Right on, bishops!

Here we stand and can no other...

A Firm Stand.

Of course, Cantuar will not dare meet them. Pittsburgh and Abuja wouldn't approve.

Glad to see the TEC HoB still have functioning balls and spines, brains and hearts--- all working in a wonderful Pauline synchrony....

It appears to be an almost complete rejection of the Primates demands. They may well expel us from the Communion, as the statement itself implies. Will Cantuar then declare TEC out of Communion with him, or will he somehow find a way to finesse this? Will Canada and Scotland and South Africa be next? Has the execrable Akinola won?

One of my Canadian friends reminds me that the ABC will be meeting with the Canadian church next month in Niagera Falls [sp? Am only on 2nd cup coffee this am] Ontario, which is but a barrel's ride from Niagera Falls New York. How handy! But I hope he'll take the bridge.

I must confess that last night when I saw a brief summary of the HoB's statement in an email with a link to the whole thing, that I thought, the link will really lead to Susan Russell's blog and she will say something like, "Wouldn't that be nice, but here's what they really said."

But no - it's real. I am proud of the HoB. I am sure dissenters will have much to say - rumor is that several network bishops refused to participate. Nothing new there.

What is new is this clear statement of resolve. TBTG!

The ante is certainly raised. While the Akinolites have, until now, been dictating terms, this action will encourage +Rowan et al to consider the meaning of communion for themselves. What kind of church do they want? I for one am savoring the rejection of the notion that one must choose between Gospel invitation of all and participation in the Anglican Communion. That seems even more important than the symptomatic rejection of the primates' demands. It will indeed be interesting to see if Rowan comes over to meet with the ECUSA HoB. That decision will speak volumes.

The key to the March 20 statement of the HoB comes in three words in the final sentence, "It is to that mission that we now determinedly turn." those three words are: now, determinedly, turn.

As a Canadian it's clear that our two provinces in N. American (and perhaps Mexico as well) are turning a page and moving on to more important matters of mission and outreach, to be the hands, heart and feet of Christ in our broken world.

Perhaps indeed Rowan Cantuar will make the voyage across the Niagara river (correct spelling) when he meets with our House of Bishops next month.

The House of Bishops have, certainly, engaged in the type of response that is appropriate. This involves passing Resolutions to collegially express its mind on the matter. The Primates at Tanzania specifically requested the position of the House of Bishops in The Episcopal Church USA. The Primates can now assess this response for themselves and determine what this means for continued fellowship among the various Provinces.

The second thing the Bishops have done is to include in these Resolutions a recommendation to the Executive Council. This is also appropriate since the Executive Council have actual authority in The Episcopal Church USA to determine policy outside of General Convention.

The fact that this first Resolution rejects the Primates plan for a Pastoral Council is hardly suprising. And they have given their canonical reasons. In addition, I think several bloggers have correctly assessed that there may be a legal need for this as well since any concession may weaken the trust claims asserted in the "Dennis Canon" (Title 1, Canon 7, Section 4 of TEC's Canons).

At any rate, the Primates have the reply they requested on the Pastoral Council issue.

With respect to clear moratoria on authorizing same-sex blessings and the ordination of partnered homosexuals to the Episcopate, are the Bishops going to create additional Resolutions? Or is this to be considered separately and, presumably, before September 30th? I’m not sure what the agenda included.

I don't beleive the two sides of the GLBT issue desire reconciliation... nor can acheive it based on the arguments I read and hear. To say then that any plan to accept alternative oversight is an affront to the real work of reconciliation is simply not realistic or is very political. On the other hand I applaud the HoB for reaching back toward "The Communion" with a stated spirit of desire to continue in communion or at least towards a redefinition of relationship and communion.

It's about time our Episcopal leaders got some spine! Good for them! If the Calvinists want a split, let it begin here!

Dear ++Rowan: We've had over three years of thesis. Now it's time for a bit of antithesis. As a Hegelian, I'm sure you'll understand.

Andrew asked, "Will Cantuar then declare TEC out of Communion with him, or will he somehow find a way to finesse this? Will Canada and Scotland and South Africa be next? Has the execrable Akinola won?"

No, if that's what happens (and it's just fine with me), then we "win."

To be exiled with Canada, Scotland, Southern Africa, and presumably other provinces like New Zealand, Wales, etc... + the mainstream, non-evangelical parts of the CoE would be a blessing. And what wonderful company we'd all be keeping ! :)

Let ++Akinola, +Duncan, +Nazir-Ali, and that crowd have Cantuar for all I care. He deserves them.

Ruth Gledhill's comments are interesting (and recommended reading--I'm surprised TA hasn't already linked to her).

My read is: (1) the HOB's blathering (my term) about the need and virtues of unity ultimately was merely a cover for putting an enforced (and to my mind opressive) "unity" within TEC above communion unity; and (2) TEC is ultimately being asked to do something akin to the "flying bishop" scheme used in England. If merry ol' England can cope, why not TEC?

Consequently, the latest TEC reaction is more of the same ol' TEC "in your face" pride and arrogance. Further, the unwillingness of TEC to create some space for the orthodox belies its rhetoric about "reconcilliation". In TEC land "reconcilliation" still means what it has always meant: Our way or the highway.

Steven

Andrew,

Remember the message of our beloved Gospel:

Sometimes, in order to win, we must lose.

Strength is found in weakness.

Power is found in gentleness.

"Glad to see the TEC HoB still have functioning balls and spines, brains and hearts--- all working in a wonderful Pauline synchrony...."

The fact that some of our Bishops do NOT have balls may account for this encouraging stand.

"the Niagara river (correct spelling)"

Thanks. When I graduated from high school, my favorite teacher gave me a little book as a graduation present: "Twenty Minutes a Day to Perfect Spelling." Obviously, it didn't take.

My dad's family was from western NY, and one summer we went to Niagara Falls, finding the Canadian side so much prettier than the American way back then - so I should have remembered how to spell it.

I think you are right about Canada, US and Mexico seeming to have more in common with each other than with some parts of the rest of the Communion. This may be the beginning of a realignment of the Anglican Communion, and it may not be a bad thing.

Give me a break Steven, I did have to stop for lunch :-)

http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2007/03/tec_rejects_for.html

Steven suggests that

"TEC is ultimately being asked to do something akin to the "flying bishop" scheme used in England. If merry ol' England can cope, why not TEC?"

There is no comparison between the English flying bishop scheme, or the Presiding Bishop's original Primatial Vicar proposal (which was shot down by the secessionists within the day, as I recall), and the Tanzania scheme - which, let us not forget, was NOT cast in the terms of an ultimatum - the ultimatum was limited to the same sex policy issues.

The Tanzanian scheme was unique in imposing government by foreign primates - which is the point that the Camp Allen statement has highlighted. This was never going to work.

Incidentally, while not unanimous, the House of Bishops statement was passed with "strong majorities" according to Bishop Epting, who was present. I suspect that even the so-called "Windsor Bishops" were not prepared to accept the Tanzanian suggestion that The Episcopal Church should, in effect, put itself into overseas receivership rather than pursuing the sort of internal alternative oversight which it has already offered - and offers again in this statement.

The Global South - and US "reasserters" - have already accepted this statement as answering an immediate and final "no!" to the demands of the Primates meeting.
I can't expect anyone belives that after this, ECUSA would in any way shape or form sign on to any of the moratoria demanded by the communion. We can be absolutely clear, this is the statement that will lead inexorably to ECUSA being thrown out of the communion.

Canada, Scotland, Southern Africa, and presumably other provinces like New Zealand, Wales...

Don't believe it for a moment. Canada - perhaps - may leave. New Zealand and Australia and South African most certainly will not.

Ruth: "This is what you get if you have a scientist running a church". Eh? What on earth is it you're on today?

Simon:

No slight intended.

Badman:

There is no counter-offer set forth or implied in the response of the HOB. TEC has already been told that its initial proposal was a non-starter. So far, we have had an initial offer from the TEC that was rejected with a counter-offer on the table. This has now been rejected by the HOB, but without any counter-offer that might bring the parties closer to an ultimate agreement. Instead there is merely a reference back to an earlier offer that has already been rejected as insufficient. Thus, at this point, TEC has created an impasse. In usual fashion it has stiffened its neck and said "it'll be done the way I like or not at all!"

Pride and arrogance as usual.

Steven

Steven, the earlier offers were not rejected as insufficient by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Panel of Reference, or the Primates Meeting. Quite the contrary. I suppose the Primates were entitled to see if TEC could offer something stronger in order to placate their internal enemies. It can't, and the Windsor bishops seem to be at one with the rest of the HoB majority on that. I don't think the Primates Meeting as a whole will think that unreasonable.

And what 'space' do the 'orthodox' give to gay and lesbian people, Steven?

None, unless one accepts their theology.

This is excellent news, as was the rejection of Lawrence, who should not be a priest in a church he clearly dislikes so much, let alone a Bishop!

Well, it appears dear Ruth was actually right saying "This is what you get if you have a scientist running a church"…

Look at this:

“There are some kinds of fish and other aquatic animals that actually have bipartite eyes - they see at the same time both above and below the surface of the water, and their brains figure out how to interpret those quite different images and make a coherent whole. As a body, we are wrestling with a collection of images – perhaps even more like the eye of a social insect, with multiple facets – but most of us assume that the image we form most easily is the only right and true one. The blesser of the gospel, however, sees more than that one, easy image. The blesser of all invites us into that deeper seeing as well – stretch, strain, imagine, and you, too, can begin to see like the Three do, like the One does.”

(from ++Katharine’s homily at the Camp Allen closing Eucharist in a post above)

Badman:

I don't have a clue how the Windsor bishops voted, perhaps you have some sources you can cite on this. However, I don't agree that "no movement" by the TEC is in some sense (apparently by conveying a definitive NO! to the most recent proposal) progress towards an agreement. As an attorney I have been involved in negotiations of one type or another most of my professional life. The ball is in TEC's court. It needs to step forward with something that moves the parties closer together.

Merseymike:

C'mon, you can do better than this kind of trite repetition of slogans. At the present moment the issue is how people with completely incompatible theologies can live together in the TEC and the AC. The discussion is focusing on TEC. My point is that TEC has done nothing to advance discussion or movement towards a solution by "narrowing the gap". We can all stiffen our necks and expect the other side to come over to our proposal, but that merely leads to schism. I'd actually like to see TEC and the AC come up with a solution that avoids schism within TEC and the AC.

If they can't, well . . . But, certainly this is worth more of a try than TEC just made!

Steven

Just blowing in from another world.

You guys certainly hate the Orthodox (Steven excepted).

In my part of the world, down under as you would say, the TEC wouldn't get too many votes from my Anglican friends, remembering Sydney Diocese has half the Church going Anglicans in Australia, with large numbers of evangelicals and anglo catholics in all other dioceses.

The split is inevitable and sooner it occurs and allows people to get on serving the Lord Jesus without all the distractions of the gay debate, the better.

In 1843, 400+ evangelical ministers and elders walked out of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and formed the Free Church of Scotland. Ministers and congregations left their churches and manses behind to make a fresh start and God wonderfully honoured them. Eventually the two parts came together. Similar things over the past couple of centuries happened with Presbyterians in America, I believe.