Total visitors right now: 93

Click here to check your private inbox.

Welcome to Stand Firm!

+MacPherson on the Camp Allen Resolutions

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 • 4:30 pm

From Drell:

Dear Brad,

FYI … I voted against two of them and voiced my opposition. My expressed concern was not only with content and intent, but the stated commitment of the Presiding Bishop to the church last week. She stated publicly that she did not see any action being taken at this time as she wanted the entire church to be able to participate in a process of conversation surrounding the Communique over the summer. This, she stated, would enable the bishops to make an informed decision in their response to the Primates.

The third resolution, the one inviting the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Standing Committee of the Primates to come and meet with us was initiated by a Windsor bishop and passed unanimously (no abstentions).

Your prayers are much appreciated, and know that I am coming home and we are going to continue to seek to fulfill that which God has called us to be, faithful proclaimers of the Gospel.

Lenten blessings, and again, my gratitude for your prayers.


The Rt. Rev’d D. Bruce MacPherson
Bishop of Western Louisiana
and President, Province VII

17 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook

Indeed, it is time for the Windsor Bishops to lead in this very way.  It looks like any meeting with the ABC will be a come to Jesus, the line in the sand, or, your metaphor here:_____________________.

[1] Posted by dl on 03-21-2007 at 05:58 PM • top

I wish there was some way we could pass along questions.  I wonder why the third resolution was introduced—what would a “Windsor Bishop” hope to achieve with a meeting?

This one has me puzzled.


[2] Posted by Wolverine on 03-21-2007 at 06:17 PM • top

The resolution for a meeting with the ABC was proposed by Bp. John Howe of Central Florida, one of the Network Dioceses that had initially requested Alternative Primatial Oversight.  He shares his reasons for doing so here:

[3] Posted by Barbara Gauthier on 03-21-2007 at 06:26 PM • top

Thanks Barbara (May I call you Barbara?)
Anyway, here’s Bishop Howe’s explanation:
We believe there is sufficient misunderstanding and miscommunication that this face to face meeting is urgently needed, and we have invited these persons to meet with us, at our expense, any time such a meeting can be scheduled between now and the end of September.
To me, This raises more questions than it answers.  Who is misunderstanding whom?  About what?
Good heavens, how long have we been going back and forth over this?  Any “misunderstanding” at this point is almost certainly intentional, and bringing in the ABC for a meeting will accomplish nothing that can’t be done with a phone call.

[4] Posted by Wolverine on 03-21-2007 at 07:01 PM • top

He seems positively giddy about Schori and the meetings. This is a Network bishop?

[5] Posted by Brit on 03-21-2007 at 07:59 PM • top

I am increasingly disappointed by ++Howe.  When he left Truro for Central Florida I expected him to be a lion among the orthodox Bishops.  Over the years he has becoming increasingly timid. 

I too apprecaite the PB’s clarity, but to suggest that she has become a brilliant leader of the church ignores the fruit of the meeting she chaired.

A meeting with the AOC and the Standing Committee will accomplish nothing except feed the “dialogue” mantra of the revisionists.

[6] Posted by Going Home on 03-21-2007 at 08:02 PM • top

Giddy because ++Schori is calm and even handed? It’s a piece of cake to be calm and even handed when you have the votes. Let the chips fall where they may—she knows they will always fall on the left side of the razor blade.

[7] Posted by AngloTex on 03-21-2007 at 08:07 PM • top

I agree.  I think John Howe has sold out.  We attended Truro in the 1980s and he seemed like a real rising star for the orthodox side.  Maybe he has worn the purple shirt for too long.  Power corrupts.

Interesting to compare Bishop Howe now with his one-time young assistant at Truro, Neil Lebhar, who has taken a courageous and personally costly stand in Jacksonville.

[8] Posted by CampCalvaryKid on 03-21-2007 at 08:37 PM • top

IMO the most important thing Howe said was:

“We were assured that no action would be taken at this meeting regarding the two major requests that were directed to us by the Primates’ Communique (no more consents to the elections of partnered gay Bishops, and no more blessings of same-sex relationships).

There has been much discussion of both of these requests, and a number of individual Bishops have very clearly expressed their unwillingness to agree to either of them. But there has been no official action taken by the House as a whole regarding them. The tenor of the discussion makes it clear (to me) that whenever we do address them (presumably in our September meeting), there will be an overwhelming decision to say No. “

So, they rejected the PV plan of the primate but now we have to wait until September to get the inevitable NO on the other requests.

[9] Posted by Nevin on 03-21-2007 at 09:07 PM • top

Is there really a need for further clarity?  What, exactly, is not clear?  The Priamtes have spoken, the HOB has rejected the communique and want to do this on their own terms.  Does anyone doubt that the HOB will also say no to anything that marginalizes the GLBT community?  The course has been set and the Primates need to pull the trigger.

[10] Posted by Don Curran on 03-21-2007 at 09:11 PM • top


Re. McPherson and KJS:

Well, she =was= the one who proposed and pushed the primatial vicar proposal at least as early as last November, promoted it in Tanzania, and the primates picked it up and ran with it.

That she wanted the entire church and leadership to study and discuss the communique over the summer rather than have the bishops take immediate action COULD be construed as something positive:  she is not joined at the hip to Bp Chane and the other radical liberal fundamentalists among TEC’s bishops, and she would like to have had the extra time to sell her idea of a temporary “fast” from further consecrations of non-celibate homosexual bishops and from same-sex blessings, Susan Russell & Co. notwithstanding.

From an orthodox perspective, based on her track record, her motives may not be pristinely pure. But give credit where due. She’s now shouting from the housetops, in effect: “it’s not over, the bishops’ statements are not the last word in this crisis.” The fight’s not gone out of her yet. It =appears= she wants Windsor compliance and is willing to make ecclesio-political concessions to keep the Communion together. But like the spawning salmon in the dammed Columbia River in Oregon, it’s a heck of an uphill swim for her at the moment.


[11] Posted by r.w. on 03-21-2007 at 09:42 PM • top

“We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God’s children, including gay and lesbian persons, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ’s Church. ” A Statement from the House of Bishops – March 20, 2007

For a bunch of folks who can’t decide anything by themselves they were decidely decisive yesterday. Can’t get much more clarity than this statement, defined by the consecration of VGR.

[12] Posted by AngloTex on 03-21-2007 at 09:45 PM • top

Perhaps it is time for the orthodox parishioners and their vestries to write to their Bishop and perhaps even to the ABC to encourage a rapid resolution to these issues.  We must recognize that TECs relation to the Anglican Communion will have no impact on the property disputes.  It is my impression that they are purely issues for the state judiciary to decide.

[13] Posted by Edwin on 03-21-2007 at 10:45 PM • top

I am deeply disappointed by the interest and support for a meeting with the ABC.  It is nothing more than another stall tactic and I pray that ++Rowan et al. see through this and keep the HOB’s feet to the fire by saying NO!

[14] Posted by MikeSWFL on 03-21-2007 at 10:52 PM • top

Mike, I understand your perspective and disappointment.  I too am struggling with this, especially the TONE of the request/demand (you come here, we’ll pay your way, etc etc.)

What I’ve now seen two Windsor bishops writing however echoes Matthew 18.  Basically, they were very concerned that other bishops were attacking and denigrating ++Rowan and the Primates.  They suggested that integrity and Christian charity and Scripture (Matthew 18) dictated that concerns be better raised in person, rather than attacking in absentia.  I imagine much of the discussion and vote followed from Bishop Marshall of Bethlehem’s rather infamous screed…

In that context I can understand how this vote came about.  Doesn’t mean I like it much, but it is much less offensive to me than the other resolutions.

[15] Posted by Karen B. on 03-21-2007 at 11:25 PM • top

Actually, I was commenting on Bishop Howe’s comments, from the link. I’m sorry—I should have made that clear. I realized it wasn’t after I sent it!

I’m conflicted about Schori. She started off her tenure by suing everyone and their vestries. She’s made clear where she stands on the “inclusion” issue and put that into practice in Nevada. I prayed she would have an epiphany in Tanzania and it seemed, briefly, that she did return with a greater understanding.

But I have the nagging sense that she’s duplicitous; that the HOB is saying and doing as she would have said and done, but she is playing the “good cop” role. It’s easy for her to say “oooops, they went farther than I had wanted!” but she could very well have planted the seeds.

In any event, with their true opinions known, I hope this doesn’t drag out until September. It would be useless.

[16] Posted by Brit on 03-21-2007 at 11:37 PM • top

Speaking of Ms. Schori, Jake and Russell are reporting she never signed or agreed to the Communique.

[17] Posted by Brit on 03-22-2007 at 12:46 AM • top

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.