Sifting through the Sunday morning offerings
I have nothing in particular to add to the online conversation this morning, but others do. So here they are:
Stephen Bates, religion reporter for The Guardian has an interview with Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori. Asked what she will say when she meets Peter Akinola and others who oppose blessing same-sex relationships she says:
" 'I will ask him what encourages him to see some of God's children as less than human and less worthy of the dignity that our liturgy believes is the right of all human beings.'
"And if the Episcopal church gets thrown out of the Anglican communion - or, more likely, if its bishops get disinvited by Archbishop Williams from the next Lambeth conference of the world's bishops in two years' time? 'It will be unfortunate if we don't have partners, but the reality is lived at the level of local relationships, at local levels: folks from Nevada going out and helping in Kenya.' "
Steve Bates also has an analysis of our convention at The Tablet. He points out that:
"... the laborious process was scarcely helped by the intervention of certain English bishops, which went down extremely badly with the Americans. Bishop Tom Wright of Durham told the Episcopalians in a statement that they just had to fall into line. Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali of Rochester proceeded to trump that, by turning up in Columbus to inform the Americans, via the Daily Telegraph, that they were setting up a new religion – something that may have surprised the Episcopalians at their Sunday Eucharist service. Neither approach had apparently been cleared with Archbishop Williams in advance.
"In the circumstances it was unsurprising that, while Bishop Robinson was attracting a congregation of more than 1,000 for a sermon, Bishop Nazir-Ali in direct competition a short distance away could manage only 80."
Elsewhere, Bishop Gene Robinson has penned an exhortation to gay and lesbian Christians for The Witness. He says:
"Keeping us in conversation with the Anglican Communion was the goal -- for which the price was declaring gay and lesbian people unfit material for the episcopate. Only time will tell whether or not even that was accomplished. Within minutes -- yes, MINUTES -- the conservatives both within our Church and in Africa declared our sacrificial action woefully inadequate. It felt like a kick in the teeth to the ones who had gotten down on their knees to submit to the will of the whole, even though the price of doing so was excruciating. Such a quick, obviously premeditated and patently cruel reaction from the Right can be seen only as the violent and unchristian act it was."
Father Jake has two informative posts (and you've got to visit just to see the t-shirt.)
I especially recommend Bishop Peter Lee's letter to the Diocese of Virginia. He writes:
"The far right of the church already is filling blogs with statements of disassociation and repudiation. The fact is the General Convention has responded substantially and seriously to the Windsor Report. But some did not get their way: gay and lesbian people and their supporters who feel we have stepped back, and the extreme right, who find it so difficult to work with those with whom they disagree.
"The vital center of the church is intact. Much of what Convention accomplished is in the budget and in unheralded resolutions that strengthened the mission of the church."
I think these words really mean something coming from Bishop Lee. I sat in on several sessions of the special committee that dealt with Windsor-related resolutions. The bishop was a member, and he worked hard to push those resolutions to the right.I opposed every amendment I heard him offer. Yet, I have absolutely no trouble saying that I belong to the same Church as Peter Lee. In fact, I am humbled to be able to do so.
And that brings me to Nick Knisely, who wonders whether all this "two churches under one roof business" is actually true.
"[It]seems to be more of a talking point than it is a valid point.
"Why two churches? Why not three? (Left/Middle/Right) Why not four or five? Where exactly are the boundaries of these two churches? Where are the moderates (which Bishop Duncan claims in his press release to have collapsed, but which are the cause of so much pain at the moment to the people on the "left") supposed to fit into this bicameral model of our denomination?
"Or is this just rhetoric?"
I appreciate Bishop Katherine's response to the question Stephen Bates posed her. B0333 is the best that can be expected from our Church without becoming another kind of Church. If the AC can't live with that then we will have given it our best shot and the AC can't live with that; then we can go on about our work without further time spent wringing our hands about what the AC wants or doesn't. Anymore of this would be a waste of time. We should have more of the faith and courage to be TEC.
As to Bishop Lee and Robinson's comments about press releases and such, they make an interesting point about the speed and agility of these right wing groups to comment. I don't think it is surprising that the AAC is set up like that, given that their partners at the IRD have on staff and board, former members of the CIA whose duties seemed to be media manipulation and getting out propaganda pieces.
Our church, especially ENS, should be very troubled by the fact that the most up to date news about our GC and the debates, were being provided (sometimes live) by those who regularly call for the breakup and proclaim the "apostasy" The Episcopal Church. We saw this reflected in quite a bit of the overall media reporting.
Posted by RMF | June 25, 2006 2:52 PM
RMF said -If the AC can't live with that then we will have given it our best shot and the AC can't live with that; then we can go on about our work without further time spent wringing our hands about what the AC wants or doesn't. Anymore of this would be a waste of time. We should have more of the faith and courage to be TEC.
I totally agree we have sent our best offering, it is time to got about the business of TEC. I however think this must include a major effort to convey to our people in the pews other theological support for the inclusive church other than the HS made me do it. Remember a lot of us were not around when most of you seem to have worked through this years ago.
Posted by Mister H | June 25, 2006 3:18 PM
While the entire controversy is a source of sadness, I can see some of the positions of both sides. Reading the exchanges brings two things to mind: Ecclesiastes and a rising tide. Just as there is a time to rend and a time to sew, there is a time to push forward and a time to refrain from pushing. A rising tide moves forward in several waves, then recedes for several more before advancing again. But each resession is not as far back as the last, and each advance goes further than before. Tactics should not be confused with strategy, nor concessions mistaken for surrender. The trend is an advancing tide, and those who think they have shouted it into submission will share the success of King Canute, whatever the short-term outcome.
Posted by DAD | June 25, 2006 8:52 PM
Per Father Jake's speculation, I don't know if that was Williams on the phone to Griswold and Schori, but if so, I am skeptical his message was to pass BO33 or else. The rumor I find much more plausible is that Durham's piece was leaked by Williams on the verge of the convention because, though it had been prepared as a private brief for the message that York was to convey to the American bishops, some of those bishops had been misrepresenting York's message (or possibly York had been doing some freelancing). In other words, Williams released it to try to stop the inference that he found the language of A161 et al sufficient. So I think it is highly unlikely he would have suggested that BO33 would be.
Maybe we'll find out more of what happened in the near future.
In the meantime, perhaps you can also provide more information on why Bishop Chane appears to be the only bishop to have admitted he was one of those who assented to the liberal "Statement of Conscience" minority report to BO33?
Posted by pendennis88 | June 26, 2006 9:03 AM
PD, thanks for prodding me on the minority report. I have been trying to get the word out about this without as much success as I would like. The bishops who "signed on" did so by standing to signify assent in a closed session of the HOB. I am still trying to collect names.
The bishops who helped draft (by diocese) were: Chicago, Newark, Northern Michigan, Rochester, Vermont, Washington, Wyoming.
I know that Michael Curry of North Carolina and Jane Dixon, retired pro tempore of Washington also signed. Still working on the others.
I have been reporting "about twenty" because that was the most consistant and conservative response I received when I asked various bishops about it.
One other thing, I think you are right about NT Wright writing to support Sentamu. But I don't think the AofC was sending any signal through Tom Wright.
Posted by Jim Naughton | June 26, 2006 9:24 AM
Thanks for the update.
On the Wright report, there seem to be plenty of people who think that Williams (well, someone at his direction/tacit approval/wink and a nod) was the last minute leaker. Now, it is always difficult to judge motives, but if so that would seem to make it unlikely that he at any point would signal to GC 03 that it could meet Windsor half-way. Maybe his next announcement will give us a clue.
Posted by pendennis88 | June 26, 2006 10:33 AM
You could be right about the Williams thing. While we are at it I want to say that I have no idea, nor even an interesting theory, about who was on the other end of the now famous phone call.
Posted by Jim Naughton | June 26, 2006 10:43 AM
Whoa,
Looks like I missed something here (was water skiing over the weekend). Is it now official that Tom Wright did NOT personally intervene in GC 2006 and that someone else "leaked" his piece over on this side of the pond? Last I checked, most progressive sites (including this one) were chastising Bishop Wright to getting involved in our colonial affairs.
But if I read the comments above correctly, Bishop Wright wrote a piece (that he intended to remain confidential) for the benefit of the Archbishop of York, not for the benefit of the Archbishop of the Network (oops, sorry about that one, I mean Bishop Duncan).
Is that right? If so, thanks Pendennis88 for bringing that one to light.
Posted by Widening Gyre | June 26, 2006 11:00 AM
That's not quite right, and I am sorry if by writing in haste I gave the impression that I thought it was. I don't know whether Wright was speaking for Williams, which is the point I was trying to give ground on (though I continue to doubt it.) That said, I don't think it is possible that Williams "leaked" the piece. This, to me, seems an effort to pin Tom Wright's tactical blunder on Rowan Williams. (The timing of the release was extremely poorly received.) Have another look at the piece. It reads as though intended for a wide audience, not a little coterie of bishops clustered around the Archbishop of York.
Posted by Jim Naughton | June 26, 2006 11:26 AM
I don't know about that. It reads to me relatively informal, like Wright was putting his thoughts down, and that would be consistent with it being for a small group. Also, it does appear that it was available privately for some time before it was leaked. And it was leaked around the time that York was taken to have said some things reported to conflict with it regarding Windsor compliance, around June 14. Would Wright have allowed its release without William's consent? Was the timing just a blunder, or was it a forced response to York? I don't have the inside information to know, but it never seemed to me to make much sense for US orthodox to have waited till right before GC to leak the document. It supported their position, and to assume they were counting on blowback from it seems too clever by half.
Sorry, too much conjecture. I'll stop for now.
Posted by pendennis88 | June 26, 2006 12:09 PM
Well, for all my complaining about the AAC/ACN "press releasing" us to death, at least they put a date on the release so we know when it was issued and they let everybody know who the intended recipient is.
I noticed that Fulcram has the Wright article posted. I wonder when they did that.
I guess this will be just another unanswered question from GC 2006 (although not nearly as important as the biggest question--why did so many deputies jump ship (jump back in the ship?) on Wednesday re: A161 and B033).
Posted by Widening Gyre | June 26, 2006 1:06 PM