Bishop MacPherson Likes It

Disappointing is an understatement.

You’re up, Drell. Let’s hear it.

“Bump…....Bump…....Bump…....
Another One Bites The Fudge,
Bump…....Bump…....Bump…....
Another One Bites The Fudge,
And another one bites, and another one bites,
Another One Bites The Fudge…..
(With apologies to Queen)

Betrayal.

Begs the question:  What other Windsor bishops were there and “signed on” by voice vote?  Which ones left? 

What’s going on?

(distant echo: “I didn’t SIGN anything!)

It doesn’t sound to me like either of them liked it very much.
OK is hardly a ringing endorsement, kinda fudgy…;)

Huh?  +Bruce disappoints.  What happens to these guys when they get in a room together?  The purple haze must be so thick that they lose their sense of judgment entirely.  I mean, even +VGR knows this is NOT about misinformation (or is that just more misinformation on his part?!).

OK, we had Windsor bishops, then Network bishops, then the Camp Allen Bishops. What does one call the subset of Camp Allen bishops who stayed and caved as opposed to those shook the dust from their sandals and headed for Pittsburgh? How about CCA bishops (caving Camp Allen Bishops)?

Standing for your principals despite the cost? Time to look at <a href=“http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/5360”>David Ould’s video again.

450 years ago, two bishops believed that truth was more important ...than compromise.
The believed some things are worth dying for.
450 years later, Episcopal bishops whether the truths that Latimer and Ridley died for are worth holding on to, whether the fire that was lit 16th of October 1555 was of any worth, whether Scripture is authoritative or the sinful desires of men and women.
We pray that you will not shirk
pray that you will make a stand…whatever the cost.
Better to die for truth, than to live on for sin.
It is time once again to be of good comfort…AND TO PLAY THE MAN

Keep us, O Lord, constant in faith and zealous in witness after the examples of your servants.

What did you expect him to do or say?  For those that are committed to remaining in TEC, one way or another, this is the best outcome they could negotiate or obtain within the body they are pledged to support.  This resolution has the ABC’s support, bolstered now by some of the Windsor leaders.

Like you, I certainly disagree with their perspective, and believe this was a masterfully conceived and executed outcome for the PB and ABC.  I also believe the agreement by Stanton, Howe and others to lend their names to the “visiting Bishop” farce was worse than the acquiescence of the Windsor Bishops to this resolution.  But in the end people were expecting too much from most of the Windsor/Camp Allen folks. The alternative to cutting this deal was open rebellion within TEC, and under the current circumstances that leads either to Common Cause or another denomination. That path would also lead-and soon—to conflict with Canterbury.  Most of these Bishops want to have nothing of that, and are dedicated to serving out their term as Bishop with as much peace as possible within their dioceses. 

So, people can now choose. They can stay within TEC, hopefully under a Bishop like McPherson who will keep the Diocese from going too far out of bounds until he retires.  But the concept of a Canterbury centered, Communion enforced discipline that forces TEC to reform is dead after a long period in intensive care.  Those, like me, who cannot tolerate that state of affairs in TEC have several alternatives, including the Common Cause/GS route.  There is no reason to beat up these Windsor Bishops, who are pretty, much acting in a manner consistent with what they have been doing for years.  For those that remain in TEC, I am glad they have these Bishops to serve under for a while.

I don’t even find this in the category of “okay” in my humble opinion. I keep holding out hope that our clergy leadership will hold firm for God and Truth and the right thing or they do this…...“Fall for Anything!”

Today’s developments were never going to be the end of this crisis.  Lets remember this as we read the reports of the press.  We’ve waited for this response for too many months.  Its worse than playing chess by carrier pigeon.  Now we must wait on the response from the Primates.  I expect that most of the bishop’s understand the glacial pace better than we who today enjoyed Matt’s live blog.  My point is this: some or many windsor bishops will evaluate this response with a longer end game in mind.  Their cares for their diocese’s unity in the midst of the seemingly inevitable storm will inspire a patient waiting upon the ABC and other Primates.  An “ok” might really be ok.

Jackie, Nasty Brutish & Short and Steve Lake (and Cindy T., I hope this helps to answer your question):

I am feeling deeply disappointed and more than slightly betrayed.  What possible good does Bishop MacPherson think can come of this?  It is hardly even 1/2 a step in the direction of the Primates beyond the March HOB meeting.  It is as if he sees his principal role as being a kind of spiritual nanny to the progressivists in the HOB.  If they make a little progress, he wants to reward them with a pat on the head and a piece of candy. 

However, there is part of me that believes that we should have probably seen this coming.  I think we have to accept that there are large numbers of moderate theological traditionalists/institutional conservatives (and even very strongly traditionalist and orthodox clergy) that have been compromised not only by becoming accustomed to sharing their church with those who teach a whole range of heresies, but by the lack of spiritual discipline among episcopalians generally.  When we combine these weaknesses with the distortion of the role of the bishop that our polity has developed, we get even orthodox leaders believing that consensus building is akin to providing spiritual formation and training in righteousness.  In the process, I think many leaders like MacPherson begin to lose sight of the reality (presented to us in Scripture and the sacraments seen according to our sacred Tradition) that certain things that God has provided as our spiritual food can only move us towards holiness when they are taken in their pure form.  When generally faithful traditionalists no longer understand this essential truth, something radical must be done.  I believe that what is happening to TEC/usa is far worse than the state of the Roman Catholic Church in the era of the Reformation.  We must begin to separate - now.

Wow…. I mean….Wow.  Total and utter betrayal.  Each orthodox diocese and parish will now be picked off one at a time. 

Watch what happens to Rio Grande in the next year.  As each of these bishops retires a more revisionist bishop will be elected.  The process may take some years, but this marks the beginning of the end. 

If these bishops are committed to ‘staying in’ as a voice of witness then I understand that, but when they allow there voices (literally) to be coopted into affirming statements like the one just released by the HOB…the salt loses its saltiness.  This is a dark day.

What happened to the CA bishops?  They got what they needed.  Enough of the right language in the statement to put a little ‘English’ on the ball.  They will spin it as a ‘good start’ for the church…the HoB ‘took the Primates seriously’...we did as ‘much as we could without convening the GC in ‘09…but that will come next’.

Brothers and sisters, the ECUSA that we all knew and grew up with is over.  Some lament and others rejoice.  But they are moving forward with their agenda.  Each diocese that has a moderate or conservative bishop will be up for grabs in the next five years…and it will be taken over by a ‘tow the line’ bishop.

Is there anyone out there in StandFirm country that doesn’t believe that?

Personally, I cannot believe that ANY Camp Allen, Network, or Windsor Bishop signed onto this farce.  I think we need to ask (forcefully yet respectfully) each one to explain themselves.

I would hope that in the case of +Bruce Brad Drell might be able to relay our profound disappointment and gain from him some explanation.  Likewise in South Carolina I would hope that Dr. Kendall would do the same with Bishop Salmon.  Especially asking about the February invitation to the PB.  Many of you have relationships with others who were there, I would hope that you would do the same. 

I think it is timer to decide what we do and were we go .  It may no longer be that those whom we have loved, admired and followed can lead us there.  It may be that we need to push them a bit, I don’t know.  What I do know is that in terms of the HOB the six months between DES and New Orleans was waste of time.

RSB

As rector of a Dio of Western LA parish, I share your concern and reaction. I know we’ll be hearing from Bp MacPherson soon, and I’m going to withhold substantive comment until we hear from him on this.  It appears to me that KJS & Co. ran the same Two Minute Drill on the bishops that worked so well for them at GC06: waste all of Monday on nothing, and then shove the real thing down their throats at the very last minute. Apparently it works.

DHR is absolutely right. The ship is lost. But we have yet to see if Anglicanism as a whole is lost. Maybe the Primates will now show some integrity (no pun intended). If not it all goes to the bottom of the sea.

KJS & Co. ran the same Two Minute Drill on the bishops that worked so well for them at GC06: waste all of Monday on nothing, and then shove the real thing down their throats at the very last minute. Apparently it works.

frwalkeratsaintalbans:

Then may I suggest that faithful bishops and clergy alike turn their backs to the PB.  Not showing up for the dog and pony show would have been much more productive that engaging in the talks that brought this about.

RSB

I don’t know about you guys, but I’m not ready to bail quite yet.  There’s too much work to be done. 

For those of ya’ll who are sitting under an embattled orthodox rector, consider starting a “I got his back” ministry. 

For those of ya’ll who are sitting either under a beloved moderate or a reappraising rector, why not consider driving the extra 20 or 40 miles every Sunday, to sit under that embattled orthodox rector you’ve been hearing about?

And for those of ya’ll who don’t know where your rector stands, please consider taking them out to lunch (you pick up the tab) and politely asking them. 

Finally, keep in mind the tale of the cow, the chicken, and the pig who decided to make a breakfast feast (You know that one, right?  I won’t repeat it).

“Personally, I cannot believe that ANY Camp Allen, Network, or Windsor Bishop signed onto this farce.  I think we need to ask (forcefully yet respectfully) each one to explain themselves.”

I can believe it. Actually because of +Bruno’s press conference behavior, it was at that moment I realized exactly how spineless are these bishops. I think the collegiality is stressed so much as an important quality that it comes at the expense of many others, most significantly fortitude.

I think you’re wise to put pressure on them by those still under their care to ask them to explain themselves, it may be the only pressure that causes them to respond.
——
To Cannon Roseberry question, history has shown the Lord call sections of His Body back from points even beyond TEC, however unless you feel specially called by God to that task, I’d not wait around! While these dates maybe nearly next to each other in textbooks, the span between them is longer than my existence on this Earth.

I do think it’s time those who are retired clerics start to contact the ACN or AMiA or CANA to see how they can assist. While I’ll disagree in principle to any absolute declaration unless by an anointed prophet, I fully concur in practice and one thing lacking is parishes for folks. I remember when the first AMiA parish opened in Baton Rouge was announced on SF last spring. There are eager orthodox graduates chopping at the bit to serve the Lord, one thing lacking is the wisdom that comes from experience. Items that can not be taught but a young cleric somehow learns by ‘catching’ along side an elder. It maybe the burden of a retiree to start the mission plant, but what I’ve seen, you can have a plethora of candidates to come along side (often not from Anglican schooling or background, which is where some of my concern for elder comes, to pass on those good thing from Anglicanism).

RSB: Agreed. Staying away, walking out or shouting NO were some of the better choices available. The fact that the game plan worked again reflects what a herd of sheep the boys and girls in purple shirts are.

According to Kendall Harmon, (on the T19 thread about Ephraim Radner), Bishop Howe claims that he voted NO. (see response #9—sorry I can’t do the links).  Was he the lone voice Matt+ heard, or is there some more hopeful news to come?

It was Bennison who said NO

I believe that what is happening to TEC/usa is far worse than the state of the Roman Catholic Church in the era of the Reformation.

It is perhaps worth itemizing the problems then and now.

Then, there were corrupt practices connected with almsgiving (encouraged by the giving of false promises), a tendency for piety to overspill into superstition, and an authority structure that was too closely modelled on secular monarchy.

Today, Anglicans in some provinces reject the alms of those in others as being morally tainted; piety overspills into paganism; there is a discredited authority structure too closely modelled on secular democracy; but in addition, there is no united or authoritative voice on moral or doctrinal principles, no agreement on the authority of scripture, and no common understanding of sin, atonement, communion, sacraments or holy orders - even among “conservative” Anglicans.

Why does everyone forget the fornicating Pope on their itemizing?

For those of ya’ll who are sitting under an embattled orthodox rector, consider starting a “I got his back” ministry. 

For those of ya’ll who are sitting either under a beloved moderate or a reappraising rector, why not consider driving the extra 20 or 40 miles every Sunday, to sit under that embattled orthodox rector you’ve been hearing about? 

Thank you Moot.  I need all of the people I can get at my parish.

As a priest I will second Moot’s comment.  There are faithful bands of Christians proclaiming the Gospel and evaluating the road ahead.  We are not strengthened by your absence. 

Even if you’re not ready to drive 60 minutes to church for the rest of your lives, consider doing it for a time.  We need your strength, and truth be told, even though sometimes it might seem easier to you to hide out for while…you need solid teaching and fellowship more than ‘rest.’

embattled orthodox priest at 4505 S. Claiborne Ave., NOLA 70125. Jesus Christ crucified and risen from the dead preached here every Sunday.

Got it Fr. Kramer!  Handknit prayer shawl coming your way.  (But you’re off my list for socks.)

OK, of the three DeS requests, only the request to not ordain homosexual bishops is complied with, that is to say it is 1 for 3. BUT they do this in a fashion that depends on the existence of B033. After these perfidious bishops have had their tea in 2008, they will rescind B033 in 2009. And we have a big zero for 3.

And MacPherson is “okay” with this? Pathetic.

If you believe that if Ms. Lind is elected bishop of Chicago she will not receive the necessary consents, then I’ve got a rusty old bridge over the Ouachita river that I can let you have for a couple million bucks.
It will be a matter of Social Justice. Period.

Is it possible, and I know this is a big ‘if’ that since this has been done, the majority of bishops that don’t allow ssb’s can now do something about it.  As I recall in the disipline section there is a phrase that allows the outsting of priests (and bishops) for bringing disrepute on the church.  Bruno lying, and Bishops allowing ssbs in their diocese do bring disrepute on the whole church.  They always get the publicity when they do it.  If you eliminate those (and this includes spong and borg) you have also eliminated about 99% of your theological problem as well.  The Bishops HAVE the majority still.  Maybe CC could bring the charges against every bishop that violates this agreement.  Instead of trying to start something new somewhere else they could stop, turn around and fight.  They have been fooled into believing they are the minority they are not, the document itself says so.  Instead of believing the press and instead of letting a minority of Bishops brow beat the majority, turn and say no.  Don’t you see?  That is the real news in all of this.  We are the Episcopal Majority.  Claim it, act on it. 

N

Fr. Jerry, do you have an early service on Sunday?  I will be in NO the last weekend of next month for a wedding.  How far is Annunciation from Metairie?  If Cindy won’t make you socks, I will.

We may be the Episcopal majority, but we aren’t the powerbrokers.  That job belongs to Louie, Susan, Liz, Bruno, Chane, KJS and company.

The reality is that a majority of Episcopalians don’t pay attention to any of this….they just want to go to church on Sunday.

<bckquote>It appears to me that KJS & Co. ran the same Two Minute Drill on the bishops that worked so well for them at GC06: waste all of Monday on nothing, and then shove the real thing down their throats at the very last minute. Apparently it works.</blockquote>

It doesn’t have to work this way. Those that are having things forced on them could simply grow a backbone and just say“NO” and refuse o work under those types of conditions. Shame on them for allowing KJS & camp to treat them like prisoner puppets.

One Day Closer: You’re right, but it works quite well when your audience is made up of people who’ve decided that “community” and “personal relationships between bishops” are more important than standing up for the truth.

This calls upon those picking candidates for bishop “to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.”

Obviously the reporter doesn’t understand Episcopal polity.  Those picking the episcopal candidates do not consent to the consecration.  The House of Bishops has to consent but if MacPherson, Gray, Parsley, etal are in the minority the HoB will give vote to give consent.  The HoB gathering has accomplished nothing except further emboldened the reappraisers.  The moderates will continue to sit on the fence while the population of sheep on both sides of the fence decreases even further.  The green pasture, once green and inviting, is becoming a toxic dump.

+MacPherson is OK with this? That is as bad as +Stanton agreeing to be a “visiting bishop”. +MacPherson was canon to the ordinary and then assisting bishop under +Stanton so go figure.

Fr. Walker and Terra Firma,

This is exactly what I am saying.  We have been fooled.  Fooled by the press and our own propensity to empathize with the victimology of the loudest cryers.  The only reason Jake and Kate et al are the powerbrokers is because we thought they were the majority in our church.  How many times were we told that?  The Delpi technique and laziness and belief that we were the minority allowed them to pick the slate of people to choose for PB. Let this sink in.  We were given a list that was put together of left of center to far left.  Why is that? Over years and years we allowed ourselves to believe we were defeted.  The only reason the people in the pews don’t care about what is going on, is because their leaders did not want to upset them by making them care.  Lulling them into a false sense of security.  Not giving anything of substance for them to feed on.  Educating them in what the Christian Faith believes and why.  “Here, hand out this bowl of soup.  We’re going on a ski trip next week end! Jesus loves you, and all you need is love”  When you say your congregation doesn’t care then I say, you have a lot of work to do.  Don’t get me wrong, I do too. 

We have been lazy and defeated by false reports. 

N

I am very disappointed with Bishop Mcpherson’s assessment, which I believe is wrong.  Perhaps he can persuade me otherwise.  But I detect that the ethos of the House took over, and the perspective of those outside the House was lost.  This is maneuvering at a time when truth telling is paramount. God have mercy on us all.

Re - the “I got his back,” ministries.  If anyone’s interested in hearing about what I’m involved in, send me an offline message, and let’s talk. 

I will of course, run your name through my reappraiser / reasserter filter, just to be on the safe side. 

For those of you who are interested in running my name through the same kind of filter, I refer you to our beloved Miss Sarah (Hope that’s not too much of a drain on your time, Sarah). 

In the Lamb,
- Moot

Spoke with +Bruce this morning; he was misquoted; I’ll be getting a piece up at my blog based on my conversation/interview with him this morning.

What he said was that the resolution was not clear, the Windsor resolution is what should have been passed.  When asked about his thoughts on what was passed, he said some progress had been made along the lines of b033.  The reason is that 30 bishops repudiated b033 on the floor of GC2006; now these bishops have agreed to abide by it.  All the Windsor/Network bishops present voted for this; +Bruce confirmed that it was Bennison that voted no.

Thanks Mr. Drell,
That is wonderful news.  So as of this date, no more SSBs.  I also presume the lady from Chicago’s name will be withdrawn. 

Now we can start work on that Covenant. 

N

Brad,
Since +Bennison was the only “No” vote does that mean that +MacPhearson voted yes? I can’t see that as being better. To me it represents a cave in.

This sounds as though the CA/Windsor bishops misunderstood what they were voting for, and accidentally said Yes, when they meant to say No? I must be missing something here. If +Bruce was misquoted so badly, I’m surprised he hasn’t emailed his clergy promptly this morning to inform us. Why should it be posted on a blog for us to learn the details? Inquiring minds want to know.  G+

I also presume the lady from Chicago’s name will be withdrawn.

Nette: 
Two things:
1. She isn’t from Chicago.  She’s from Cleveland. 
2. That’s no lady.  She is a lesbian and a rather masculine one at that.

So, there was a real “compromise” and movement - 30 bishops who had been opposed to B033, now support it and have clarified that it applies to “non-celibate” gays. Further a majority of the bishops do not permit SSBs in their dioceses of any kind. Do you think a majority of the Primates will want to “remove” TEC now because a subgroup of the bishops allows priests to perform ssbs that have no authorized liturgical rites?

Peidmont,

1)  Thanks for the correction.
2) Well, I am from the south and was trying to be nice.  But, I trust your discription.

N

All the Windsor/Network bishops present voted for this

What more do you need to know?  The remnant of ECUSA has been overrun, and the gates were opened from the inside.

What are the Windsor Frauds going to compromise on next?  Can the HOB agree that Jesus is Lord, at least on Mondays and Fridays?

C.B.:

On Monday, was it likely ECUSA would consecrate another openly gay bishop in the next three years?  Yes.
Today, is it likely ECUSA will consecrate another openly gay bishop in the next three years?  Yes.

On Monday, could one “marry” his or her SS partner in an ECUSA church without much effort?  Yes.
Today, can one “marry” his or her SS partner in an ECUSA church without much effort?  Yes.

On Monday, was the Schori/Beers axis empowered to “ethnically cleanse” ECUSA of conservatives?  Yes.
Today, is the Schori/Beers axis empowered to “ethnically cleanse” ECUSA of conservatives?  Yes.

Brad: I’m pleased to learn that Bp MacPherson was not accurately quoted in terms of his opinion of what was accomplished in NO, and I look forward to your posting at your site on that subject.

However, my principal concern is with the fact that he and the other “Windsor Bishops” were silent, and voted for it. G+

Phil,

Not without violating this document. 

N

Nette:  She should withdraw her name.  That would be the honourable thing to do.  Don’t hold your breath.

Sadly, this resolution is a statement about sexuality issues.  There was no change in the hearts of the bishops, only a minimal change in the wording of previous resolutions.  I wish the conference, and the primates requests, had been primarily one that addressed the underlying issues of spiritual health of ECUSA since it is there that we find the reasons for this presenting issue.  There was NO repentance, only manipulation and manouvering.  The almost unanimous and venemous rejection of ++Anis’ talk is where the heart of the issues that have sucked in ECUSA lie.  It is in that talk that the heart and core of his message highlighted ECUSA’s spiritual state.

Phil - Gays can not “marry” in the TEC. The can receive a blessing. We have blessing for dogs in this church. It means only what the local priest and the participants say it means nothing more, nothing less.

“Likely” in the next three years?  I would say more unlikely, at least until after GC 09.

As for the supposed “ethnic cleansing” - I don’t think we’ve quite heard the last of what’s to be done with the DEPO situation. Of course it will not be the PV Scheme. But will it be enough to make you feel not so naked and silenced - I hope so.

No one that I have read has defined exactly what we mean by “blessings”. Rites first appeared just before World War 2 in the “Book of Offices”. Before the Tractarian Movement I find no instances of clergy blessing anything although bishops consecrated churches.

I may bless Tommy’s tadpoles. I have blessed homes inhabited by people of the same sex, but who have not enlightened me about any curious bedroom behavior they might from time to time indulge in and their age defied much vigor. 

But such blessings and rites resembling marriage, however extempore would seem something clean different from blessing Susy’s tabby cat and until we can get some honesty, theological honesty about what such ceremonies are alleged to convey I don’t thing intelligent discussion, let alone episcopal statements are possible.

Brad—I’m not at all surprised that what +MacPherson told you, for a voice vote means one can wiggle ‘I did object but was not heard’ or something. However this is tyranny of passivity which allows all sorts of evils. Thinking of Pastor Martin Niemöller comments or Edmund Burke or Einstein’s on when we do nothing.

+Bena & +Gray are no longer in the HoB and those after do not seem to have the spine. I hate to say it, but in a very odd way I must respect ++KJS for her fortitude. A great number of other things she is lacking and at times make a fool of herself in front of the whole world, I’ll say she has backbone to fight for her beliefs, maybe more than most of the HoB (including +Bruno) put together.

Brad,
A misquote is irrelevant.
If McPherson voted ‘yes,’ (as you say he did), you’ve got a serious problem with your bishop.

You’re wrong, nette.  The document says the decider is not the consensus of the Communion, but General Convention.  Which happens in 2009; which is within three years.  (I assume it’s the first point you disagree on; the other two points aren’t credibly debatable.)

Thanks for your best wishes, C.B.  On “marriages,” though, if it looks like a duck, etc.  No SSB is intended by the cleric or the parties to be the equivalent of blessing my new puppy.

Hosea,
I agree KJS is one clever gal, but remember, she had some help.  She couldn’t have gotten nearly the credibility or positive spin out of this gathering if it hadn’t been for Howe’s bright idea to bring in the ABC & JSC. 

So many strategic blunders.

With friends like these…

It will be determined by enforcement.  Any group of bishops can choose to enforce it.  If, for example, the Bishop of California presides at another SSB wedding or gives permission for one, a group of bishops can bring charges against him.

I will agree that it will take effort not seen before in the purple shirted ones of traditionalist mindset.  But, if they want to do it they now can.  And they have the majority to do it if they have the will.  Will they?  Maybe not.  Could they? yes.  But, they won’t if the people don’t encourage them to do so.  If we keep bashing them over the head when they do anything, they won’t.
So then you will have your seperate province??  Is that what you think?  No it will be a seperate, unrecognized denomination.
So then everyone will just quit and join the RC.  Nope, the vast majority will just worship at home, with their little 1928 prayer book and pray for the second coming.  Kind of like what is going on in Great Britain now.

My answer is to encourage the Majority of the Bishops.  Encourage them to enforce what they have agreed to.  Encourage them to do what their fathers did not do when Pike and Spong were before them.  Clean their house while they still have a majority.  Will, they do it?  I don’t know.  But, I am going to be one person that will encourage them to do so. 

Instead of looking to my Camp Allen Bishop for encouragement I choose to encourage him.  Instead of looking for a Bishop to give me strength and solice I will do that for him.  If it doesn’t work well, what have I lost?  You may think it is hopeless.  It may be, you maybe right.  The most hopeless causes can be turned around if it be God’s will.  Sometimes it is not God’s will to turn it around. We will see.

Bishop Wimberly, do you hear this.  I am coming to encourage you.  Hope you are ready.

n

nette, I admire your continuing energy, but I simply disagree that this is at all realistic.  I mean, “Encourage them to enforce what they have agreed to?”  They didn’t have the backbone to say the word “No” and keep their friends from the bar for a while longer.

Not to mention the statement explicitly allows for SSB to continue, the complete opposite of what you seem to think it says.  Read it again.