Last ditch joint session
The Houses of Bishops and Deputies will meet tomorrow morning after the Eucharist (at which Bishop Jefferts Schori is preaching!) to make a last stab at working out some fuller legislative response to the Windsor Report.
The Special Committee co-chaired by the Rev. Frank Wade, retired rector of St. Alban's is being called back into existence to put some sort of resolution before the Convention. They may not be able to begin meeting until after 9 tonight, because the bishops just adjourned and none of them have eaten dinner yet. Meanwhile, the deputies, who are slogging through a legislative backlog have just reconvened for a night session that will last at least until 9.
Those are the time constraints on the front end. On the back end, most bishops and deputies have flights home tomorrow afternoon (I am here until Thursday and assumed I would be spending most of Wednesday reflecting in tranquility on convention developments for an article for the July issue of our diocesan newspaper. Hah!)
As perhaps you've guessed, I think that their only opportunity to get something passed is to adopt the language of "considerable caution."
One thing about covering fast-breaking news events is that you get sucked into believing that what you are writing about is important. (Why would a person of your obvious significance waste time and energy on these events if they weren't?) What I wonder tonight is whether the difference between "obliged to urge....to refriain" from and "exercise considerable caution" make any difference outside the little bubble we've all been living in for the last ten days here.
And the answer is, I have no idea. One thing I can say, though, after the experience this Convention has put itself through, is that if the Archbishop of Canterbury should issue an immediate response saying the compromise that our Church has worked so hard to achieve isn't good enough for him, it would greatly increase the number of Episcopalians who thought it was no longer worth trying to please him.
Dinner anyone?
Jim - have you read the transcript of the conversation of the House of Bishops @:
http://babybluecafe.blogspot.com I don't know who the + John Lipscomb thinks he is but he and the gathered House of Bishops doesn't possess the canonical power to tell the House of Deputies what it should or should not do in its legislative process. I find it also a little bit "lame" of ++ Frank Griswold to cobble together some sort of 9th inning rally for the sake of Anglican unity. Doesn't the Episcopal Church's two-house legislative process have any significance? Is it the intention of the House of Bishops to go out and buy deputies some sort of nose-pins so everyone won't have to smell the stench of power politics. How about continuing the WR process and working with others in the Anglican Communion to find common groud, if possible. If not, how about continuing to stand on this Church's moral ground as presented by the House of Deputies earlier today.
Posted by JStrader | June 20, 2006 9:19 PM
JS,
I'm not sure myself about what to think about the HoD vote, given as it seemed pretty divided with not much conversation about how to work into a possible winning solution. What was clear to me that there was some desire for some kind of response.
Given this, and the sense of of the HoB from what was observed in the HoD, that there might have been some coming together on some other language, perhaps like what was originally sent out of committee, it isn't a stretch to say, let's try this one last thing. It is important for at least the reason that Bishop Katherine should be given a chance to take something to the Communion and ++Cantaur.
I think the HoD might also benefit from a joint session where they can benefit from the more established relationships of the the bishops.
The bishops in turn can benefit from hearing from a wider constituency.
And the entire Church can benefit from this extraordinary joint working. We are all in this together so we can decide, together, what to do, and the HoD can participate by graciously setting aside its prerogatives to at least listen. After all ,it is the prerogative of the PB to call this session.
I think it is a good idea. I don't think it is a slap to the Deputies but a request to go the extra mile.
Some of the network types have already sent out their little releases and statements that they seem to have typed up some time ago. They have given up.
We should try again. At minimum it shows our good faith.
Posted by RMF | June 20, 2006 9:51 PM
Have people finally figured out that they have played right into the hands of the Network? We've got to give Williams something to work with even if it pains us a little.
The alternative is just to put away our Anglican COmmunion compass roses and resign ourselves to being in communion with Canada.
Posted by ruidh | June 20, 2006 9:55 PM
I'm not so sure this isn't the bishops believing their voices matter more than the rest of us. That's certainly how the rest of the bishop-centric Communion operates. I sometimes worry that our bishops believe they are in Europe rather than the US. They are neither crown princes nor governors, and I seriously doubt they would easily entertain the House of Deputies pulling this kind of thing on them.
And I fail to see why anyone is so concerned about pleasing the ABC. We knew full well that we would not be able to do what the WR is asking of us because it violates the very core of who we understand ourselves to be as a Christian body. I've heard many asking us to use the language of Windsor. I'm much more interested in using our own language and speaking clearly. Where are our demands for the rest of the Communion? Where is our demand that the marginalization of women and other minorities be ended NOW, end of conversation? And the list could go on and on.
And where is our outrage at the ABC's thinly veiled lukewarm reception of our new Presiding Bishop? That's outrageous! His job is to welcome her to the community of Primates, not to comment, judge or second-guess her selection. That's not how we relate to one another.
If we're going to begin that business then I want Akinola's name on a presentment list. If we're going to do this horrible thing, then there better be some serious reciprocity.
Many of us have also assumed that it would be our bishops who would wimp-out at this Convention and give in to things the Deputies would reject. This joint session may prove that correct.
Posted by Rodney Hudgen | June 20, 2006 11:30 PM