Resolution Offered by Windsor Bishops (+Jenkins Resolution)

Greg—this is huge.  Thank you thank you!

Good grief—consulting with Bishop Bruno and Chane?

Ah, so this was what the silence was all about.  My initial take is “This was well worth the wait.”  Well crafted, great tone, and shows a level of strategery not normally present in bishop statements! Now, will it find a receptive crowd?  We’ll all find out together.

Anybody know how all these resolutions and letters are finding their way to the internet?  Do we have imbedded bishops?

Good grief—consulting with Bishop Bruno and Chane?

What, exactly, would hens consult with foxes about? What time is dinner?

the snarkster

The fact that +Wolf’s name is attached will give it some real punch.  She has proven to be very even handed…

Just so I’m clear, this is the same as the MacPhearson, Jacobus, Wolfe, etc. proposal below, but it has something of a nice preamble, and more names?

NBS:  That was my thought.  The proposals seem identical.

So all that’s left is an up or down vote.

+Charles has obviously been at work trying to forge a coalition.
If any of you are around New Orleans on Sunday, please come to Annunciation for 10:30a Service. Confirmations, recpetions, great music and reception afterward. Bishop Adams (ACN) is preaching and presiding. 4505 S. Claiborne Ave., NOLA 70125. 504-895-8697. http://www.annunciationbroadmoor.org. Welcome!

jerry+

Would anyone like to take a guess at how much of this will survive if it is passed?  It’s a good resolution, and I would love to see it pass as written.  If ammended, the resolution will be meaningless.

Not bad…

Should this actually be adopted then that owuld defuse the fast approaching split.  But this is only re-framing the discussions that are currently going on.  It does not provide concrete methods for an alternate oversite plan. 

That being said…any success in re-framing how TEC views the current situation is a huge step forward.

But I’m still looking for the proof hiding in the pudding.

Anybody else besides me somewhat surprised to see +Schofield’s name on this?

I’m very glad to see the names of two Tennessee bishops on this letter/resolution.  And the inclusion of Wolf, Jenkins, Wimberly, and Smith means that the statement may actually be heard.

Lets see—after you have a vote on this resolution the ABC and the Primates might be able to tell who should be invited to Lambeth and who should not.

Where’s the part where the Episcopal Church covenants to stop suing people?

bb

As a matter of diversity and integrity, we believe that those who desire such spiritual oversight should participate fully in the design of such a plan.

  There is a mole at 815.  A copy of the top-secret TEC styleguide was smuggled out.  Credit another successful adventure to Chris Johnson, Anglican Investigator.

Anybody besides me surprised to see +Gray of Mississippi is nowhere to be seen?

the snarkster

I appreciate what these bishops are trying to do.  Really, I do.  On the other hand, the first “resolved” is sprinkled with “loophole” words such that it doesn’t answer the DES communique (“mindful that it is the duty of a Bishop to order the public liturgy of the church in his or her diocese,” “<u>public</u> Rite of Blessing”).  Then we get to the resolve on the DES pastoral approach.  Again, great, but the HOB already answered this one in March, we will all recall, not in the most deliberative manner.  Given all the momentum has gone in the reappraisers’ favor over the summer, I fail to see what’s changed that would cause the HOB to reverse its earlier rejection.

I suppose this is the old college try.  Thanks to Jenkins for gamely rolling it out there.

It would appear that for many members of HoB, a reality is beginning to show through the cloud of ideological fog:  Being ejected from the Communion will in fact get the attention of the leadership of nearly all their parishes, and an enormous number of them will decide “enough is enough” and take steps to leave—and it will generally be the largest and most financially important parishes in a diocese that will decide to fight for their property.

So many (most?) bishops could wind up losing, say, a third of the diocesan budget, and with whatever’s left trying to support small parishes which were marginal to start with and now have lost many of their principal donors.  The question for them is whether fidelity to Integrity’s political dogma is important enough to them that they’re willing to watch their diocese disintegrate into chaos and poverty.

And of course, these are the same bishops for whom fidelity to their Christian dogma was not important enough to them to resist the pressure from the coasts.  They do not have a particularly good record at resisting pressure…

And although it’s self-evident that if this passes, the “not to authorize or permit any public Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in our dioceses” clause will be a dead letter in California, Newark, Chicago, New York, and elsewhere, recall that back just before GC06 +NT Wright wrote,

... there are questions already raised about whether a decision of General Convention would be able to bind those parts of ECUSA that have already stated their determination to press ahead in the direction already taken. But the Anglican principle of taking people to be in reality what they profess to be, until there is clear evidence to the contrary, must be observed.

So if this passes as written—unlikely, but at least possible—we might well find the Beers/Bruno regime marginalized, like a particularly vicious mad dog confined in a very small cage (or “a very small box,” to coin a phrase) and ECUSA putting one very tentative, hesitant foot on the road to recovery.

At least until GC09, anyway…

Don’t know about + Grey but I know +Lillibridge was unable to attend the June Windsor Bishops meeting. Even so, I’m very surprised his name isn’t on this. It is certainly in line with his statements, public and private.

Ditto with McPherson although I see he has his own resolution.

Phil,
No one expects the HOB to reverse it’s position although we still do pray for it.  However, should this be voted on, as the bartender points out, this would clearly show who should be invited to Lambeth and who should not.

I love the way he has in his letter to KJS tied this the Bishops’ bona fides on helping the poor.  Opposing this is opposing those who need the church’s focus on those things KJS and her MDG-junkie friends say they care about.

I’m curious, where are the names of the other Windsor bishops?  (Lillibridge of W Texas?) The language is clear and strong, eloquent, not arrogant. But even if (and that’s a big “if”) there are enough votes to pass this in its present form, I fear the usual players will howl in protest and continue to act as they have. Dare we hope for more?

Greg

Your introduction is confusing.  This letter is dated July 2, but the last meeting of the Windsor bishops was Aug. 9-10.  Could this letter have been the basis for, not the product of, the discussions in August and perhaps also the basis for the resolution offered by MacPherson et al?

Anyone willing to lay odds on the necessity of another primates’ meeting if this passes, to request a clarification?

I am sure Bishop Jenkins must have spent hours and hours on this resolution and I’m glad he has.  It seems to me that the HofB vote on this - one way or the other - will send a clear answer to the Primates.  And let’s hope and pray that it passes.  And, especially, that there will not be a repeat of scenes in the past when several bishops have screamed bloody murder and that they won’t be bound by any of it.

Mark,

Thanks for the date correction. It’s fixed in the main post.

This resolution is circulating here in New Orleans.

Craig—I think you have captured the strategy and intent. I was on the drafting team. At issue is determining who would NOT be able to sign on. Grace and peace.

PS—I am confused about the names issue. +W Texas was at the last CA meeting.

Craig G and Dr. Seitz—thank you for all of your time. 

I said to my spouse yesterday, crassly, I admit, that I thought the best strategy might be, for lack of a better phrase, to “trim off the radicals”. 

And yet that, too, might be no more than a temporary Band-Aid, as Craig suggests. 

Well, Jesus never said it was going to be easy—

Cheers/Blessings,

TS

Thank you Dr. Seitz for your good efforts as shown here.

Evidence of whether this resolution might pass might be inferred from the revisionist blogs. If Fr. Jake, Susan Russell, etc. are upset, then that is a good sign.

The Communion logic is to force those who want to go their own way, to go their own way, resolutions helping clarify the matter. The covenant would be the orderly way for ‘progressives’ to decide that they are no longer constituent members…by their own decision and intent.

I am with the post above, I was surprised to see my bishop, +Schofield, as a signatory to this.  I am glad to see it here.  I feel this will likely be DOA.  +John-David is always painted as one of the “radicals” bent on forcing a split.  This document shows me that he is serious about trying to stay in.

Further to the comments of Dr. Seitz, TS and Publius, the sentiment at Fr. Jake’s (as evinced by comments by Elizabeth Kaeton and Jake) is also that New Orleans will “trim off the radicals.”  Of course, they mean many of us.  It will be interesting to see who (if either) ends up being right.

Dr. Seitz, that sounds both reasonable and doable. I think the major part of the problem is that the progressives really want to do something else, that isn’t really Anglican, without giving up the name Anglican. Which doesn’t make a lot of sense. But here we are.

I think a number of additional bishops could sign this—I’m thinking specifically of +Lillibridge and +Little, plus the names on +McPherson’s resolution and probably some others.  No where near enough to pass, of course, but still encouraging.

I’m a pessimist.  If this passes, how many bishops will stand outside and proclaim their intent to continue to allow SSBs in their dioceses?  The betting opens at 12, plus or minus three.

And, Snarkster, no third Tennessee bishop. Why am I not surprised?
Your counterpart in WTN,
John1

usma87 - we were surprised on one level that +Schofield signed on this, but not when he consistenly kept telling us to stay and hang in there for almost 20 years. 

The question that remains unanswered for now is if the HOB slams the door on this or any other “like” resolution, who is the schismatic?

I hope this plan will be given the respect it deserves, I am glad to see Bishop Schofields name on the list.

From my understanding +Gray was attached to the shadow of the ABC this weekend. A bigger question is we have had no communication from +Iker. Why not?

I am extraordinaily busy and about to catch a flight to Toronto. I am somewhat confused. I cannot tell what the relationship of a Jenkins to a floor resolution is. CA Bishops prepared 3 floor resolutions (they would not need names attached for that procedure). This letter does not look like a resolution per se but a communication to KJS indicating that resolutions will be forthcoming, and here they are, etc. The names then would not need to be everyone. I suspect we will need to wait. I am encouraged if the floor resolutions have in fact transpired. These are what matters.

Next, the parsing. What is the meaning of “public” in “public rites of blessing”?  How many witnesses would be allowed at a celebration rite in order for it to be excluded from being classified as “public”? Do “public rites” refer only to those that take place inside church property?

r.w.

Further to the comments of Dr. Seitz, TS and Publius, the sentiment at Fr. Jake’s (as evinced by comments by Elizabeth Kaeton and Jake) is also that New Orleans will “trim off the radicals.” Of course, they mean many of us.

It is interesting that they refer to us as “radicals” when we are the ones who would have been the most comfortable in the Episcopal Church until just recently. As for Jake, Susan, Liz et al, I think I can I can safely say: If they’re fer it, then I’m agin it.

the snarkster

the snarkster

Hopefully, in the real letter she recieved, they spelled Katharine’s name correctly.

Uhh….

Ummmmm….

Uh….that would be “recEIved.”

I am concerned that this lacks the signature of Bishop Love of Albany—- a Windsor/Network diocese.

What, exactly, would hens consult with foxes about? What time is dinner?

Snarkster,
Sometimes it is necessary for hens to talk to the foxes in order to build a better hen house.

We believe the Presiding Bishop has the vision and leadership capabilities to accommodate this request

I’m sorry but I don’t (particularly when it looks like David Booth Beers runs the show, not her). Yes, it sounds great but I’d like a few more details.

This will be signaled in white smoke.  Let us know when you see the black smoke.

I wonder if this won’t “trim off the radicals” from BOTH sides, leaving a slightly mushy middle? 

I think highly of the set of resolutions as a whole.  But as others have noted, there’s still that weasal-word “public” regarding SSB.  And much hay can and will be made over that for years (and dialogues) to come if this is adopted.  I’m not sure I’ve got enough fight in me, and might have to just move on (as my bishop has requested of me in the past.)

Is this small aspect a Deal-Breaker?  Maybe, for some of us reasserters.

I am no damn radical. I am a reactionary and proudly so!

Wrapping’s better, but still questionably a cigar.  Getting closer.  May be palatable.