Bishop Greg Venables And Bishop James Mathes

With all due respect, I cannot understand for the life of me why ++Venables should apologize to +Mathes for his (welcomed) visits to the area. I mean, does +Mathes think that the Archbishop should offer his apologies to the Mormons or Jehovah Witnesses or any other offshoot of Christianity currently found in the region?

TEC is NO LONGER a Christian body, at least in the classical sense. A remarkable model of 21st-century Utopianism, perhaps, but not a classical Christian group.

Wait for AB +Greg to clarify in his own words, PLEASE. Anything other version of the story is just IndabalatedEpiscospeak.

Blessings and prayers for AB +Greg and his family.
Intercessor

All agreed, “Intercessor.” ++Greg is a grace-filled man, under authority of Word and Spirit. I (and others) should, as you suggest, wait this one out.

Yet I still cannot help but think he did the RIGHT thing in the first place!

Read my words.

The Archbishop is apologizing for lack of communication about the visits, not the visits themselves.  I see no problem with that.
(Gregory - did this poor Lutheran get it right?)

Yes.

What a blessing to have Archbishop Venables at Lambeth.  And to take time to drop by here rewards us all.

Peace to ALL & prayers for all bishops assembled at Lambeth,

And it is a blessing to have Archbishop Venables communicating directly with StandFirm when he has the chance.

My guess is that one key to diciphering this interaction is to be found in the words “Over breakfast…” 

When bishops who are serving different gospels end up at the same breakfast table and are forced to be conversant with one another, but prefer not to engage in rhetorical battle so early in the morning, 30-45 minutes ends up being a lot of time to fill, and a whole lot of things can be said (and then misunderstood, or spun for effect).  Short of silence, PB Venables saying he regrets that he didn’t make contact with Mathes is probably the nicest thing one could honestly say.

Of course, Mathes’ present letter is either an example of misunderstanding Venables, or purposefully spinning the encounter (subtext: “the power of dialogue, face to face encounters, blah, blah, blah…”).

Regardless of motivation, Mathes conclusion overreaches: “Previously, I had taken his silence to mean his actions were intentional.”  It’s hard to say what Mathes is referring to here.  Venables not responding to Mathes’ original letters was unintentional, but of course Venables visits to San Diego were quite intentional.

In any event, over breakfast tomorrow I trust that the Mennonite mediator will be able to mend the fence by convincing Mathes to repent, and turn San Diego into a bastion of orthodoxy so that at some point down the road, once trust is restored, there can be reconciliation. 

At which point, said Mennonite will be unleashed upon the rest of TEC and the ACoC to work his magic, ...and the Communion will be saved.

Since the parishes Archbishop Greg visited are his own, and no longer part of TEC, I fail to understand why any notice should be given, nor any apology.  It makes about as much sense as if he would inform the (Roman) Archdiocese of San Diego when visiting.  We are no longer part of TEC just as we are no longer part of Roman!

Why didn’t +Mathes post the letters on the internet like +Schori does? It is much more effecient then actually sending them by post.

I would say, based on TEC bishops behavior, that he never really sent any letters just as no SSB are being done.

As per usual TEC policy when addressing Primates of the Communion, I imagine Bp Mathes put open letters on his diocesan website for the consumption of his loyalists, and never actually sent anything to Abp. Venables.  One notes that over the last 24 months, TEC bishops have apparently come to the conclusion that the world reads their diocesan websites, and that no other notice is necessary, and it allows them to keep the postage for legal fees.
For the rest, see 4,5,and 6 above.

My friends, I have no stake in being “right” in my original post. Without any equivocation, I wish to apologize for what, in a fleeting moment, I intended (but did not rightly convey) as a comment in support of Archbishop Venables (whom I know, without question, has honored his “call unto holiness”). Unfortunately, as I drafted this remark, I took a facile swipe at TEC.

Archbishop Venables, please forgive me.

I am so impressed that Abp Venables would drop by SF.  Immediately left me with the fantasy:  sure wish he’d drop by New Hampshire.  Considering that this state is virtually the Episcopal Gulag, wouldn’t it be wonderful if ++Greg came up here and led a Billy Graham style crusade???? Oh well, I can fantasize….

Speaking from Chicago:

Take care when talking to +Mathes.  Please, ++Venables, take great care and prayer.

Venables, Iker, and Lawrence have all made commets here in the past, and I’m sure others can name other Anglican Communion bishops that have made comments. 

Of course, we also are “graced” with the participation of Susan Russell and Elizabeth Keaton.  We seem to get all the celebreties except VGR.  I wonder if he even knows we exist of if he is too busy dodging snipers and primping for the cameras. 

Sorry if I’ve messed up the spelling of any of those names.

Fr. Briane, you did not take a facile swipe at TEC [14].  You stated the facts on the ground.  Where’s the sin in that?

I’m surprised that Bishop Mathes didn’t act the same way that Bishop Bennison did when he was introduced to a British bishop by one of his clergy several years ago by sarcastically saying to him “What are you doing in MY diocese?”  It was an uninvited stopover for the bishop, who was on his way to a conference and stopped in as a courtesy call.

bp Mathes although portraying himself as a propoent of unification has in the last few weeks ordained to the deaconate an gay man in an open homosexual relationship.
How can anyone take him at his word?

Here is the link. I don’t know too many people who become deacons and get their names in the paper.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/features/20080621-9999-1c21deacon.html

I have let this story stew all day, and the more I think about it, the more I wonder if perhaps it isn’t one of the best things to come out of Lambeth.  Maybe, just maybe, this issue can be worked out on the ground, rather than legislated, or taken to court if the split continues. 

It will take time, and Bishop Mathes and Archbishop Venables are certainly committed to their positions (as seen in the Living Church article http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2008/8/1/bishop-of-san-diego-receives-an-apology), but seem equally committed to conversation.  Conversation in *this* context is a positive thing.

Has mathes made a complete turnabout ? Has he repented ?
Wasnt he directly involved with Bruno in trying to depose Bp Schofield ? How many parishes has he sued and is continuing to do so ?
Where would you start with this man ?

What about the congregations? This is not just between +Mathes and Archbishop Venables. It is about people who no longer feel they can be part of the direction TEC is going. They can talk all they want but it will not change anything. Archbishop Venables knows this, otherwise the Southern Cone would not have offered a place for them in the first place. If it was a simple case of having a pint in da bar, we would not be discussing this.

I’d start telling him to resign!

#24 AMEN !!!

Since coming under his apostolic authority, I have been blessed to spend time with ++Greg and observe that he is a passionate evangelist who would love to see every stray sheep repent and return to the Lord Jesus.  When I read “...he was sorry he had not told him what he was doing and why,” I thought “Of course he would want to bring the Gospel to +James and call him to repentance.”  This is what apostles do.

After all this time, it still surprises me that leaders like Bishop Mathes think these communion rending issues can be resolved with a bit of mediation.

Archbishop Venables tell about his conversation with Mathes in detail on an interview posted and http://www.anglicantv.org.

I have proposed that we continue discussing how to mend the tear these incursions have caused in our diocese.

Is it just me, or does the irony of Mathes use of the phrase “mend the tear these incursions have caused…” not drip with irony, considering the ongoing work Mathes is doing to deepen another “tear in the fabric of Communion.”

Could +Venables confirm. In the instance re: San Joaquin, post its convention, in an interview with a Latin American paper he was reported to have said that his conversation with +Cantuar was simply to inform him of what he was going to do not seek his approval.  In this instance, the apology seems to have been rendered, not for the action, but that it was given without notice.

Emily H,

If you watch the Anglican TV interview with Bp. Venables linked above (#29), you will see that he addresses both those instances. You have paraphrased him accurately.

monika

Further conversation with Archbishop Venables will bless the life, home, and diocese of Bishop James Mathes. I hope to God they get together again. 

Tip for Bishop Mathes:
Publicizing a “spun” version of the “apology” doesn’t really do a whole lot, does it, toward encouraging further conversation with a man of substance and maturity. If you really want to foster genuine, productive dialogue, don’t run right out after you’re done speaking and try to spin in the public sphere what the other person has said more or less in private.  Give it, say, 10 or 15 minutes next time.  Better yet, keep it between you, Bp Greg, and God.

As it is, you’ve invited upon yourself a public correcting more highly publicized than your silly original letter.

Nice one.