Comments: Pittsburgh, South Carolina, Newark, San Joaquin in the news

Thank you for the timely update.

Posted by RMF at Wednesday, 28 June 2006 at 11:41pm BST

Frank Griswold seems to be speaking in some political fantasy world. For instance: "the action ... of Pittsburgh [is] altogether consistent with their ...intention of walking apart from the Episcopal Church." Err , I think he means their recognition that most of ECUSA has walked apart from the Anglican Communion.

AND: "The urgency of their appeal indicates an unwillingness to be part of the process of formulating a covenant so clearly set forth in the Archbishop of Canterbury’s reflection." --- As if ++Griswold still thinks that ECUSA can have any significant say in formulating an anglican Covenant ?

AND FINALLY: "I would very much hope that they would remain part of the Episcopal Church as we, along with the other provinces of the Communion, explore our Anglican identity - as the Archbishop has invited us to do." Same mistake!.. I'm sure ECUSA will be listened to, but the Communion's decisions are for those who have walked in communion (including +Pittsburg), not for those who have walked away...

Is all this just a wish that the scism doesn't become irreversible on his 'watch' or is the sharp response to Pittsburg (in particular) the groundwork for a bare-faced power struggle ?

Posted by Dave at Thursday, 29 June 2006 at 12:09am BST

>>>The American Anglican Council remains outraged though.

Well, outrage is what they do. Just as others find self-expression through oils or watercolor or clay, their chosen medium is outrage. It's their whole reason for being. It's why they get up in the morning.

This is why they are, in many ways, their own worst enemy. Their public face is the perpetually enraged Can(n)on David Anderson, who always looks and acts as though someone just slapped his mother. (This is the man who, when asked on a CNN talk show why he stays in the Episcopal Church, replied, "Because I love a good fight.")

Then there's Robert Duncan, who resembles nothing so much as a shady televangelist when he dramatically widens his eyes and declares that Episcopalians are members of a pagan cult, so please send your generous donation today.

The average Episcopalian might not care much for gay marriage, but s/he is even more put off by pushy fanatics. The genuine nastiness (and weirdness) of the Network is probably why it still consists of the same few dioceses and parishes that it picked up nearly three years ago.

As for this "alternative primatial oversight" business, it really doesn't make much sense, other than as a dramatic gesture and, possibly, a way of trying to force Canterbury's hand.

In TEC, the presiding bishop is not a primate in the usual sense of the word. He (or she) simply presides over meetings of the House of Bishops now and then and runs the headquarters office. The presiding bishop has no real power over diocesan bishops. It's an administrative position.

There's no way of knowing how all this will shake out, of course, but there are many of us here who are pretty happy with the thought of no longer having to cater to the likes of Duncan and Iker and Akinola. Imagine what we could accomplish if we did not have to spend 90% of our time dealing with their sexual obsessions.

Posted by New Here at Thursday, 29 June 2006 at 12:13am BST

Dave,

I think you miss the point. TEC has passed resolutions expressly signing on to the Covenant process convened by ++Cantaur.

Yet, in apparent defiance of that process elaborated on by ++Cantaur only yesterday, some dioceses have unilaterally declared themselves constitutive and strangely, appeal to ++Cantaur to suborn this by calling on him to oversee them or some such in order that they may remain constitutive, which they cannot be since that determination cannot occur until, at least, the Covenant has been written.

Has the Covenant been written, Dave?

++Griswold reaffirms TEC's commitment to ++Cantaur's proposals and points out that he would like these dioceses to remain in TEC so that with us, they may continue work on the covenant as ++Cantaur laid out.

TEC's commitment to the Covenant process passed as A166, "Anglican Covenant Development Process," at Convention. It reads:

Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church, as a demonstration of our commitment to mutual responsibility and interdependence in the Anglican Communion, support the process of the development of an Anglican Covenant that underscores our unity in faith, order, and common life in the service of God’s mission; and be it further

Resolved, That the 75th General Convention direct the International Concerns Standing Committee of the Executive Council and the Episcopal Church’s members of the Anglican Consultative Council to follow the development processes of an Anglican Covenant in the Communion, and report regularly to the Executive Council as well as to the 76th General Convention; and be it further

Resolved, That the 75th General Convention report these actions supporting the Anglican Covenant development process, noting such missiological and theological resources as the Standing Commission on World Mission and the House of Bishops’ Theology Committee to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates, and the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion; and that the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church report the same to the Primates of the churches of the Anglican Communion.


Posted by RMF at Thursday, 29 June 2006 at 12:35am BST

The unravelling is beginning and will go on for a while.

For those vitriolic about +Duncan, +Iker and ++ Akinola I do hope you find peace in your probable associate membership of a less than fully Anglican church. Vitriol on either side is just as unacceptable as the bigotry that can detestably still be found. I really appreciated ++Rowan's rejection of any suggestion that to have Biblical objection to these ECUSA innovations re. homosexual behavior is to be bigoted.

++Rowan has done an estimable job of reflecting on the chaos and division that exists and which will not be healed by a "win" on either side. Something new is needed that will be Biblical, Catholic and Apostolic.

++Rowan is politely dismissive of the ECUSA response to Windsor. ++Griswold does not get it - he still seems to think he is a player when he has been shunted to the sidelines. It is risky to be prophetic and in this case the consequence is that ECUSA has fallen over the edge in its tacit decision to walk away from the Communion. It is tragic. Vitriol does not help. Outrage is not productive. Richard Kew has asked for a "velvet divorce." Would that not be more godly than a winner take all rejection of current realities and ++Rowan's suggested covenant remedy?

Posted by Ian Montgomery at Thursday, 29 June 2006 at 12:47am BST

Good comment, New Here!

TEC's PB is merely a presider, not a Primate in the traditional sense. Those seeking alternative 'primatial oversight' actually mean that they are no longer part of the General Convention and TEC. Soon TEC will be rid of the 'drama kings' of the ilk of Duncan, Iker et al., and will be able to get on with the mission of the church. What disgusts me is the drama kings' deceitfulness.

Posted by John Henry at Thursday, 29 June 2006 at 12:55am BST

I used to worship at Tracey Lind's cathedral church. She's a wonderful, dynamic person who has wonderfully increased the membership, presence, and mission of the cathedral. It's sad that the Communion as a whole is unwilling to make use of her rare and special gifts.

Posted by Charlotte at Thursday, 29 June 2006 at 1:31am BST

Thanks TA for providing your links, comments, etc. Been reading TA for years, and checked out the site during GC2006 just to find out what the heck was going on! But I'm just confused, is all. Praise God that I'm now living in a liberal diocese (Vermont), after 23 years in the Diocese of Texas (yeah, they just elected a female Suffragan, but you have no idea what women and LBGT's have gone through in those 23 yrs just to be recognised in leadership roles). Anyway, let me just say as a gay man, I don't want to be exiled from my Church (I'm a cradle Episcopalian).

I think what we're going to have to do is tell our stories - one-on-one. And allow time for it. Blessings, Jay

Posted by Jay_in_Vermont at Thursday, 29 June 2006 at 2:09am BST

Can you supply attribution for +Frank's quote? I don't see it elsewhere. Thanks.

Posted by cogito at Thursday, 29 June 2006 at 2:21am BST

I agree with you 100%, New Here. I checked my old confirmation certificate the other night. It says absolutely nothing about the Anglican Communion. Only the Episcopal Church. I think I'll stick with that.

Posted by Jimmy Culp at Thursday, 29 June 2006 at 3:04am BST

Ian ; couldn't care less about being 'fully Anglican'if it means nuzzling up to people like Akinola and Nazir-Ali.

Liberal and progressive sounds better than your suggested soundbites 'biblical, catholic, and apostolic', meaning 'out of date, prejudiced, superstitious and conservative'.

Posted by Merseymike at Thursday, 29 June 2006 at 10:41am BST

cogito
The statement was released to the press yesterday by the Episcopal News Service in the same email as his comments on the Archbishop of Canterbury's statement.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento at Thursday, 29 June 2006 at 11:54am BST

Jay_in_Vermont, good for you, I'm envious :) I was raised in the Dio. of Texas and now have the unbounded joy of residing in the (drumroll please...) Dio. of Dallas :P

So what's the job market like in Vermont ? ;)

And BTW, this ‘Alternative Primatial Oversight’ stuff is a bunch of hooey - pure political grandstanding. They want out from underneath someone who isn't on TOP of them...

Posted by David Huff at Thursday, 29 June 2006 at 2:33pm BST

Thanks Mike - we make choices and surely then +Nazir Ali was right. There are two different churches. I wish we could even use the same language. Shaw said we were two people separated by a common language. Now we are two churches who cannot use the same language as we find different meaning in the same words and expressions.

I have commented before on the inevitability of separation as we are indeed two different churches or religions. I remake my point - can we not divorce with grace rather than vitriol?

Posted by Ian Montgomery at Thursday, 29 June 2006 at 3:28pm BST

On the emotional level we may still proceed calmly. We are a mix of evangelical, catholic, and progressive strands of spiritual journey, and for the foreseeable future we are likely to remain so. Unless, unless, unless this fake diagnosis that the new right has offered us, to the effect that this mix means we are deeply broken and contaminated, is taken seriously enough among us to become the self-fulfilling prophecy that serves as one of its major functions and aims. Canterbury still seems confused, though at least finally speaking up quite a bit more than before. If this mix is Anglican US, and not mainly a sign that A-US has failed; then surely we shall not need to take additional covenant medicines? And the side effects of confessional medicines have to be weighed very, very carefully since they are likely to dampen important Anglican metabolic cycles based on diversity, bonds of affection instead of institutional direction, and the omnipresent inquiry that lives towards more discussion, not less.

Posted by drdanfee at Thursday, 29 June 2006 at 4:18pm BST

Ian ; I have been saying exactly that for years - that there should be a split, and that this should be done amicably. That means no 'winners and losers', no 'real' or 'true' Anglicans - simply accepting that we entirely differ.

Problem is, no-one appears to be prepared to do this on either side.

Posted by Merseymike at Friday, 30 June 2006 at 12:07am BST

Um, didn't Jesus say something about divorce? (IIRC, not favorably?)

The reasserters (and perhaps MerseyMike, for other reasons) just WISH that TEC (and our many, many allies, throughout Anglicanism worldwide) would quietly sulk off in our exile status (and, analogously, use the 2nd-class broken-down water-fountain of the "Jim Crow" era in the southern U.S.)

It ain't happening.

We're committed to creating this Anglican Covenant and, like it or not, you'll have to ***deal w/ us***.

TEC has been at the *heart* of the Anglican Communion, from the very beginning (in the same way, I might add, that LGBT Christians have been at the heart of the Church). We're not walking away (or apart) . . . nor will we let the AC do so, either.

We're here (some of us are queer): Get Used to It! Holy Spirit (nonviolent) Fire-Power, comin' atcha! :-D

Posted by J. C. Fisher at Friday, 30 June 2006 at 5:40am 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.