Read Doug Leblanc's report on Episcopal Diocese of Virginia's Council here.Doug writes:
…Many of the 1,000 delegates and visitors present gave a standing ovation when the Rt. Rev. Peter Lee announced that both the standing committee and the executive board of the diocese voted unanimously to take legal action over property ownership in the departing parishes.
They applauded vigorously when the Rt. Rev. John Paterson, Bishop of Auckland, New Zealand, said, “If the Episcopal Church needs a strong and united Diocese of Virginia, it is no less true that the Anglican Communion needs a strong and united Episcopal Church, and The Episcopal Church needs the Anglican Communion.”
They gave a standing ovation when the Rt. Rev. David C. Jones, bishop suffragan, read a statement of unqualified support for Bishop Lee by nearly all the active and retired bishops in Province III of The Episcopal Church (with the notable exception of Pittsburgh’s bishops).
Bishop Jones said the departing congregations had shifted their emphasis “from belonging to Christ through baptism” to “adhering to one point of view.” When he added, “That is not an Anglican development,” delegates rose again, applauding and cheering….
When Truro voted after the 40 Days of Discernment and the results were announced, you could hear a pin drop. The results were announced to a sober, prayerful, and respectful silence. This is not a happy occasion - it may be necessary - but it is not happy.
I do believe that there was grief in Richmond, but there was no place to express it. So instead we witnessed the this stand-up and cheering that merely masked the sorrow, grief, despair, anger, and bewilderment. My guess is that there is still massive denial going on as to the seriousness of this situation and a rally - which is what the Virginia Diocesan Council turned into - is not going to make it all better.
bb
17 comments:
The channeling of emotion into support and justness of one cause is always a powerful political tool. It was a DioVA pep-rally. Getting sorrow into a resolve to "do something" mood.
The diocese completely blew it in December with politics, they must have had some professional advice.
The letter from Region III bishops was a smart move. “This is an example of grace,” is a way to attempt to undo their blunder which would hurt with a jury, though only three days left to get the kid to a doctor! “That is not an Anglican development,” is like Gov. Tim Kaine's "there's a better way" rebuttal a few years ago.
Earlier +Lee was probably in denial, now that votes were casts, reality must have struck 110 West Franklin St or his meeting with 815 2nd Ave folks smack it into him.
RE: This is not a happy occasion - it may be necessary - but it is not happy.
I believe you BB, but I'll point out it's going to be hard to convince others of that.
The appauls at the beginning of Kevin Kallsen's clip is probably viewed very differently from an outside perspective. The front page of the Post with Martyn's blessing at the end of the service communicates a celbration. The "New Day" theme definately does, so a UMC person probably sees things very differently, as if Truro was celebrating.
"When Truro voted after the 40 Days of Discernment and the results were announced, you could hear a pin drop. The results were announced to a sober, prayerful, and respectful silence. This is not a happy occasion - it may be necessary - but it is not happy."
Not true. There was a prearranged plan to prevent the anticipated applause by going immediately to a hymn after the announcement. No pin drop. Just the organ.
I don't think whether you applauded your descision or not has anything to do with the rightness of your case.
It was not appropriate to stand and cheer at Truro when the vote was announced and it was not appropriate to stand and cheer in Richmond this weekend.
To do so may reveal more than perhaps the leadership in Richmond intended.
bb
RE: To do so may reveal more than perhaps the leadership in Richmond intended.
Hmmm, it's political! I know this looks very Machiavellian, but +Lee needs to go from the one side of the prince to the other, actually to play both, be loved by his friends and feared by his foes. It's a tough makeover considering the gentle Southern he has played, how do you keep that image with give him backbone and not seem his a puppet to NYC?
I wrote that they would try to get a mandate in Richmond. This was that mandate. I was so encourage on election, I hoped maybe a moderate tone was ruling the day, it still may have. The resolutions all passing, expressing support for "the faithful" but also for negotiates seems a little schizophrenic. Good news on the cannons as I read your post and comments. So this convention was complex in those areas.
You probably witnessed a nice show. Just as there is some truth to Anon's accusation that having an organ suddenly play a hymn does eliminate unsought cheering, you can also sow in people to cheer at appointed times. It does not have to be real hard, often all one does is not stop it.
The letter is probably from NYC to gain support that +Lee is in a accord with his peers. New Zealand communicates DioVA is a part of the AC. Creates a powerful message to fence sitters. +Lee's December actions were pushing people away form his position, to have cheering and support is a method to draw people together.
This production sounds like there been some professional assistence. He now seems to have his mandate, so it's not bad guy +Lee, but a defense of the homeland. I still disagree with the racist accusation, but Yankee expression "living capital of the confederacy," does hold how the War of Northern Agression is viewed by the South.
Invaders have come, in fact the Post says most aren't even cradle Episcopalians, we need to drive them out.
I think this is way beyond denial stage, but prep for war. The cheers were the support for the leader. There might be a quiet for the Priomates meeting, but I think this is the mandate I was predicting.
To quote Tom Ehrlich writing in the Jackson Sun:
Conservatives in the Episcopal Church, for example, lamented the loss of cohesion or what they called “catholicity.”
Then the denomination, with significant cohesion, made some decisions the conservatives didn’t like, and suddenly they are demanding their own form of congregationalism, claiming they have the right to leave the national church and to take their property with them. And they demand a choice as to which “catholicity” they recognize: Nigeria or New York.
Babyblue, I'm sorry, you cannot have it both ways. Either what happened in Richmond was the majority supporting Bishop Lee in his decision to exercise his ecclesiastical authority, or you, madame, are a Congregationalist.
bb, Are you sure there were Virginians at the DioVA council? Seems awfully atypical for the Virginians I knew for 11.5 years in that state - epecially Episcopalians. Were they in fact mostly folks from over the LINE? It is a bit difficult to imagine a pep rally at thediocese.
It seems a political rally, rather like Saruman exhorting the Uruk-hai on their departure from Orthanc to raze and destroy. Oh, wait wrong Lee (or is it?)!
inked
It was a political pep rally (though it was clear that the failure of the chancellor's canons - one of which through the efforts of progressive Episcopalians that perhaps it wasn't so much the lovefest for the bishop, but an odd flattering-fest). I don't know how he can stand it, but there you are. It's all about legacy, you know.
bb
Mike, refusing to submit to heretics is NOT congregationism. It is every bit as faithful and catholic as Athanasius.
"And they demand a choice as to which “catholicity” they recognize: Nigeria or New York. "
Mike,
They came to the conclusion that they could not remain with a group that was moving further and further away from the AC. It is not simply 'Nigeria' that they 'recognize'. It is the traditional beliefs of the overwhelming majority of the Anglican Communion, not a 'new thing', a revised and changed religion.
RE:"though it was clear that the failure of the chancellor's canons - one of which through the efforts of progressive Episcopalians that perhaps it wasn't so much the lovefest for the bishop"
Well, they want to rally around the bishop, but they don't want an ecclesiastical version of the Patriot Act, at least their consistent with their secular politics.
"at least they're consistent with their secular politics."
Regarding the announcement at Truro, while "annoymous" is correct that it was planned to sing a hymm after the vote announcemnt, BB, was correct about the silence. If you have any doubts, you can relive the announcement here:
http://babybluecafe.blogspot.com/2006/12/live-coverage-of-truro-vote.html#links
You will note that after Jim makes the announcement on the first vote, there was a long silence as he fumbled with the papers -- should anyone have chosen to clap, cheer, boo, or whistle, there was plenty of time to do it.
There was no immediate piping of the organ to drown out any reaction.
It is so very interesting how every move by the dissenters is wholesome, polite, well-mannered and blessed, but anything the PB does, or Bishop Lee, and now the rest of the DioVA, is mean spirited, callous, and apparently motivated by the devil herself. I know little about crowd psychology, but I certainly see marked differences in the make up of the two congregations: at Truro, one congregation coming together at its annual meeting, culminating in a momentous and awful (full of awe) decision; at Council, many congregations coming together for a weekend of bread breaking, routine and some not so routine business. The actions by the dissenters required a response at the diocesan level; it makes sense to me that the crowd reacted to a decision they agreed with in a spirited way. And bb has only remarked on the reaction at Truro; perhaps there was a different response at the conclusion of voting at other parishes.
-Eddo unable to log in :(
Mike, catholicity is a mark of the whole church -- the worldwide church. TEC has disregarded the catholicity of the Church time and time again by failing to heed the larger body of Christ outside of itself.
I won't argue with you that those of us who are orthodox at times are apt to think primarily on a local level. Still, even most of us who are primarily concerned with local matters do so because we are concerned with catholicity at the fundamental level of the tenets of the faith.
TEC, however, limits its regard for catholicity to a call for unity in the midst of great diversity. It wants to do what it believes God is leading it to do regardless of what the larger Anglican Communion, much less the larger body of Christ, thinks. In its actions, it arguably honors the form of catholicity, but it misses the substance. Catholicity cannot, given the lessons of church history, be equated with "the majority."
Eddo,
I belong to one of the other parishes which voted to leave. No one celebrated there, either. The announcement of the results was a very solemn occasion.
Hello Eddo:
I agree with Anon, "I don't think whether you applauded your descision or not has anything to do with the rightness of your case."
I'll say at tFC it went both ways, inside it was very measured and the total was announced then into prayer before the Historic service, I also hear the Main Sanctuary announcement, it was the same but into a hymn also very controlled. I also overhead on usher note to another that there were some people celbrating in the parking lot to which the reply was "not good." There you have it, out of 2000 people and some were in the parking lot acting differently than the official posture.
I personally think whether it was an organized pep-rally or complete spontaneity makes no moral claim. AAC had two pep-rallies at Hylton Mem. Chaple, and the ACN had a big hoo-rah in Pitt. Holding a pep-rally would be smart to keep the unity of the DioVA if it were waning. I guess your correct that I suspect 815 is behind this, maybe that's my own denial, for if this display was truly instantaneous, then it's a very united front.
I do think this whole thread is more emotional than moral. Then it's healthy for BB to share her sadness and others to engage, including you! The one thing that keeps this from a us/them thing is when people take the risk to comment "going upstream" as it were, thank you for your pleasantness in your challenges.
Peace,
Kevin
Post a Comment