesan council next month and look like a hero to… Read more »

Prior Aelred
Guest

I regret that the statement does not make it clear whether Bishops Lee & Frade agreed with Bishop Wimberly. I do hope they will speak up.

selah
Guest
selah

Well, at least not everyone in TEC is willing to inhibit bishops based upon thought-crimes. Yet.

The Episcopal Church welcomes you (unless you are orthodox plus ungood.)

Lapinbizarre
Guest
Lapinbizarre

Duncan’s active participation in the Kenya consecrations of bishops Atwood and Murdoch last August, and in the consecrations of four additional CANA bishops in December, all six knowingly and deliberately consecrated to function in new, anti-TEC, US hierarchies (quite which hierarchies I doubt that any of the individuals involved quite knows at this point, but it was ever thus with schismatics, was it not it?) go just a wee bit further than “thought crimes” don’t you think, Selah? At the civil level this type of thing behavior generally falls within the category of “giving aid and comfort to the enemy”.

Pat O'Neill
Guest
Pat O'Neill

“Well, at least not everyone in TEC is willing to inhibit bishops based upon thought-crimes. Yet. The Episcopal Church welcomes you (unless you are orthodox plus ungood.)” Let’s examine this a moment. Did TEC show Scofield the door? No–he walked out of it on his own. That done, TEC declared he had violated the canons he had vowed to obey when consecrated. The Episcopal Church does indeed welcome all…even the self-described orthodox. It is the orthodox, rather, who insist that the church change to meet their standards–rather like a vegetarian customer who goes to McDonalds and then insists that it… Read more »

Ford Elms
Guest
Ford Elms

“It is the orthodox, rather, who insist that the church change to meet their standards” Is there an “Anglican orthodox”? How can people claim to be ‘orthodox’ when they repudiate so much of what has been definied as orthodox for the past 2000 years? They adhere to a particular interpretation of a tradition passed down by one branch of the Church Catholic that has drifted perhaps too far towards Calvinist Protestantism. They have mixed Anglicanism with some kind of 1950s Ozzie and Harriet morality and called it orthodox. They have said it for so long, they believe it. I wonder… Read more »

Fr Mark
Guest
Fr Mark

Ford: and what they mean by “conservative” just means “a generation out of date”, which is not at all the same thing. True conservatises are not scared of changing and moving forward: we carry what is good from the past confidently into our future.

ThreeMinuteTheologian
Guest

It ill behooves progressive Christians to deprecate the house of bishops for not inhibiting Duncan before his diocesan convention: it strengthens the claim of TEC to orthodoxy and orthopraxis if everything is done correctly and in order, with a view to natural justice and also, more importantly, to going the extra mile. For those in TEC who want rid of Duncan, my feeling is that you won’t have long to wait: there seems precious little evidence of a change of heart/mind on his part!

GoSane+
Guest
GoSane+

I read this blogsite regularly, yet have not posted anything before. I hope I am a careful reader and not a cautious “lurker”, whatever that may be. I note that there is a group of persons who write regularly and I want to say how much I appreciate your observations about what’s going on in our Anglican world. In particular, I very much enjoy and learn from your notes, Fred. You have a talent for summarizing things in a succinct and informative way. As an “old rookie” priest in TEC (six years ordained;66 years old), and as one whose past… Read more »

Prior Aelred
Guest

Lapinbizarre seems to me to be quite correct — the canons are not about a bishop trying to remove his (or her) diocese from TEC (such an absurdity was never imagined) but of abandoning “the Communion of this Church” (i.e., TEC) — Duncan actions have certainly demonstrated done this — Bishop Wimberly (& perhaps others?) seem seriously to have misunderstood the canon.

drdanfee
Guest
drdanfee

Perhaps it would have been overkill, but I think I would have liked for PB KJS to actually visit each of the bishops in this zone – Shofield, Iker, Duncan – to deliver her news face to face. Relationally. Then to the diocese, then to the Remaining Episcopals that are predicted by the very zone in which we now find the three-peaters. Thanks much to Wimberly for speaking honestly about his role/vote. Aside from the narrow and holier than thou ways in which Iker or Duncan now prizes himself – and it is very much a He-Man Thang in my… Read more »

JPM
Guest
JPM

Ford is right–one of the saddest casualties of all this silliness is the perfectly good word “orthodoxy,” which has now come to mean scriptural fundamentalism merged with a reactionary political agenda.

Leonel Abaroa-Boloña
Guest
Leonel Abaroa-Boloña

Winberly won’t go any further.

However, he’s weaved his own rope. Come the diocesan convention, he won’t be able to keep up with this farce.

Now… does this mean that Duncan gets an invitation for Lambeth?

Cheryl Va. Clough
Guest

I thought they were looking to discipline an individual and not a diocese? Isn’t the man to be measured on his conduct and the diocese to be measured on their own? He has transgressed, some want to see how much more he will transgress before action is taken? That’s a bit like saying, the father struck the eldest daughter, but we’ll leave him there because he might not harm the youngest son. Once again we see church leaders aiding and abetting those that violate. Yeah, I know the rocks are going to come back the other way. So be it.… Read more »

GoSane+
Guest
GoSane+

Ford, I apologize. I mistakenly wrote your name as “Fred” in my post. Mea Culpa.

Cheryl Clough
Guest

Gosane wrote “It seems to me that too many people differentiate understanding from agreement. They fear that by even listening to an opposing point of view they are somehow consenting to that position to which they are opposed. “ Precisely. They tout Windsor as a bludgeon against liberals, but repeatedly demonstrate that they have not listened nor have no intention of listening. They selectively quote Windsor as selectively as they quote the bible. Thus they demonstrate that they agree with their scribal predecessors who struck the books of Susanna and Enoch from the bible. Even though the apostle Paul waxed… Read more »

Ford Elms
Guest
Ford Elms

GoSane, no worries. Ford’s not a very common first name outside of here. See the previous thread.

Columba Gilliss
Guest
Columba Gilliss

Cheryl,
As usual I read your last comment with much agreement. However, there is no evidence that Paul wrote Hebrews and much that someone very different did — some scholars suggest Phoebe or another woman.
Columba

Göran Koch-Swahne
Guest

Columba Gillis,

Surely the non-letter “to the Hebrews” is Alexandrian?

Whereas Phoebe herself was a deacon (not a deaconess) at Kenkrea, the port(s) of Korinth (presently “Romans” 1:7-12 and 16:1-16 + 20b).