Update
The Living Church has published a further report on this subject: Presiding Bishop: ACC Presentation will Invite Dialogue
The Episcopal Church’s presentation will “fall into three sections,” the Presiding Bishop noted. The seven-member team will address issues “scriptural and theological; the reality of homosexuality in the life and experience of faithful persons and families; and a witness to the fact that divergent points of view on issues of sexuality need not be church dividing, and that those who stand in different places can make common cause together in the service of Christ’s mission.”
While the Anglican Consultative Council will “pay for three persons to represent us” in Nottingham, Bishop Griswold wrote, he added that “I feel that we are best served by sending six, in addition to myself, and I have every confidence that these six persons will represent the Episcopal Church with faithfulness and grace.”
The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada will each have an hour and a half to respond to the primates’ Feb. 24 communiqué. “This will include time for queries, clarifications and conversation with the members of ACC, as our presentation needs to be put forward in a gracious and open-ended way that invites dialogue and conversation,” Bishop Griswold wrote.
The Living Church has published a news story Delegation named for June 21 ACC Meeting
The list of names is:
The Rt. Rev. J. Neil Alexander, Bishop of Atlanta; the Rev. Michael Battle, associate dean of academic affairs and vice president of Virginia Theological Seminary; the Rt. Rev. Charles Jenkins, Bishop of Louisiana; the Rt. Rev. Catherine Roskam, suffragan bishop of New York; the Rev. Susan Russell, President of Integrity; and Mrs. Jane Tully of Clergy Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (C-FLAG) will join the Presiding Bishop and a delegation from the Anglican Church of Canada in addressing the ACC on June 21.
This report also confirms the date for this session as 21 June, and says of the names listed:
Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Friday, 20 May 2005 at 11:55pm BSTThe delegation chosen by the Presiding Bishop represents a diverse slice of the Church. Bishop Jenkins voted against affirming the election of Bishop Gene Robinson at the 74th General Convention, while Bishop Alexander voted in favor. Bishop Roskam participated in Bishop Robinson’s consecration. The Rev. Susan Russell is president of the Church’s largest gay and lesbian advocacy group, and Mrs. Tully, wife of the rector of St. Bartholomew’s Church in New York City, is a leader of C-FLAG.
It is absurd to assert that this delegation "represents a diverse slice" of the Church, when four of its six members are fully in favor of the innovations, Dr Michael Battle is inclined toward supporting them, and Bishop Jenkins of the Diocese of Louisiana, despite his "no" vote to Robinson's consecration, has shown himself willing to accomodate. Better the Presiding Bishop et al. should simply have announced that the delegation would intentionally be composed of those in support of the innovations and those willing to accomodate them, and that conservatives and traditionalists would deliberately be excluded (having no interest in helping "put this case" in the first place). A measure of honesty and an acknowledgement of reality would have been appreciated.
This selection gives me great hope.
Posted by: Thomas Bushnell, BSG on Saturday, 21 May 2005 at 6:03am BST"It is absurd to assert that this delegation 'represents a diverse slice' of the Church..."
Holy VACA, oh my yes, goodness gracious what an oversight...our Presiding Bishop should have included the busy little +frequent traveler from Pittsburgh (who will probably attend uninvited anyway/gratis and hideout/hangout in a cheap hotel with a celphone pressed to his rapidly moving lips) to provide more valid/honest/candid thoughts about the REAL Episcopal Church (without "counterfit" clergy or false faith) of America! And/or ++ could/should send a "virtueless" blogger with his/her/it's/their angry spewing voices twisting and tainting facts in order to KEEP *things* STRAIGHT!
True, who will represent the howling *thems* as we accept EVERONE into the body of *our* Lord Jesus Christ?
Posted by: Leonardo Ricardo on Saturday, 21 May 2005 at 4:07pm BST
"angry spewing voices twisting and tainting facts"....
Oh the delicious irony of that accusation in the light of your post.
"A measure of honesty and an acknowledgement of reality would have been appreciated."
Amen.
re: #1. Well, doesn't it make sense that the delegation would be mostly composed of people who can explain the underlying thinking in favor of these "innovations"?
As we all know, the AC (and the world) is full of people who can argue against them.
"thankful for inclusion" says that it makes sense for the delegation to be mostly comprised of those who favour these innovations. What does not make sense is to claim that this delegation "represents a diverse slice of the Church".
Posted by: Outsider on Sunday, 22 May 2005 at 12:19am BSTTodd wrote:
"It is absurd to assert that this delegation "represents a diverse slice" of the Church, , when four of its six members are fully in favor of the innovations..."
Well, considering that makes it 2/3's in favor of GC2003's actions, it seems quite magnanimous. The actual percentages at GC2003 were higher, and only slightly over 10% of all dioceses have joined this "Network" thing.
Esp. considering that this panel was invited to explain what we did, I think the choices show great generosity.
Posted by: David Huff on Sunday, 22 May 2005 at 12:40am BSTTodd, Neil, Outsider,
For the sake of clarity, let me explain that what "Liberals" mean by inclusion, tolerance and generosity, is a one way street.
Only people and behaviours that are OK'ed by "Liberals" are to be included, tolerated or treated with generosity.
In particular, anyone who does not include or tolerate that which "Liberals" approve is not to be tolerated, but excluded (or "excludes themselves") etc etc.
Hope that helps!
Dave, kindly get to know some liberals before you post that kind of crap.
Posted by: Tim on Sunday, 22 May 2005 at 8:31pm BST"In particular, anyone who does not include or tolerate that which "Liberals" approve is not to be tolerated, but excluded (or "excludes themselves") etc etc."
While I'll be jiggered Dave!
I thought them majority voting *libs* were excluded and prohibited from meet'n in that fancy Loew's Hotel in Dallas where/while the "traditionalists" found a secretive and safe "place to stand" without the rest of us God fear'n Episcopalians...matter of fact, even the Presiding Bishop was forbade sending a friendly/non-participating team of OUR Episcopalian brothers and sisters as "observers" to sit quietly and monitor/listen and accept them unhappy and righteous "complaints."
Old Louie Crew was forbade entry by them security guards and it was pretty nasty over Dallas way they say *that* day!
Not much openness, tolerance or generocity of Christian spirit from them conservatives I reck'on.
It's a darn shame...Dang!
Dave, don't be intimidated. You are totally right in your statement, but this place is infested with contributors who seem unable to understand POVs of any than their own.
Tim, I know many liberals. They are busy creating a religion they call Christianity, but totally different from what you and I might subscribe to.
Dave wrote:
"For the sake of clarity, let me explain that what "Liberals" mean by inclusion, tolerance and generosity, is a one way street..."
Ahh yes, I feel the love, Dave...
This *does* raise a good point, however. "Liberals" are often unfairly chided for being intolerant of, well...intolerance. As my son would say, "well DUH!!" Of *course* some thing are intolerable !
I'm from the Southern U.S., and have been around long enough to remember the civil rights struggles of the 1960's - incl. how poorly most white Christian churches responded to it. Were "liberals" being awful back then when they wouldn't give equal time to bigoted hate speech ? Did that make them "intolerant" ? The idea that a "liberal" is tolerant of EVERYTHING is utter nonsense, and just another red herring trotted out by ultra-rightwing idealogues.
And let me leave you with one, add'l thought. You aren't being "excluded, silenced, or persecuted" you're being "DISAGREED with" - please learn the difference.
I have a lot of sympathy for Anglican Church,although I am an American, non-Anglican Christian watching this from the outside of the Anglican Church.
Regardless of the final result reached by ECUSA and the world-wide Anglican Church, this Robinson debacle is a terrible blow to worldwide Christianity. Non-Christians will see this entire Robinson thing as evidence of a lack of intellectual, theological and spiritual integrity. Non-Christians simply won't be able to understand how two groups who call themselves Christian could vary so much on the issue of homosexual conduct.
In my estimation, worldwide Christianity must formulate an effective response to the Islamic challenge, instead, Anglicans have had to respond to the Gene Robinson thing. The purity and ferocity of the selfishness of the pro-Robinson crowd is stunning.
Simeon:"The idea that a "liberal" is tolerant of EVERYTHING is utter nonsense"
Too true! They are remarkably intolerant of anyone who does not share their opinions!
"Regardless of the final result reached by ECUSA and the world-wide Anglican Church, this Robinson debacle is a terrible blow to worldwide Christianity."
Friendly Non,
Our "changes" are not about Christian "appearances" or "combating" Muslims or "posturing" for others (those with/without a religion or a desire to have one).
My/our "change" is about a inspired "call" for personal integrity, a MORE responsible character and a greater appreciation for TRUTH and reality.
For me, OUR growth process at the Episcopal Church USA is another gift of revelation and is specifically about Gods love for ALL of us in the "body of Christ."
Posted by: Leonardo Ricardo on Monday, 23 May 2005 at 7:16pm BST
Ian wrote:
"Too true! They are remarkably intolerant of anyone who does not share their opinions!"
Ahhh...unlike the meek, humble, and charitable "orthodox," of course. You guys are all sweetness and flowers compared to us, eh ? All the vitriol I read from the blog of David "Virtue," to the trolling here, and many, other places is just your way of letting us know how much you love us... ;)
Simeon, what a sarcastic and unhelpful reply!
Your comments are predictable. Those of us here who believe that the Bible is the final authority, and who note that homosexuality is a "no no" throughout are either treated to sarcasm or told that they do not "love".
We have gays in our church - they are always welcome and loved - but they are also prepared to accept what the Bible teaches, and with God's help are changing. All of us in our church are committed to becoming what God wants us to be.
This is the third time David Virtue's site has been mentioned of late - which is nothing to do with us here. I'm sure that there are web-sites that are equally vitriolic towards evangalicals. Indeed, one which one of our contributors runs has a heading which invites conservatives to "piss off" as they were not welcome! One can't condone, let alone be responsible for, unpleasant postings on another site!
You suggest there is vitriol on this site. I am not aware of it on this site, and would imagine that the moderators would put a quick stop if there were. Unfortunately, you seem to assume that an evangelical viewpoint is by definition going to be vitriolic and lacking in love, which is incorrect and most unfair.
However, I doubt you will accept that what you describe as "you guys" will ever be accepted as loving, sadly. We are asked to be tolerant, but you do not seem to show it yourself.
A moderator writes: These comments have little relevance to the subject of the original item. We are at least as likely to stop a thread for this reason as for any other :-)
Point taken Simon. Apologies. I would be grateful if you could remove my message.
Ian
The thread got lost at least ten messages ago, when Dave clarified what Liberals mean by inclusion, tolerance and generosity!
Simon, methinks we are not going to agree on certain matters, but I admire you greatly for all your postings. In terms of information about who is saying what to whom, this site is by far the best I have come across.
Ian, I identify with what you have expressed, but you'll get nowhere with some. The love has to be one way. You might wish to look at other forums. I wouldn't recommend Virtue on line; too many extremists. Possibly Anglican Mainstream may be more suitable for you!
Indeed Simon, my apologies. Got my knickers in a twist and posted before thinking ;) (and it IS supposed to be "Thinking" Anglicans, yes ?)
What say we all agree to step back, take a few, deep breaths, and pledge a modicum of civility ? Dave ? Ian ? I will if you will ;)
Posted by: Simeon on Wednesday, 25 May 2005 at 12:41am BSTOnly people and behaviours that are OK'ed by "Liberals" are to be included, tolerated or treated with generosity.
Hi Chaps & Chappesses
I really didn't think that this was irrelevant (as the discussion was about who was included in the ECUSA delegation).
And I'm sorry if I came across nasty. Some response to my posting seemed debiberately so. :(
However, I think this proves my point; that "Liberals" (for lack of a better term) think of themselves as inclusive and nice, but are in fact nasty and rejecting towards people they think are illiberal etc.
Which is exactly what they think is wrong with "conservatives".
The real issue is, of course, the issues; what is right and wrong; how do we decide, and want do we do about it. I would like to feel free to be able to question peoples reasoning too though!
To return (belatedly) to the subject of the original posting: my point was simply that the theology delegation cannot honestly be construed to represent a diverse slice of The Episcopal Church, whether it represents the parliamentary majority present at General Convention or not.
Not should it so represent the Church. In no way could my comment have been construed to mean that +Pittsburgh should have been included (and the knee-jerk ranting was more than a little tiresome). Conserving and traditional Anglicans have no interest in helping The Episcopal Church "put its case" before the Anglican Consultative Council and would therefore have no interest in joining the delegation. My point was not exclusion (though the clumsy wording of one of my phrases might have suggested so) but honesty.
For a much more incisive discussion of the need for honesty in the delegation's presentation before the ACC, take a look at the Rev'd Dr Ephraim Radner's essay, "On Representing the Episcopal Church":
http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.org/articles/acc_misrepresentation.htm
"However, I think this proves my point; that "Liberals" (for lack of a better term) think of themselves as inclusive and nice, but are in fact nasty and rejecting towards people they think are illiberal etc.
Which is exactly what they think is wrong with "conservatives". "
Yup. Well said!
I just don't understand the confusion over "inclusion."
INCLUDE: *God-given diversity*. Different races. Different genders. Different ages. Different physical abilities. Different sexual orientations.
EXCLUDE: *human-made injustice*. The *chosen* exercise-of-power which *discriminates against God-given diversity*.
[FWIW, I've never claimed to be "nice". I try to be *fair*: respecting each and every Unique Image of God . . . while making my Yes "Yes" and No "No", when I see injustice expressed against *any* of God's Beloved Children]
Posted by: J. C. Fisher on Saturday, 28 May 2005 at 12:13am BST> just don't understand the confusion over "inclusion."<
Don't understand, or don't want to?
1. If you mean by "inclusivity" the welcoming of all people, irrespective of race, gender, physical abilities, sexual orientation, then that's fine; there's no difference between liberals and conservatives.
2. Our instructions, as Christians, is that we seek to discern what is wrong in our lives, and change; God calls us to change and conform to what He says, through the Bible.
3. There is a difference between sexual orientation and sexual practice. The latter, insofar as it refers to homsexual practice, we understand to be against the will of God. What people do is up to them and God.
4. But it becomes contentious when someone who is a practising homosexual wishes to assume leadership of one kind in the church. That has been the no-go area as far as conservatives are concerned, both in respect of Griswold and the Dean of St. Albans, both of whom still maintain that homosexuality is not a sin.
5. The rest is irrelevant, except that we are either treated to sarcasm, or, more hurtfully, the notion that we are homophobic. There's just no truth in this.
That, putting it simply, is what separates the liberal and conservative standpoint, as I see it. Looking wider, what also separates is anything that runs counter to what the Bible says.
Sorry to depart from the original subject again, but this is in reply to your message!