Rescinding the invitation

Susan Russell has the story of how Bishop Dabney Smith of the Diocese of Southwest Florida withdrew permission he had previously granted for Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire to speak at a Sarasota church. Bishop Smith has apparently taken a lesson from the Jeffrey John chapter of the Rowan Williams playbook entitled, "How to Alienate your Supporters without Placating your Adversaries."

The bishop has decided that it is too politically costly to allow the listening process, recommended in Lambeth Resolution 1.10, to take place in his jurisdiction. Here is how the rector of the church which had invited Robinson explained Smith's decision to his parish:

Bishop Smith said he took this action because of all the heat he is getting. Previously Bishop Smith had given his permission for the visit and said it was not a problem for him although he anticipated a reaction. He told me that it has been more of a reaction than he anticipated.

Smith's decision raises the larger question of which Episcopal bishops will be permitted to speak at churches in the Tampa/ St. Petersburgh area. Does a bishop who participated in Robinson's consecration pass muster? How about a bishop who voted with the majority in affirming Robinson's election? Is any speaker subject to cancellation if sufficient outrage can be generated, or just the gay ones?

The church awaits clarification on these issues from Bishop Smith, or whichever group is now making up his mind for him.

In the meantime, the disenchanted can buy this button.

Posted by Jim Naughton on November 15, 2007 9:06 AM | |
Comments (5)

People respond to incentives. With the withdrawal of his invitation to Bishop Robinson, Bishop Smith has issued an invitation to people to shout louder.

Listen not to loud anxious voices.

Do not push the Submit button.

Posted by John B. Chilton [TypeKey Profile Page] | November 15, 2007 10:19 AM

It's the difference between pouring oil on troubled waters and gasoline on a fire. I don't read about many invitations to speak being extended to those who support the teaching of Lambeth 1.10. Listening goes both ways.

Posted by TomRightmyer [TypeKey Profile Page] | November 15, 2007 10:30 AM

Tom, I agree with you and appreciate the example you give.

The other example that I appreciate is of the reaction to the House of Bishops resolution at New Orleans - from right and left. Rhetoric was disproportionate to reality. Why? Because bishops react to it.

Posted by John B. Chilton [TypeKey Profile Page] | November 15, 2007 10:36 AM

Maybe you don't read enough, Tom. In our diocese we've had Peter Akinola, Drexel Gomez and Keith Ackerman. The first two are primates who are actively campaigning for our ouster from the Communion, yet parishes invited them, and they were permitted to speak. Is there no issue on which you do not immediately seek to split the difference?

Posted by Jim Naughton [TypeKey Profile Page] | November 15, 2007 10:38 AM

Thanks to Louie Crew who "broke" the story ...

Posted by revsusan [TypeKey Profile Page] | November 15, 2007 11:52 AM

Add your comments

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.

Advertising Space