Friday, 21 September 2007

New Orleans: the Windsor bishops proposal

Stand Firm has published a draft resolution which is described by SF thus:

This is a statement crafted during the last meeting of “Windsor Bishops,” and we’re told forms the basis of the resolution Bishop Jenkins is going to propose. However, we’ve also been told that he’s been “consulting” with bishops Bruno and Chane to make it more palatable to them. The document has been circulating among the bishops at the meeting here in New Orleans.

The draft is here.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Friday, 21 September 2007 at 3:15pm BST | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: ECUSA

Totally unacceptable from my perspective.

Posted by: Merseymike on Friday, 21 September 2007 at 3:30pm BST

I hope that all will proceed on the basis of good faith and that the dissenters will see the door that is open to them - my fear is that their hearts have hardened and they will resist pastoral offers by TEC

Posted by: ettu on Friday, 21 September 2007 at 3:42pm BST

Receiving the proposed resolutions in the best spirit, and appreciating that this is not necessarily how any resolutions might be phrased in the end, I do have a few comments.

First, since we've not as a Communion gone through the work of clarifying how we will balance autonomy and accountability so as to understand interdependence, the phrases "standard of teaching across the Communion" and "until a new concensus is reached across the Communion" will be unacceptable. The sense of accepting a position indefinitely "unless the Kingdom comes first" has in the past been more than most bishops think is in the competence of the House, and I don't think that will change in this meeting. Since we haven't agreed as a Communion whether "standard of teaching across the Communion" is simply descriptive, or is prescriptive, reference to this phrase will at least need a lot more clarification.

Second, I think we need to note that Designated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight (DEPO) and the within-TEC "Primatial Vicar" model offered last year by Bishops Griswold and Jefferts Schori was rejected by those this seeks to serve without trial. Bishop Iker of Fort Worth has made explicit that he cannot accept any model that leaves authority with TEC. I don't see how any compromise will be acceptable to those committed to departure.

With that in mind, it is very interesting to see Bishop Schofield's name on this letter. Even Bishop Stanton has expressed some committment to staying in the Episcopal Church by agreeing to be an "Episcopal Visitor" on the Presiding Bishop's behalf. Bishop Schofield, on the other hand, has helped prepare the canons of his diocese for departure. I'd be quite interested to hear more from him on this, and more about whether he is even in New Orleans.

Posted by: Marshall Scott on Friday, 21 September 2007 at 3:58pm BST

"Claiming the "deep and abiding honesty with one another in the context of living relationships," we call upon the Executive Council, the General Convention, the House of Bishops and the Presiding Bishop to consider anew a pastoral scheme for spiritual oversight for those who believe such to be necessary."

Will this scheme include "spiritual oversight" for those individuals and parishes of a more liberal persuasion who are trapped in the conservative dioceses like Pittsburgh, Dallas, and Texas? Or is it only to be afforded to those in the minority in New York, Pennsylvania, etc.?

I suspect the latter.

Posted by: Pat O'Neill on Friday, 21 September 2007 at 4:29pm BST

" We reject the notion that those without power are best accommodated or cared for in a manner deemed appropriate by the majority. We claim our baptismal dignity.

At last! Something that glbt people as well as these folks can agree about!

Posted by: Cynthia on Friday, 21 September 2007 at 5:32pm BST

I thought it sounded pretty conciliatory. Perhaps I am being petty, but I couldn't help thinking that, in respone to this:

"We reject the notion that those without power are best accommodated or cared for in a manner deemed appropriate by the majority. We claim our baptismal dignity."

most gay Anglicans would say
"Welcome to my world!"

Posted by: Ford Elms on Friday, 21 September 2007 at 6:02pm BST

I think its a sell-out and should be rejected, along with the Anglican 'Communion'

Posted by: Merseymike on Friday, 21 September 2007 at 6:20pm BST

“Totally unacceptable from my perspective.”-- Merseymike

You said it, Mike! Totally unacceptable—period, full stop.

Posted by: Kurt on Friday, 21 September 2007 at 6:56pm BST


We don't always agree. But this time, indeed.

Posted by: Christopher on Friday, 21 September 2007 at 7:57pm BST

Thanks for the smiles Ford and Cynthia.

I think some conservatives might comment that there is no such thing as a "glbt" Anglican. They can't really be Anglican because they are GLBT. They desire a communion where to say that you are a member of that communion means you are not GLBT, do not acknowledge GLBTs within your family, and evict GLBT lovers and friends from their midst.

No sensible loving soul would marry a person or church who subscribes to such theology. It means that you have to deal with the possibility that you will have to cut off your own children, or find out that they had been GLBT for decades but hidden the evidence because they could not bear to be cut off from their parents. I would never knowingly marry such a man or church.

Malachi 4 comes to mind "All the arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble… “Not a root or a branch will be left to them. But for you who revere my name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings. And you will go out and leap like calves released from the stall… I will send you the prophet Elijah... He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers...”

God can graft on new vines e.g. Isaiah 11:1-13 "A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit. The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him... He will not judge by what he sees with his eyes, or decide by what he hears with his ears; but with righteousness he will judge the needy, with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth... The wolf will live with the lamb… They will neither harm nor destroy… for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD... the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his place of rest will be glorious. In that day the Lord will reach out his hand… to reclaim the remnant… He will raise a banner for the nations and gather the exiles… Ephraim’s jealousy will vanish, and Judah’s enemies will be cut off; Ephraim will not be jealous of Judah, nor Judah hostile toward Ephraim.”

Posted by: Cheryl Clough on Friday, 21 September 2007 at 10:16pm BST

'Further, we request this Church not to refer to some of its members as a "small, dissident, minority." Such may seem an appropriate description of reality unless you are part of that minority...' (Jenkins, Howe et al)

Those of us who are ourselves gay certainly understand this ! It might not harm these anti-gay bishops to stand in this palce and experience it for a time themselves. Will they allow it to inform their discourse ?

Posted by: L Roberts on Saturday, 22 September 2007 at 12:04am BST

My understanding is that the signatories (apart, perhaps, from Schofield of San Joaquin) have heretofore conducted themselves in a manner which is both above board and motivated by a desire to retain as full a communion as possible with the rest of TEC.

In that light, it should be given a fair hearing.

And their assertion that this is not a demand (meaning it is therefore a starting point for discussion) should be taken at face value.

Posted by: Malcolm+ on Saturday, 22 September 2007 at 5:31am BST

fgutp humgrcdi gocqpk ucltygri rjps ertmcn eohq

Posted by: tuzofbswv kpdxb on Monday, 19 November 2007 at 5:28pm GMT
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.