Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori’s Offer of a Failed DEPO Plan, Only This Time to Bishops

Excellent and clear piece Sarah, thanks.  Fantastic Scripture quote at end.  Hadn’t thought of that comparison, but you are on the money!

It may well be that we are misinterpreting such objectively ludicrous efforts from 815 as the Lawyer Bishops’ Report and this Episcopal Visitor silliness.  It is beyond any reasonable possibility that the ABC will be taken in by them, much less the Primates who, plaintive squeaks about the ACC from several of the HoB’s more prominent snivelers notwithstanding, will have the last word.

Remember Dr. Thomas Sowell’s theme in The Vision of the Anointed—the principal personal concern of the Left is to maintain its self-image of moral superiority.  Thus we find people whose IQs clearly reach into three digits making absurd claims about DEPO being a perfectly adequate arrangement for the faithful, repeating ad nauseam the shellfish argument with only minor variations, praising the sophisticated theology of TSOH, and emitting similar utterances which one would expect at this point only from the very simpleminded.

It seems likely to me that these ludicrous proposals are not intended to be convincing to the ABC or the Primates (or the Network), much less ever actually implemented—they are simply place holders so that when the General Convention Church is ejected from the Communion, they can point to them and repeat over and over to each other how evil, unfair, unreasonable, and so on the Communion was to them.  They are the innocent victims of a kangaroo court of vicious homophobic reactionaries—and their moral superiority is once again vindicated.  To themselves, at least—which is all that matters.

Craig, I hope you are right - but ++Rowan’s Dar assertion that TEC had been “compliant” gives me pause.  Likewise his non-invite of +Minns to Lambeth.  I think that ++Rowan is susceptible to the “moral parity” argument, and, even worse, that he will allow apostate TEC to carry on with its antics in a “listening process and dialogue” while expecting the GS to go cold turkey on support for Anglican Christians in North America.
Although ++Rowan is a theologian and man of prayer, I fear that he can “reason” himself into institutionalism over Gospel content as the defining quality of the church.
All that said, I really hope that your analysis is correct and that I am proven wrong about all I’ve just said.

TEC mantains that B033 and non GC action on SS blessing are within DAR. The ABC’s report at DAR affirms this. DAR provides for APO which the HOB’s rejected when they last met. This offering is a Trojan Horse to fill the gap of APO from Dar.

Sarah,

I hope you are correct about KJS misleading us and that the “visiting bishops” were misled as well. My concern is that not one of them has stepped up and clearly stated that they were not consulted about this plan. 

In the ENS press release it states that these bishops would provide ministry to dioceses that would not want her visit.  That makes these 8 bishops surrogate primates.  For some reason I don’t see that flying with the dioceses that requested APO.

frreed, boy could I be wrong—as has been seen before on this blog.

But I did get some other slight confirmation of my theory through third-hand sources . . .

But still, as we must recall from GC 2006, all suspicions could be wrong about a matter.  So it’s just a theory on my part.

“I found the announcement today of Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori’s eight “Episcopal Visitors” deeply underwhelming.”

REALLY, I’m surprised to read that. ;-p

As I wrote before on this topic, ‘bad ideas don’t ever go away they just get recycled,’ however it is new packaging. Then the five heresies Matt+ wrote about at the first of the year are not new either, just a band new, market-tested wrapper.

Points for consistency, maybe? 

Sarah is quoting one of the three APO requests.  She has overlooked the most recent one made in November ‘06 to the GS Steering Committee:

“In seeking alternative Primatial oversightand pastoral care, we are seeking a Primate from elsewhere in theCommunion who will carry-out, or cause to be carried-out, the
constitutional and canonical duties of the Presiding Bishop.
3.  We need an antidote to the inherent independence of action that has characterized relations among bishops and dioceses in the American Church. In the time between the present and the point at which some permanent structure can emerge, alternative Primatial oversight and pastoral care seems to us a wise interim strategy.

Cover.4.  During the period in which a “separate ecclesiastical structure” can be worked out among us, we need protection from those who would “seek to destroy the child.”  The moral influence of the Primates, one of theInstruments of the Communion, can, we believe, provide the protection necessary to counter-balance the historic hostility of the majorityEpiscopal Church.

5.  A Primate in the role of alternative overseer, agreed by the Primates Meeting, allows us to continue our domestic legal and property battles as that part of the Episcopal Church that remains “a constituent member ofthe Anglican Communion in communion with the see of Canterbury.”

APO, in this document is designed as temporary “cover” while the bishops requesting it carried on their court battles over property, and set up their own province.  This document was “secret” and specifically stated as much.  Not at all the same as the one sent to +Rowan.  It came out last February in the court documents.

The ABC isn’t stupid, don’t you think he knows by now what the “FedCons” were up to?  Admitedly, this offer of APO is one that will only be attractive to ComCons and institutional conservatives.  (Can you imagine +Duncan being “visited” by anyone?) But it seems that there is nothing, after the formation of the Common Cause Partnership, the consecrations this summer, and the alliance with the GS corps that, I think, TEC can offer to +Duncan, +Iker, (maybe +Schofield, +Ackerman and +Beckwith that is going to motivate the m to stay.)

Re: “Bridge-Building DEPO Bishops” -

I don’t know about the rest of them but here’s a sample of Brookhart’s ‘open mind’ and ‘clear vision’.  Having been under his ‘pastoral care’ in MT, I think orthodox believers nationwide would not thank KJS unleashing him on the entire nation - he’s completely destroyed orthodox belief in the TEC churches of MT.  Great for Shori - but for the Communion and Christ - it’s not a real ‘blessing’.

The House of Bishops and House of Deputies passed by considerable margins resolutions regarding the Windsor procYou may remember that the Windsor Report, sometimes called the Eames Report, was issued by a select committee whose task was to map out a way forward in the Anglican Communion in light of the stresses in the Communion resulting from the consecration of the Bishop of New Hampshire and the development of rites for blessing of same sex unions by a diocese in Canada. Windsor invited our Church to make a series of responses in order to begin theprocess of healing the bonds of affection in

The General Convention enacted a number of resolutions in response. The debate surrounding these motions was serious, civil, and of a high quality, at least in the House in which I sit. In these resolutions the Episcopal Church expressed regret for actions that caused such furor around the Communion, stated its intention and deep desire to remain a part of the Anglican Communion and in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, pledged not to authorize rites for the blessings of same sex unions (please note that this and the previous General Conventions refused to move toward developing such

services), to refrain from consenting to the consecration as bishop anyone living in a same sex relationship, pledged to be a part of the development of a covenant to bind together more closely the Communion, expressed profound sorrow for any pain caused gay and lesbian people by the Church, and called upon other parts of the Communion to be involved in a listening process regarding the lives and experiences of gay and lesbian Christians (we were told that the Archbishop of Canterbury has recently appointed a person to initiate and coordinate thlistening process). is

I believe that these are reasonable, good faith, and acceptable responses to the Windsor Report, and, in fact, we had indications from the Archbishop of York and the president of the Anglican Consultative Council, both of whom were present, that our actions were in the ball park. At this point let me warn you about reports that you may read about these actions. The secular press often slants stories so as to highlight conflict, and, indeed, the story I read this morning in the paper (I write this while on vacation in West Virginia) was not accurate at several important points. Also, certain groups in the church will put full throttle spin on what happens, so as to promote their own cause (be cautious about the reports from Anglican Communion Network, American Anglican Council, David Virtue, Kendall Harmon, Integrity, and the Witness). Reports from Episcopal News Service, Anglican News Service, or conversations with our deputies and me are likely to be more accurate. At any rate, the center of the Church in both Houses seems to have grown larger, and was willing to move forward on the askings of Windsor….

The General Convention is an intense event. Important matters are wedged between fairly routine, even trivial, concerns. The days are long, and the meetings demanding. The events provoke pride, hope, anger, worry. I was able to connect with people I have not seen in years. I will be months digesting the Convention. But in the final analysis, I left Columbus with hope for our Church and a sense of accomplishment. +Franklin

Frreed raises a key point:

My concern is that not one of them has stepped up and clearly stated that they were not consulted about this plan.

Has anyone done the digging into this in terms of the names of those who it is claimed have agreed to do this as well as who was consulted?

What this half-baked plan does not acknowledge is that orthodox congregations don’t just need a good hug from an orthodox bishop every now and then.  They need to be assured that their church-building efforts, tithing, and guidance to their families won’t eventually be swallowed by the revisionist movement.  We are all looking with great sadness at all of the sacrifice and contributions made by good orthodox people in past ages and that their work has been coopted by the hard left—church properties, endowments, and so forth.  Why would I give gobs of money to build a new wing of a church if, 40 years from now, the Episcopal Visitor (almost a humorous term) doesn’t come any more and my diocese enacts a policy of mandatory liberal theology?  I’ve just contributed to the sinful enterprise I thought the church was supposed to fight against.  Why bother?

Why raise children in the “Episcopal Church” if they are just going to be subject to misguidance years down the road if they just wander into the nearest Episcopal Church not knowing the difference?  Occasional Episcopal visitors does not address that problem. 

That is what KJS and the revisionists offering ¼ a loaf do not understand.

Eclipse, were you cocerned about you bishop’s asking his people to be wary of AAC, the Network ,and Kendal group, the Integrity, Witness group or both groups?

RE: “Admitedly, this offer of APO is one that will only be attractive to ComCons and institutional conservatives.”

EmilyH, the ComCons and institutional conservatives did not request APO—the five bishops did. 

Furthermore, the thing you quoted from is prior to the Dar es Salaam communique which these same bishops requesting APO have wholeheartedly supported.  So the Dar communique supercedes their former request, and indeed can actually work with that request, since the Pastoral Council which Dar speaks of serves as their “alternative overseer”.  Indeed the Pastoral Council is the Primatial Oversight and the primatial vicar is merely the person who handles things over in ECUSA and reports to the Pastoral Council.

And finally, of course, the Dar communique responds to exactly the needs that you quote above about protection and lawsuits and more:

“We believe that such a scheme is robust enough to function and provide sufficient space for those who are unable to accept the direct ministry of their bishop or the Presiding Bishop to have a secure place within The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion until such time as the Covenant Process is complete.  At that time, other provisions may become necessary”

AND HERE

“It is also clear that a significant number of bishops, clergy and lay people in The Episcopal Church are committed to the proposals of the Windsor Report and the standard of teaching presupposed in it (cf paragraph 11).  These faithful people feel great pain at what they perceive to be the failure of The Episcopal Church to adopt
the Windsor proposals in full.  They desire to find a way to remain in faithful fellowship with the Anglican Communion.  They believe that they should have the liberty to practice and live by that expression of Anglican faith which they believe to be true.  We are deeply concerned that so great has been the estrangement
between some of the faithful and The Episcopal Church that this has led to recrimination, hostility and even to disputes in the civil courts”

AND HERE

“The Primates urge the representatives of The Episcopal Church and of those congregations in property disputes with it to suspend all actions in law arising in this situation.  We also urge both parties to give assurances that no steps will be taken to alienate property from The Episcopal Church without its consent or to deny the use of that property to those congregations.”

In short, the Dar communique addresses the concerns quoted above in the appeal to the Global South, AND the concerns in their original appeal.

The Episcopal Visitors response does NOT address those concerns.

EmilyH, don’t you think that you should actually read these documents, rather than merely quote from Jim Naughton or the HOB/D listserve? 

Simply reading the documents in question will clarify matters easily for you, and you will see the congruence of Dar with the needs of these five bishops, as they have expressed numerous times, and the noncongruence of the Episcopal Visitors with those needs.

They will cobble together some sort of statement of some sort of plan of “how to go forward together until we can get further resolution” , kick it down the road again. RW will knit his voluminous brows, cock his head like the RCA dog, thank everyone, and fly back to England. The majority of the Primates will say “Well, let the really insistent Americans, and the really insistent GS guys leave, and the majority of us will just keep going with what we have.”

Why will “99 bottles of beer on the wall” not quit playing in my head?

Thanks Eclipse, that’s priceless!

“Only trust Pravda, only Pravda has the official party line. Any independent news source might ask questions of people we’ve not officially screened to put forth the proper propaganda. Only the trust the non-independent news source, say it with me, ‘free-press is bad.’”

As if, anyway, “bishops” like Shaw and Robinson are going to let bishops like Stanton and Howe have pastoral access to parishes in their dioceses?  Can’t have that—it would “dilute the prophetic witness”, wouldn’t it? 

YUCK BARF GAG

Don’t you all see that TEC will never reform itself.  It is for the same reason Castro will never reform Cuba, a teenager will nerver quit maxing out his five credit cards, a burgler can’t find a policeman.  Reform must be impossed from outside.  TEC is bankrupt and must be taken into receivership.  Asking them to change is as hard as trying to teach a patient how to circumcise himself,  they just never will get the hang of it.  Some outside authoriety must take over and impose reform from outside.  If not, then they will drive the buss but you don’t have to ride on the buss and if you do then you have no right to complain as to where you end up.

Prophetic, Michaiah.

EmilyH :

RE:  Franklin Brookhart

The point is that the man DOES NOT like orthodox believers and has systematically stamped them out of his diocese since he took office.  I should know, I WAS a stampee.

So, a guy to help churches in crises he is not  - unless your plans include extermination of the people who attend there - He’s gifted with that.

This, I suppose, is just what Shori wants - people to destroy the faithful remanent in TEC. 

The only thing worse than having Brookhart in MT would be to have him have access to all the other 50 states so he can persecute Anglican believers nationwide.

Like I said on another thread, If He is what TEC considers a ‘bridge-builder’ I’d love to see what they consider to be a ‘bridge-burner’...

I am losing track of this meeting, there is more info than I can handle - Has Bishop Jenkins presented his plan yet.  Will he present a plan for pastoral oversight at this meeting?
Do the Archbishop of Cantebury’s closing remarks mean the meeting is over?