A Report on the New Orleans House of Bishops from Bishop Edward Salmon
In the interest of clarity, I would like to report to the clergy and people of the Diocese of South Carolina on the meeting of the House of Bishops in New Orleans. I am particularly concerned that you hear directly from me as the distortion in the media and on blogs is profound.
From my perspective this was probably the best meeting I have attended and at the same time the most painful.
I asked for and was granted permission to speak to the whole House beyond any contribution I made in the various debates.
The presence of the Archbishop of Canterbury was helpful in getting us to look at where we are as a Church and a Communion; and what that says about our ecclesiology.
Profound pain was experienced when members of the ACC Steering Committee and the Primate of Jerusalem and the Middle East addressed the House. They told us how the decisions made by the Episcopal Church had affected their mission and ecumenical relationships destructively in their lands. It was a moving experience.
Just as devastating was the address from Bishop Jeffrey Steenson explaining why he was resigning his orders and becoming a Roman Catholic. We are good friends and have worked closely together.
We then had a report giving us the list of congregations leaving the Episcopal Church in part or whole for other Anglican jurisdictions and the names of these jurisdictions. A number of the clergy were well known to me. Even the loss of one because of our conflict is a painful matter for me at the end of my ministry. It is a matter of great sorrow.
In my address to the House, I said that I appreciated the hard work that had resulted in the document that was before us.
I also stated that I could not support it for the following reasons:
1. It did not respond as requested to the three points raised by the Anglican Primates in Dar es Salaam.
2. It did not provide alternative oversight that met the needs of those who asked for it.
3. It placed the condition that our responses must be in keeping with our Constitution and Canons. The chaos we are in requires tremendous grace, not law.
4. There is oppression of those not in agreement, often unaware to those responsible.
5. Statements by our leadership saying that 95% of the Church was doing well or that only a small percentage were affected makes discussion impossible. The Episcopal Church Foundation says we are in a systemic decline which is significant.I believe that the impact of these days has produced the potential for us to move because this is the first time in my memory this has been revealed to the House face to face by members of the Communion. I am committed to continue to work for that day faithfully, but I cannot support the document for the reasons stated.
—The Rt. Rev. Edward L. Salmon, Jr., is acting Bishop of South Carolina
© 2004-2016 Gri5th Media, LLC.
All rights reserved.
[50 : 0.5146]
Welcome to Stand Firm!
BREAKING: A Report on the New Orleans House of Bishops from Bishop Edward Salmon
Wednesday, September 26, 2007 • 3:35 pm
69 Comments •
|
“Statements by our leadership saying that 95% of the Church was doing well or that only a small percentage were affected makes discussion impossible. The Episcopal Church Foundation says we are in a systemic decline which is significant”. I guess this is what she needs to believe simply so she can sleep at night. |
|
So where was his “no” vote. What a bunch of garbage! So help me, if more “windsor bishops” (whatever that means) come out with statements like this, I am going to puke. Psalm 20:7 - Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the Lord our God. No longer will I put my trust in these horses! |
|
I was hoping for a clear and unequivocal respose from the Episcopal Church House of Bishops. A clear and unequivocal response to the Primates’ requests means using clear and unambiguous language in the response, quoting from the original request if possible, and not repeating past responses that have already been deemed inadequate. A clear and unequivocal response to the Primates’ requests means responding to and only responding to their requests. A clear and unequivocal response to the Primates’ requests means not being caught in a misstatement about whether same sex blessings are occurring in one’s own diocese in a press conference afterwards. This “perfected” statement is not a clear and unequivocal response to the Primates’ requests. It is both equivocal and mixed. It doesn’t equivocate when it answers in the negative to the request about same-sex blessings. It changes the Primates’ language from “or through General Convention” to “or until General Convention takes further action.” This could easily mean the opposite of what the Primates want. I think the Episcopal Church’s only hope is that Rowan Williams is on board with this. It’s hard to believe that this will be acceptable to Williams, but stranger things have happened. The very fact that Bp. Bruno was confused shows that either his response was equivocating to the point of lying or that he honestly has no idea of or control over what is happening in his diocese. |
|
What difference does it make if you actually say NO if it is clear a resolution will pass and no record will be made of the descent? Salmon told the other Bishops in closed session he would not support the statement. It makes no difference if he said NO as he said he would not say Yes and there is no way to suggest he did say Yes when the vote came. What he did amounts to the same thing the others did by leaving early. They didn’t vote No either. |
|
According to two eye & ear-witnesses (bishop Wolf interviewed by The Living Church, and Fr. Matt Kennedy doing his own live blog here on StandFirm) there was one (1) ‘No’ vote, and it was identified by bishop Wolf as coming from bishop Bennison. |
|
Wow… are you serious?! It is that attitude, mindset, and lack of faith that got us to this point in the first place. It is no different then my bishop saying “I voted for KJS becuase I really could find any reason not to”. He was there… just like many other “windsor bishops”. Not voting, recorded or not, is acceptance. DON’T GIVE ME SOME GARBAGE STATEMENT SAYING YOU DID NOT SUPPORT THE OUTCOME WHEN YOU DIDN’T HAVE THE FAITH TO VOTE AGAINST IT!!!! |
|
Perhaps he didn’t say no loudly enough to be heard by Matt. Bp Salmon’s entire ministry is a powerful witness to our Risen Lord. He promptly distanced himself from the document. I applaud his courage to speak out in the HoB and in this letter. |
|
Come on folks… I mean seriously. What happened is EXACTLY what “Rocks” just said, and you know it. These so-called windsor bishops are so much more worse than any revisionist bishop because they puffed their shirts up until this past week, then duct-taped their mouths shut and sat on their hands. WAKE UP! Shame on all of them! |
|
Personally, I am glad that +Salmon and some of the other ‘Windsor Bishops’ were present at this final HoB meeting. We will as +Salmon exemplified, get a more honest, objective report of the meeting from a few like +Salmon. I would guess that he would rather have been in Pittsburgh but that he wasn’t says nothing about his sympathy for them. |
|
I cannot defend bishops who won’t speak up or vote no. It is inconceivable to me why they would not, given the impact of this resolution. The admonition in Titus 1:9 lays it all out, doesn’t it? |
|
I’m not clear about what he is saying? Did he say he did not support the resolution but voted for it? Did he say he voted against it? I hope this can be clarified. It would be nice to have two no votes instead of one. I only heard one, and that was backed up by TLC and the NYT, but if he says he voted no, then he voted no. I just can’t tell what he is saying? |
|
Three people confirm a single ‘No’ vote; Fr. Matt (above), bishop Wolf in TLC interview, and bishop MacPherson in Brad Drell’s blog. Again, with what was at stake, why would others not vote ‘No’? I believe is was a combination of a) fatigue, b) confusion about roll call vs acclamation voting, combined with rushing the vote, and c) the old ‘go along to get along’ mentality of the HOB; ‘hey, I said my piece to satisfy the constituents, so now I can support my colleagues’. That’s the way it’s been since the days of bishop Pike so why expect anything different? |
|
Re: “No Votes” It really doesn’t matter - because for all the bravado as this being a bad thing by this and other bishops - when push came to shove they stayed with the hoard - they have NOT resigned, they have NOT said they are seeking Alternate Primatial Oversight. This division of the Communion will clearly divide those who are willing risk for their Faith and those who will choose not too. Now we will see who really will stand by principle. It really reminds me of Jesus’ betrayal - thousands followed him, 12 stood by him until persecuted by the Pharisees - only two remained with him until the bitter end of the cross. I’m sure there were many who said, “Well, I was against that - it was a bad thing” - but did not say a word when the people called for Christ’s crucifixion. When called to risk - they would not. The willingness to stand, when it is no longer comfortable, worth an income, or to your benefit - tells where your heart truly is. The next month will clearly demonstrate for us who is truly Faithful in the House of Bishops. Unfortunately, I think none of those who remained will leave. |
|
anglicanhopeful on 09-26-2007 at 05:24 PM posted:
Bishop Solmon is a retired bishop. Are retired Bishops permitted to vote? Matt, any guidance on this? BLessings! Ron |
|
“Unfortunately, I think none of those who remained will leave.” Eclipse, I certainly HOPE that you are wrong. What a wretched tragedy that would be! I never like the idea of giving up on people/places/things; yet at times, I hope against hope, failing to see the handwriting on the wall. Lets pray that the Spirit pricks the consciences of some in the HOB, so that they may do the right thing (2 Cor. 6:14-18), and spare themselves AND their flocks defilement and coming judgement (Rev. 18:4,5). |
|
It is possible that the “No” votes were not heard correctly. But, if there were
|
|
I understand expressing disappointment or disapproval or whatever you are feeling about the actions of the various bishops at the HOB meeting. But it saddens me that such hurtful language and harshness and disrespect is being used when speaking about these bishops. They deserve some measure of respect simply because of their position of spiritual authority. They also deserve some measure of grace because I don’t think any of us were walking in their shoes this past week. We don’t know all of the ins and outs of what occurred in their meetings, their minds, and their hearts. Let’s be careful, please. Bishop Salmon is a very dear man who is a faithful servant of our Lord. I would hate for him to read these things being said about him. |
|
Regardless of what did or did not happen at the HOB meeting in NO, Bishop Salmon’s subsequent statement makes it clear where he stands. What does need to be clarified, however, is the status of PB Shori’s statement about having been invited to “South Carolina”. Was she invited to the Diocese of South Carolina or, perhaps to the Diocese of Upper SC? Or, perhaps, one of the few reappraising parishes in the Diocese of SC invited her independent of the Diocese. Can anyone clarify this? Also, I am curious as to why Bishop Salmon did not go to Pittsburgh. Does anyone know the answer to this question? |
|
The Associated Press quoted the Right Rev. John Howe, the conservative Episcopal bishop of Central Florida, as saying the statement wouldn’t satisfy all Anglican leaders, but that “most will find it acceptable.” See here (I love the title): http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1665682,00.html |
|
USMA87 writes, “Choosing the harder right over the easier wrong.” Make up your own mind for which side these bishops fall to. I also asked whether they passed the test of Latimer and Ridley: Did they “play the man?” |
|
So John Howe states that “most will find it acceptable.” Was this part of the “hard work” and strategy of the ACI? He apparently was working hard with Bruno during the meeting, but he apparently told his clergy in an email the he was the lone dissenter. Those two statements don’t exactly jibe. Did he also invent the internet? Was he also on the grassy knoll? |
|
I too am profoundly disappointed at the lack of a “stand” by the Windsor/CA bishops who remained in New Orleans until the bitter end, but I think it is also clear that the public portion of the final HOB session was orchestrated in such a fashion so as to prevent public dissent on the part of one or more bishops. The subterfuge of unity amongst TEC’s bishops continues. I also do not think it is valuable for us to judge or write off the Windsor/CA bishops based on our disappointment with how the HOB meeting ended. Yes, I agree that they all would have been lauded by us assembled had a stand been made, but there will be many battles yet to fight. We are not even at “the end of the beginning.” On reading the live blog yesterday, I was reminded of several meetings in my history where organizational inertia became a runaway train - to the point where many, self included, would put a fist into the air, and pull it up and down while shouting, “Wooooo, Wooooo!” I’m inclined to think that the railroad, ramrod, call it what you will was in full steam yesterday, and this is what we’ve got now. I am blessed (and give thanks to Him daily) to be in +Duncan’s diocese and in a faithful parish. I know that there will be difficult times and decisions ahead for all of us. I know, sadly, that it’s only a matter of weeks before my wife - a vestry member - is named by 815 as a defendant. Keep praying - hard! Pray for our opponents, that they may have their hearts changed. Pray for our leaders, including those who seem to have wavered; before this is over, I believe we’re going to need them all.
Amen. |
|
I am thankful that +Salmon has come out and rejected the HOB statement. I am glad he sees the fudge and rejects it outright. He is also correct in noting that this is the first time the HOB has acknowledged its’ need to be mindful of the wider communion. However, I also have big questions. Who invited Schori to SC? If SC and not upper SC, then it must either be +Salmon or the Standing Committee. It cannot be a parish as her visitation would still need the approval of the Diocese. Why was she invited? I think I can guess at the answers to all of these questions and to my mind this does not bode well for SC. |
|
This is a lesson about the reality of remaining part of “loyal opposition” a little too long. It wears you down, and eventually you compromise for peace. Howe sponsors the earlier resolution inviting the ABC to attend the HOB meeting, setting the stage for this whole charade. He also takes a hardline, TEC position on property disputes with orthodox parishes. Salmon participates in a process that results in a resolution, that to all of the world, is unanimously endorsed by the Camp Allen Bishops and pre-approved by the ABC. Then he sends a note clarifying that he opposed it in private, closed door deliberations. Perhaps he mentioned his displeasure when he was inviting Schori to visit South Carolina. Meanwhile, Stanton allows his name to be used to give credence to the Visiting Bishop plan. He is later quoted as saying that he didn’t give prior approval, but doesn’t find the heart to repudiate the plan and is otherwise silent in NO. All of these individuals have had wonderful ministries, but have been found wanting at this critical, ninth hour. I feel for the wonderful people here in these dioceses that have expressed, with such sincerity and patience, confidence that in the end their Bishops would stand firm for a meaningful, Canterbury directed reform of the AC. The result in New Orleans was a huge victory for TEC and, like it or not, is the end game for a Canterbury directed solution. The cause would have been far better off if the CA Bishops had stayed home, rather than allowing their presence to become a tacit endorsement of the ABC endorsed resolution. |
|
Ok: Matt+, you said you heard 1 loud NO and I absolutely believe you.
Salmon said he made clear he couldn’t vote for the statement in closed session and for all we know he didn’t vote for it. He isn’t claiming to have voted NO. It makes no difference whether he did vote NO or not, why? Because he is making it perfectly clear that he doesn’t support this publicly, where it is reported and recorded. The only thing glorious about the Charge of the Light Brigade was the poem. Only an idiot jumps into the breech when it’s clear there’s a cannon pointing right at you on the other side. |
|
Oh and what kind of group requires 6 requests for a recorded vote anyway? Talk about manipulating the process. Most groups are one member and maybe a second and no there is no requirement to vote for that, a vote would defeat the purpose of asking for a recorded vote. The same majority that would vote for the resolution could stop every recorded vote. |
|
I’m seeing many arguments that a no vote would have been useless. I am seeing no reasons why a no vote would have done any harm; why NOT vote no? If it was impossible because the majority steamrolled an unrecorded vote, why not say so? If there was a secret resolution binding the Bishops not to tell that the vote was not recorded, then the majority are Stalinists who deserve nothing, and you guys are completely screwed. I don’t mean that you lost this one; I mean that only Divine intervention will get your Church back on track, and I submit that the faith and morals that are becoming its teaching are at least as abhorrent as the Reformers said Rome’s were. Why are you still here? |
|
I think this signals the end of any Windsor-compliant, Camp Allen meeting co-hort of bishops. If I’m a GS primate, and I see that, yes you told people after the fact that you opposed the resolution, but no you didn’t vote no or produce a ‘minority report’, and yes you agreed to KJS’s episcopal visitation scheme, well, sounds like you’re with them and not with us. |
|
As we all know there is chief among us TESM and the Diocese of Pittsburgh giving the leadership to our orthodoxy in the USA. Within recognition of that seminary’s founding and constant mission and that diocese’s decades old leadership is the awareness that we have only ourselves to blame for not educating/training/cultivating/growing and developing [call it what we may] and our collective faith in terms that are based on an integrative and unifying view and use of scripture. In not so doing we have become complicit in actions too similar to what we caluminate the TEC about—that is leaving the author of scripture, the Holy Spirit’s leading as to how then shall we live in grace and penitence, wisdom and nurture, comfort and peace, rightousness and strength—all the gifts of the Spirit that lead us to boldly proclaim the Gospel so sinners are called into a redeeming relationship with the Saving Lord. |
|
Ol Bob….. Thank you, from someone in SC. Since +Salmon is (as far as I know) one of few “orthodox” bishops who made his statement of dissent public, one would think that was enough. Never mind NO, it’s history, pray for Pittsburgh! We, in the diocese of SC are walking a tightrope, until (if it be God’s will) we get Fr. Lawrence consented too. Pray for that, let poor +Salmon (age 72 or more) alone, he is doing his best, and its best not to judge what is in one’s heart. |
|
Folks, it’s not about judging his motives. That’s the kind of ‘defense’ one would expect from the ‘progressives’. It’s about evaluating his actions (or inactions) while acting in a position of leadership - lack of bold clear orthodox action in NO, and before - and ‘action’ in the invitation bringing KJS into SC - if indeed he did that of course. As a Shepherd, one is grossly negligent, to say the least, if bringing a fox into a hen house - or an apostate to represent leadership of true believers. Don’t try to divine his mind - just honestly observe his actions, or lack thereof, as Scripture commands when evaluating ‘leaders’. |
|
...and ‘action’ in the invitation bringing KJS into SC - if indeed he did that of course. As a Shepherd, one is grossly negligent, to say the least, if bringing a fox into a hen house… First you say “if” and in the next sentence you call him a grossly negligent shepherd for doing what was an “if” in the previous sentence. I can’t speak to the rest of it but don’t you think you should find out if that IF is true first?? Because I think you’re gonna find that’s not exactly how it went down. Enough said. |
|
Warren, |
|
To all of us
Now, here some of us sit and accuse him of abandoning the Gospel to join ECUSA… Are you kidding me?! Just look at the man’s track record. What basis do you have for this? Rumors, and nothing more. But I understand… This is what ECUSA has done to us. After so many betrayals, it just gets hard to trust… If we don’t understand the actions of a bishop or an individual, we become afraid or angry. We assume they’re guilty unless we know with absolute certainty that they’re on the up and up. But if we keep thinking like this we’re going to fall apart. We can’t keep doing this. We have to trust one another (and I include Bishop Salmon in our number, incase I haven’t made that obvious). We can’t accuse one another as being traitors just because they didn’t do something that we think we would have done had we been in their shoes at the time. We can’t leap to conclusions. We have to wait until things pan out. Other wise Common Cause, and the whole Anglican presence in America is going to FALL APART , which is just what ECUSA wants and which is just what Satan wants. Judging from what the man has said, and what he has done up until this point, I see no reason whatsoever to doubt his sincerity to the Gospel or his capability to lead. Bishop Salmon is a wise man, who has been around for a long time now. He doesn’t do anything without a reason. And regardless of what he did while he was there, he had a reason. Look, I trust that Bishop Salmon is not selling out… You don’t necessarily have to but you know what? You should give him a chance instead of just assuming that he’s guilty. He deserves that at least . Incidentally, I heard that bishop Salmon is currently in Pittsburg right now. I don’t know if its true or not but then again… other then rumors, what do you know? |
|
As Adam said: “We’re like a pack ravenous wolves turning in upon each other. Oh how quickly we jump to judgment based on facts that we haven’t even verified! Is this what ECUSA (because I don’t care what it calls itself) has done to you?” |
|
I must agree with the two posts above me. It seems that a great many of us American Christians seem to go from being the gentle sheep to loud mouthed wolves at the drop of a hat. Lets not make the mistake of giving the enemy weapons that he can use against us. I am an AMiA anglican in south carolina, and I still have a great deal of respect for Bishop Salmon. I have heard him preach a few times, and he is a true Bishop of the holy catholic, and apostolic church. He will not lead his flock astray. Be strong and keep the faith. God will get us through ALL of this. |
|
hint: a new prayer book developed over the next 3-5 years could weLl be the unifying project that expresses, and ‘codifies’ if you will, the orthodoxy movement in the USA, going beyond defending the faith to proclaiming it and living it in bold ways consistent with our centuries-old Reformed Anglican traditions, thus pleasng our Lord and furthering His purposes among us amid so much moral decay, philosopical relativity, war, corruption and the religious battles of the 21st century. {attribution requested} Surely we have enough theologcial and ecclesial agreement over what binds us together, rather than differences that we might note, to make this a plausible way to define ourselves in metanoia. It would also serve by contrast to ‘leave aside’ TEC as it pursues its own agenda to its own resolution {seen in its steadily declining numbers}. If we are so rich as ‘orthodox’ Anglicans, we need to ask how then shall we GROW, and if we can once more. Old wine, new wineskin. OR “WHERE IS AMOS WHEN WE NEED HIM?” The latest biting at the heels of our own dear +Salmon points to the need for an overall strategy out of what shamefully our ‘estate’ may share in versimilitude with the mess in Iraq. God forbids we turn on each other. As we see TEC so completley out of line with our scriptural, apostolic and charismatic, then look ahead and leave it to go its own way via the due process of the ABC and Lambeth. Their {our?!} numbers have long been in decline. We start with ours, I heard estimated once at 45,000. As the Chinese are said to plan in 100-year increments, why should not we, based on our faith of 2,000? |
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.
I’m glad there was decent behind close doors, I wish the Camp Allen bishops did not allow themselves to be involved in the staged event for the media of the final passage. As I heard from a conference this weekend, too often Christian get the innocent as doves part down but we forget she shrewd as snakes bit.