Comments: InclusiveChurch letter from Columbus 1

VGR certainly seems to think that CG won't go as far as Windsor requested (on the substantive issues). He doesn't expect they will repent of his consecration, or stop blessing gay relationships, or adopt a moratorium on appointing "gay bishops". (He also seems to falls foul of naming conventions when asked to comment on +Wright's statement). Listen here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today5_bishop_20060615.ram

Posted by Dave at Friday, 16 June 2006 at 1:26am BST

So when someone voices an opinion that agrees with your revisionism they are being affirming and inclusive, and when they disagree with you and try to warn you of the probable consequences of your actions (like the Primates begged us not to consecrate +Robinson, which would "tear the fabric of the AC at its deepest level) they are making an "inappropriate intervention". I'm surprised at your restraint at not calling +Wright's piece hate speech. What he is saying is simply that WR asked different questions than SCECAC's resolution's are trying to answer, which will be taken for what it is, an evasion that in truth is ECUSA deciding to walk apart from the AC.

Posted by Milton at Friday, 16 June 2006 at 4:11am BST

Kendall Harmon has commented on this item, see
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=13542

“But the only point on which there is clarity is that there is no clarity.”

A huge amen to that–so far. We shall see what emerges–KSH.

“In a paper released to the Anglican Communion Network of (predominantly conservative) bishops a couple of weeks ago and widely publicised just before the hearing, he calls for ECUSA to use precisely the language of the Windsor report in expressing regret and imposing a “moratorium” on the appointment of bishops who might cause controversy; he accuses the Special Commission’s report of duplicity in its use of language and includes scarcely veiled threats should ECUSA not roll over and submit to the Windsor recommendations.’

I wish I had time to try to correct all the misinformation out there right now but I cannot. This statement by inclusivechurch is incorrect. The paper was not released to the ACN but to the General Convention as a whole through some bishops whom Bishop Wright felt would be genuinely helpful as a means to this end. The document was not given out “weeks ago” but was produced in recent days for the purpose of General Convention and its ongoing conversation–KSH.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento at Friday, 16 June 2006 at 11:56am BST

The ten-at-a-table plus discussion is a great idea - hope it will be repeated/refined on future occasions.

Posted by Christopher Shell at Friday, 16 June 2006 at 1:17pm BST

The admonition to exactly use repeated Windsor word/phrases strikes me as worrisome and a bit childhish. Windsor is typically then treated as some sort of legalistic legislation, and the whole listening processes (around worldwide communion which has been notably impaired since at least ECUSA ordained women, if not even when ECUSA was born / and around sexuality/human nature issues) are transformed by fiat into some sort of judicial procedures. Going to court like this is just not the best way to listen, and using your special reading of scripture to bring other believers up on charges is a sign of impaired communion already, not a royal road to communion or a happy reliable way to restore space for reconciliation. It is all very Alice In Wonderland / Alice Through The Looking Glass. Alas. Lord have mercy.

The Bishop Wright unofficial paper seems interesting, and capable of doing what the conservative campaigners always try to do - i.e., define everything in their own favor before we have even finished or started talking about it with one another across our differences. In the olden days this would probably have been called poor form, even though it probably would still have been released. Maybe it should have been published as a minority report by its committee?

Nowadays, it fits right in with the realignment campaign which tries to play roles as both one of our obviously different believer parties, and as the definitive whole church entire in all times all place for all people. Alas. Lord have mercy.

What to do? Keep trusting God. Be ready to pick up whatever pieces fall out, and keep on keeping on. Refrain from the conservative invitations to betray good conscience, and try to keep a prayerful good sense of humor. From a biblical distance, all the hoo-ha about whether the world is flat or round is rather a tempest in a doctrinal teapot. Uh-oh. I forgot that the Bible was mainly God's way of punching people in the face to tell them how naughty they are. No wonder Windsor and Lambeth pronouncements are read similarly. Yes, I recall having had these sorts of conversations, but I never dared to call them listening.

Posted by drdanfee at Friday, 16 June 2006 at 3:25pm BST

Tom Wright , as member of the HoB of the CofE, has not only said, that the clergy may enter into Civil Partnerships , but he has been party to the modification of Church Law, so that a cleryperson's civil partner, is to be treated in the same way as a wife, husband or widow /er, of a minister.
And he often refers to the 1991 Issues in Human Sexualtiy as the offical teaching of the Church, by which he stands. That document authorised same sex realtions for all lay members of the CofE.
Furthermore, none of the HoB have said a word against our own gay bishops here in England-- keeping their heads down !

Posted by Laurence Roberts at Friday, 16 June 2006 at 4:33pm BST

The problem is this.

First, there was plenty of conversation (and listening, unless you define "listen" as "agree with me") before 2003. We (TEC) then told the rest of the Communion to go f*** themselves.

The question at our current GC is, do we tell the rest of the Communion that we meant what we said? If we do so, we can't really expect to be welcome, can we? If a friend begged me not to do something, and I told that friend to go hump a camel, I would probably not be surprised when that friend indicated that I would not be welcome in his home until I apologized and promised that I wouldn't do it again.

Second, the two sides are very far apart on a number of things. The WR is a document of limited scope, that has the specific purpose of coming up with the least intrusive way possible of keeping the Communion together. It was unanimously agreed to by as balanced a panel as ++Cantuar could come up with, and its mandate included considering Lambeth 1998-1.10 as a done deal.

We are not being told to reverse the canonical processes that resulted from the last GC. We are being told that we have to apologize and promise not to do it again. If we don't, we won't be welcome.

Either choice is open to us. But I don't think that a compromise is possible here.

Posted by Dan Berger at Friday, 16 June 2006 at 6:47pm BST

"We (TEC) then told the rest of the Communion to go f*** themselves."

This is a BALD-FACED LIE.

I am sick and tired of people telling me and my church WHAT WE SAID/MEANT, as if we weren't perfectly capable of *speaking for ourselves*.

*****

KSH: "The paper was not released to the ACN but to the General Convention as a whole through some bishops whom Bishop Wright felt would be genuinely helpful as a means to this end."

Now *here*, in contrast, is a statement calling for translation!

"bishops...who would be genuinely helpful"? What was the criteria for *that*?

[Might we expect some similar criteria for TEC bishops who (+Wright feels should) get invited to Lambeth? Only the "genuinely helpful" *cough*AGREE re homosexuality w/ the Primatial-majority*cough* need apply?]

Posted by J. C. Fisher at Friday, 16 June 2006 at 10:52pm 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.