Thursday, March 15, 2007

815 lobbying House of Bishops to ignore Communique Deadline?

BB NOTE: Looks like 815 is lobbying the House of Bishops to ignore the Communique Deadline. Gotta love that "Peter Panesque" quote from Jan Nunley, "It's not an ultimatum unless you think it is." That's sort of like telling New Orleans, it's not a hurricane unless you think it is. Which of course, is sort of what happened.

Episcopal bishops expected to talk, not act
(BB NOTE: Because this is what 815 wants them to do. )

By Cathy Lynn Grossman, USA TODAY

When the 296 U.S. bishops of the Episcopal Church retreat this weekend for four days of reflection, their prayers may address questions that threaten to rip their church from its historic roots in the 77-million member worldwide Anglican Communion.
Conservative Anglicans in the USA and abroad demand that by Sept. 30, the Episcopal Church stop blessing same-sex unions, cease approving any actively gay bishops and adopt a view of the Bible as the literal authority for morality. They say homosexual behavior is "against Scripture," as proclaimed by a majority vote at the 1998 Lambeth Conference of all Anglican bishops.

"There's an ultimatum before the bishops," says the Rev. Kendall Harmon, canon theologian for the Diocese of South Carolina. Harmon reads this in the lengthy statement signed by the 38 primates, leaders of national and regional churches, including U.S. Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, after they met in Tanzania in February.

But when the Episcopal House of Bishops meets Saturday through Wednesday at Camp Allen, Texas, for its annual spring retreat, "no definitive statement is expected, although they may have a business session," says the Rev. Jan Nunley, a spokeswoman for the Episcopal Church.

They may not vote on the issues until their regular September business meeting — if then. "It's not an ultimatum unless you think it is," Nunley says.

On the table are questions of theology and authority: "What actually is required? How far does (the Communion's) theological jurisdiction go?" Nunley says.

Developments since the Tanzania meeting:

•Several Episcopal bishops who approved the church's first and only openly gay bishop, the Right Rev. V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, in 2003 rejected primates' demands in public letters. "Under no circumstance" would he support such moratoriums, wrote the Right Rev. John Bryson Chane, bishop of Washington, D.C.

•Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, head of the Anglican Communion, called for the U.S. church to clearly conform to the 1998 Lambeth teaching on homosexuality. But he has no enforcement power.

This week, clergy and lay leaders from the Diocese of Utah contradicted Williams in an open letter saying, in part, that Lambeth resolutions have no legislative or theological authority.

And a public letter from the Diocese of Wyoming questions whether the bishops alone can set policy without consulting the other half of the church's governing legislature, the House of Deputies, which includes clergy, deacons and laypeople.

Both houses meet every three years at a General Convention, where decisions are made for the church. Wyoming called for Jefferts Schori to reject the primates' "restrictive" demands and disruptive politics.

Harmon says, "If in the end, the Episcopal Church wants to play the autonomy card, they can, but the costs will be terribly high."

How high? Although the "consequences" in the maybe-an-ultimatum Sept. 30 deadline are not spelled out, continued membership in the worldwide communion is the core question.

Meanwhile, Nunley says, Jefferts Schori is telling the whole church, "Let's talk, let's wait. We'll see what happens."

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Nunley says, Jefferts Schori is telling the whole church, "Let's talk, let's wait. We'll see what happens."

Oh dear. Where was the waiting back in 2003 or back during the illegal ordination of women for that matter?

"Conversation," "listening," "waiting" etc. always seems to be what the liberals call for AFTER they cram their will down our throats.

Kevin said...

RE: Oh dear. Where was the waiting back in 2003 or back during the illegal ordination of women for that matter?

BINGO!!!

However this is the first time where the GLBT agenda and WO agenda have a split in terms of mutual exclusivity. In terms of the former it's more desirable to tell the primates where they can put it and let Canada, South Africa, and other liberal leaning to fight for a minimized second rung status. In term of the latter, it's best to comply and get ++KJS to Lambeth, thus legitimatizing one can be woman and a primate, because if TEC is disciplined over the one issue it hurts her status as female primate. However any backing down will be seen as back tracking from the GBLT lobby.

Odd times and ++KJS has her work cut out for her. The odd thing is they're going to have to "listen" to each other.

That's probably the reason for the attempt to calm and reign-in the one group. I don't know if it'll work.

Anonymous said...

I posted the following over at Kendall's site. I don't think that KJS wants the HoB to accept the primates' requests any earlier then they absolutely have to. Think about it: 1) she won't want to shut down TEC's "prophetic" stand till she absolutey needs to; 2) she will want to keep her ear to the ground to see what happens at Canada's General Synod and with what result; and 3) if in September it is clear that TEC must accept the primates' requests, it will be much easier to bring any wavering institutionalists in line if there is a pressure cooker situation (think how she was able to get the HoD to accept B033 at GC06)

*********************
One thing to keep in mind is that if KJS is going to have any chance to pull off acceptance of the Communique in TEC, she will have to spin the requests as not being an “ultimatum.” It will simply be politically unacceptable to be seen to “cave in” to an ultimatum. No, if KJS is successful in having the Communique accepted, it will need to be spun as “a fast for time” as a concession to the “great unwashed” group of unenlightened primates. There is a key difference in the political marketing of the two concepts. My guess is that Nunley is simply trying to spin the Communique in the way most favorable to her political masters.

Publius (#15) - I actually would disagree with some of your conclusions (but not all). I think that the defeat of Lawrence actually bodes ill for an alliance between the reappraising prophetic extremists (RPEs) and the reappraising institutionalist (RI) bishops. True, the standing committees have apparently rejected Lawrence, but the bishops consented. I think that the RI bishops know full well the pending disaster that a Lawrence rejection meant and that is why there was a lobbying effort by the RI’s to consent to Lawrence. I frankly don’t think for a minute that the large number of last minute switcheroos was the result of StandFirm, do you? No, it was the result of RI lobbying.

The Lawrence rejection will convince the RI bishops, that if they are to stay in the Anglican Communion, they will need to act and not a Special Convention. This will also convince the RI bishops that the RPEs really do not care about their future Anglican connection. So my prediction is that a narrow majority of reasserter, moderate institutionalist, and RI bishops will vote to accept the Communique requests (just as they voted to consent to Lawrence), but that this will be bitterly opposed by the RPEs, including the Executive Council and the leadership of the HoD.

And so I agree with your final conclusion - the real threat to TEC unity will come from the reappraiser prophetic extremists, who will not be prepared to accept the narrow positive vote to accept the Communique by the uneasy alliance of institutionalists and reasserters in the HoB. And I actually see this scenario as being a positive one for the reasserters. TEC will never negotiate in good faith with the reasserters unless there is a big stick held by the reasserters (i.e. if several more large states rejected the Dennis Canon). But if there is an apparent constitutional or canonical crisis within TEC (i.e. the HoB claims to have voted for one policy, but the other side claims that policy is ultra vires of the HoB), then I think that you may actually see a negotiated seperation.

Unknown said...

Great conversation - I can't post right now, but look forward to later.

bb