Comments: lots more ECUSA-related news and comment

"the Most Rev. Ignacio C. Soliba, “did not attend the meeting and was not a signatory to the so-called Kigali Communiqué.”

(sings)"Ten green bottles, hanging on the wall, and if one green bottle should accidentally fall there'd be nine........"
(traditional English playground song)

Posted by mynsterpreost at Thursday, 28 September 2006 at 10:50pm BST

I know Schadenfreud is a sin. But watching this second GS communiqué unravel is kind of a pleasure.

Shall we all pitch in and buy these guys a copy of Roberts' Rules of Order?

Posted by Christopher Calderhead at Thursday, 28 September 2006 at 11:16pm BST

I was wondering about the Philippines -- I'm pretty sure that it was the Primate's wife that I met at General Convention & I can assure you that she would not have signed the Kigali Communiqué.

Posted by Prior Aelred at Thursday, 28 September 2006 at 11:36pm BST

Tes, let's buy it for them !

Posted by laurence roberts at Thursday, 28 September 2006 at 11:46pm BST

I am struck by statements from Bishop MacDonald of Alaska. He states, "the Windsor Report represents the only opportunity for a constructive debate over the human sexuality issues that the November 2003 consecration raised."; and "Part of the trouble is that the Windsor Report has been read as a complete repudiation of The Episcopal Church. We are being asked to participate in a conversation about what has happened. The Windsor Report represents the parameters under which that discussion can take place."

Clearly, the Kigali statement sees Windsor as an opportunity to repudiate the Episcopal Church. On the other hand, before things deteriorated, I thought as Bishop MacDonald about the Report and the Process. While I don't agree about moratoria, Bishop MacDonald seems to see them as a tools for reconciliation, and not as an ends in themselves.

I'm still not as comfortable as I might be about the Texas statement; but this statement from this bishop could offer some hope.

Posted by Marshall Scott at Thursday, 28 September 2006 at 11:54pm BST

Tip of the hat to Bonnie Andreson, President of the House of Deputies of TEC's General Convention, who wrote in her response to PB Griswold's letter to the bishops:

"I note with sadness that the Kigali communiqué does not extend the courtesy of referring to Bishop Jefferts Schori as a bishop, where everyone else is referred to with titles. It adds a low note that is not worthy of the faith espoused in the document."

Too bad the primates and metropolitans of the Global South are being influenced by the Network bishops, such as 'spikey' Iker, Ackerman and Schofield, who don't recognize women in holy orders. Now, there is even a woman President of the House of Deputies. No wonder, the traditionalists are foaming from their mouths! After all, for the biblically 'orthodox', a woman's place is in the home subservient to her husband.

Posted by John Henry at Friday, 29 September 2006 at 12:29am BST

I was glad to see Bonnie Anderson calling them out for their discourtesy in not using the PB-elect's title. It is insulting and juvenile. Glad to hear more spine from the current PB. If nothing else, the two meetings have shown the real faces of those involved. It would seem that the 'can't we just agree to disagree?' folks now can see how useless that is. I hope the statements from Anderson and Griswald will buck up the troops.

Posted by Cynthia Gilliatt at Friday, 29 September 2006 at 4:47am BST

"Schadenfreude"

Funny you haven't got your own word for it...

The French say Putsch, the English Coup - wonder what the Germans say ;=)

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Friday, 29 September 2006 at 6:08am BST

Odd - I always thought "coup" was French for something else...

Posted by Alan Marsh at Friday, 29 September 2006 at 9:40am BST

The lengthy ENS article by Matthew Davies reminds us that every time the Global South group meet, there has been disagreement about the communique and other problems, like the letter to +Rowan.

I might take a guess that Cape Town and the Philippines aren't the only churches notionally present at the meeting in Kigali who objected to the communique. Others may object but are too initmidated by Akinola to voice their dissent in the same way.

Their aggressive tactics feel frightening and intimidating to me, sometimes, and they are becoming more and more offensive. That may be a sign of weakness, as they fall out with each other and it becomes clear that their strategy to take over the Communion isn't working.

Posted by Colin Coward at Friday, 29 September 2006 at 10:14am BST

I shan't pronounce on the San Joaquín case for legal systems are much too different from one place to an other, but it seems to me that this was one of those cases when the process can be trusted.

Calm and dignified statements from Presiding Bishops Griswold and President Bonne Anderson.

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Friday, 29 September 2006 at 11:37am BST

Re Christopher Calderhead's post, "Schadenfreud" means "Pleasure derived from the misfortune of others"

Shalom
Lois Keen

Posted by Lois Keen at Friday, 29 September 2006 at 2:34pm BST

It seems that Mark MacDonald is one of the few bishops who actually understands the Windsor Report as a call to dialogue and listening. Unfortunately, unless those on the other side of the fence from him, such as the authors of the Kigali communique, come to the same understanding, I don't hold much hope.

Posted by Jim Pratt at Friday, 29 September 2006 at 7:01pm BST

Lois Keen,

I was pointing out that you use a foreign word for something unsavoury.

What do the Germans say? something Italian ;=)

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Saturday, 30 September 2006 at 12:31am BST

I am also assured that the Prime Bishop of the Episcopal Church in the Philippines would not sign the statement, as I have met him on several occasions myself. I am from the Philippines, where the ECP is said to have less than 5% of the whole 85M population, and whose numbers may be dwindling due to defections to increasingly popular (and I fear powerful) Evangelical churches.
Before one can rejoice at this development, two things must be noted:
1. The ECP was founded by, and to a large extent, financially dependent upon the Episcopal Church. It will remain so until 2011. I will not be surprised, then, that those who were unhappy with Prime Bishop Soliba's decision would try to get funding from elsewhere so the ECP would be independent enough.
2. The wealthiest, self-supporting parishes are all evangelical, low-church in orientation. They will be terribly unhappy with the PB if word gets out. Open rebellion will certainly ensue.
Finally, PB Soliba is on the way out. He is retiring within the next few years. We are predicting the next PB may also be liberal, but the ECP will be a changed church.

Posted by Ren Aguila at Saturday, 30 September 2006 at 1:03am BST

Correction: I said that the funding from ECUSA would end in 2011. I believe that it would be until next year, 2007. Then again, the ECP has difficulties...

Posted by Ren Aguila at Saturday, 30 September 2006 at 4:56am BST

Sorry, Goran. I should have known better. Lois Keen

Posted by Lois Keen at Saturday, 30 September 2006 at 1:13pm BST

"The wealthiest, self-supporting parishes are all evangelical, low-church in orientation."

Funny, that's often the case in UK. I think in marketing terms it's called 'pulling out of unprofitable areas'.

Sorry to be cynical, but could it just be that the seriously well off have too much to lose by joining JPIC type churches?

Posted by David Rowett (= mynsterpreost) at Saturday, 30 September 2006 at 4:43pm BST

Re Bp. Schofield's aquital, The Episcopal News Service has posted this evening, Monday, 2 October, a report that the December convention of the Diocese of San Joaquin will be asked to consider resolutions that will position San Joaquin to be transferred from TEC to a jurisdiction to be determined by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the primates of the Anglican Communion. If passed, will this constitute "abandonment of communion" yet?

Lois Keen

Posted by Lois Keen at Tuesday, 3 October 2006 at 12:02am BST

...resolutions that will position San Joaquin to be transferred from TEC to a jurisdiction to be determined by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the primates of the Anglican Communion.

Umm, does the receiving province get a long spoon?

Posted by David Rowett (=mynsterpreost) at Tuesday, 3 October 2006 at 11:00pm 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.