Friday, 21 September 2007

New Orleans: another bishops proposal

Stand Firm has published another proposal, this one by four bishops, which also appears to be consistent with the Dar es Salaam communique.

See Resolution offered by Bruce MacPherson, Russell Jacobus, Geralyn Wolf, and C. Franklin Brookhart.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Friday, 21 September 2007 at 6:13pm BST | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: ECUSA
Comments

This is an excellent resolution but for one omission - the cessation of the lawsuits. The presiding bishop's chancellor seems to believe that this is godly and necessary, however it is the opposite and makes any it impossible to have any grace filled conversation. He just recently seems to have threatened +Rio Grande for settling with St. Clements in El Paso. The law suits must stop as they are the nail in the coffin of trust.

I pray this resolution is passed but I am not holding my breath. One of the above bishops is my diocesan and I am proud of him.

Posted by: Ian Montgomery on Friday, 21 September 2007 at 6:24pm BST

Business as usual: to crucify God's children made LGBT. :-(

I urge the resolution's rejection. Should it be accepted (Merciful Christ forbid!), I urge *ecclesial disobedience*, by all orders (lay, clergy and episcopal).

My brothers and sisters in Christ: can't you see this (resolution, so-called) is NOT of God???

Posted by: JCF on Friday, 21 September 2007 at 7:13pm BST

This is a non-starter. It would repudiate the March "Mind of the House" resolution on the primatial vicar scheme. It would permit those dissatisfied with the primate to establish a church within a church in the US. The US bishops are aware of the secret letter of request for primatial oversight sent by +Duncan in November of last year to the Steering Committee of the GS. Unlike the letter sent to +Cantuar, this "secret" letter laid out a strategy to use offshore primates to supervise US dioceses and to provide them "cover" while they pursued their legal actions and property cases and until they were strong enough to set up a new anglican province in the US. This document came to light as a result of the "discovery" +Duncan was forced to turn over in the Calvary lawsuit. Unfortunately it is more than 400 words so I can't place it here, but it was a "bombshell" when revealed two days before "discovery" was due. Had this been revealed before Dar-es-Salaam, the outcome might well have been different. The proposal by the 4 signatories above would allow this to happen, the bishops will recognize it. However, the +Jenson resolution, with 10 signatories (partly drafted by Chris Seitz) might be, but it does pose an interesting question to TEC. Is TEC willing to change its canons to accommodate those who are not happy? Possibly the so called "Windsor" Camp Allen Bishops? Could the Jenson plan dovetail with +KJS's own proposed "visitor" plan? But will TEC be willing to bend far enough to accommodate the Network corps +Duncan, +Iker, and allow them to create a church within a church, a strategy so completely detailed in the GS Steering Committee Memo? I don't think so.

Posted by: EPfizH on Friday, 21 September 2007 at 8:13pm BST

"The law suits must stop as they are the nail in the coffin of trust." Ian M.

What Trust? Oh, you're thinking about the results of the +Orombi, +Akinola, +Venables capers in California, Colorado, Virginia and beyond?

In God I Trust and I certainly won't be forgetting the dispicable actions of these Global Southern priests and I encourage every State Supreme Court in the "good ol' U.S.A" to keep focused on REALITY too!

Posted by: Leonardo Ricardo on Friday, 21 September 2007 at 8:29pm BST

Two questions, one that I have asked before:

Will there be equivalent episcopal oversight afforded to the liberal parishes in places like Pittsburgh?

The other is directed to Ian: So, you're OK with the dissident parishes walking away with property that, by both canon and civil law, they are not entitled to?

Posted by: Pat O'Neill on Friday, 21 September 2007 at 8:54pm BST

Rumors over on one of the wing-nut sites is that the dark side bishops are going to walk out in a snit after the ABC leaves. My reason for mentioning it is because of what they've reported as their reasoning. There's no place for us..." Couldn't you just cry?

Okay, it's anecdotal. It's premature. It's a grandstanding overstatement on their part. It's also totally delightful. How long have they been able to kick people around with the tyranny of their overstated majority? I feel it happening. They're losing.

Posted by: Curtis on Friday, 21 September 2007 at 9:08pm BST

Curtis said:
"Okay, it's anecdotal. It's premature."

No, Curtis. Leaving the meeting when the AbC left has been in their personal and DIOCESAN calendars for weeks, Ikers, Duncan and Schofield had no intention, ever, of staying for the full HOB meeting.

Posted by: Lou Poulain on Saturday, 22 September 2007 at 12:16am BST

Curtis - They planned the walk out months ago. They're of to their Common Cause meeting in Pittsburgh.

Posted by: C.B. on Saturday, 22 September 2007 at 12:24am BST

These Bishops have completely lost whatever respect I might otherwise have had for them. What a horrible "resolution" that promises to refrain from ordinary pastoral care for an entire class of people, simply to appease prejudice. See Steven Bates' last religion column for more (http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/news/?NewsID=1009).

They are capitulating to bigotry, plain and simple. I hope they're very proud of themselves, because they will not be regarded well by anybody else.

Posted by: bls on Saturday, 22 September 2007 at 12:36am BST

I heard that the "dark side bishops" were leaving after the ABC leaves but it wasn't in a snit...it had been planned. I do see that the non-Episcopalians are dismayed at the turn of events...I really don't know what they thought was going to happen. Apparently the ABC has let them down. And +Akinola's interview talking about how "Communion was broken. But Nigeria was remaining in the Anglican Church. It was not they who had moved." is just amazing.

Posted by: Robin on Saturday, 22 September 2007 at 2:12am BST

One gets the clear impression that the Archbishop regards TEC as fully part of the Anglican Communion.

Posted by: Pluralist on Saturday, 22 September 2007 at 3:12am BST

It's interesting to see Geralyn Wolf speaking piously of "lifelong, heterosexual, monogamous marriage" when she herself is, according to scripture and tradition, shacking up with some other woman's husband.

Of course, the "reasserters" can "reappraise" with all the wild abandon of Jack Spong on acid when it comes to justifying their own sinful desires.

Posted by: JPM on Saturday, 22 September 2007 at 4:46pm BST

JPM - Would you provide some evidence regarding Bishop Wolf's personal life style? Your bald statement is both shocking and a "shot out of the blue" to me - the only things I have read about her are that she was recently married and has a good reputation. If your statement is true it must be verifiable and verified and if not you should in all good conscience retract it as libelous.

Posted by: ettu on Sunday, 23 September 2007 at 12:39pm BST

Ettu, Wolf recently married a divorced man.

Posted by: JPM on Sunday, 23 September 2007 at 9:35pm BST

"Wolf recently married a divorced man."

Oh, but, you see, the "fudge" that makes this acceptable is no fudge at all, but based on "a solid argument from Scripture", whatever that is. Does she seriously not realize that anyone outside the Church, hearing her prate about "lifelong, heterosexual, monogamous marriage" will IMMEDIATELY say "Yeah, so what did you do, marry a dead man, ya hypocrite?" Cripes, I'm INSIDE the Church, and think it!

Posted by: Ford Elms on Monday, 24 September 2007 at 7:10pm BST
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.