UPDATE: Here's an article by George Conger, a clergy-resident in the Diocese of Central Florida, who is saying the KJS is thumbs up on the plan. The plan is what has been proposed in the past and if looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, well, you know. But does anyone want to be a sitting duck? We wonder.What this "plan" seems to have completely forgotten is the laity. There has been no lay-voice in this entire process and it sadly shows. The paternalism is astonishing - as though the lay sheep will just follow right off the cliff. King Kamehameha was very effective in rounding up his dissenters and sending them over the Pali. The last thing a dissenting minority wants to do is become a clear target. This is the time for the remnant orthodox in TEC to follow the example of Francis Marion - hide and the trees and keep them guessing. And remember - trust comes from action, not the promise of action. What have we seen for the past five years? Think about it.
It will be interesting to see if Bishop Lee is now going to start inviting Bishop Howe back into Virginia to provide Episcopal visitation to the remnant in Virginia - and if the remnant is going to want to be identified as dissenters. We just think of the Arapaho who were also filled with trust. But one of the major problems facing the Episcopal Church was and continues to be Broken Trust. A Duck by any other name is still a Duck - is this seat taken?
BB NOTE: This might have worked ten years ago, but a lot has happened in ten years. I suggest that we all review the historical record of the Highland Clearances - especially orthodox Episcopal laity. When you are able to identify and encase the opposition, it makes them far easier to "disappear." And remember who it was who sold out the highland Scots. No lay person is going to go for this - and that's the problem. The laity are fleeing and this kind of barb-wired fence remedy does not solve the problem. It might make it easier for the chiefs, but not the people.
If KJS goes for this then she will have to sign the Anglican Covenant and she won't do that in its current form. If she doesn't sign it then TEC is reduced in status, except for perhaps these orthodox enclaves, these "Communion Partners." Notice which primates are coming to their aid. I don't have a problem with that at all - I do believe that some are called to remain in TEC. What I would say is that it would be complete foolishness for KJS and 815 and the Executive Council to agree to this (and forms of this were presented to them in DEPO as well as the Primatial Vicar Scheme from Dar es Salaam) because then TEC will be balkinized. If she does go for it, it's to force a TEC-version of the clearances and the orthodox remnant better be organized and ready for that - are they? Much easier to remove an identified and stable target then one that keeps moving. Ask the Arapaho.
Via e-mail, by John W. Howe, Bishop of Central Florida:
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
It is not quite 11:30 PM here in Orlando. In London it is not quite 4:30 AM tomorrow. And Jonathan Petre of the London Telegraph has just released a story about yesterday's meeting between four American Bishops (Howe, Central Florida; MacPherson, Western Louisiana; Smith, North Dakota; and Stanton, Dallas) with the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church.
Petre could not have been much more inaccurate! Here are his opening remarks:
"The Archbishop of Canterbury is backing secret plans to create a 'parallel' Church for American conservatives to avert fresh splits over homosexuality.... Dr Rowan Williams has held confidential talks with senior American bishops and theologians who oppose the pro-gay policies of their liberal leaders.... "Dr Williams is desperate to minimize further damage in the run up to the once-a-decade Lambeth Conference this summer which could be boycotted by more than a fifth of the world's bishops.... "According to insiders, Dr Williams has given his blessing to the plans to create an enclave for up to 20 conservative American bishops that would insulate them from their liberal colleagues."
No, Dear Friends. Here is a summary of what we presented to the Presiding Bishop yesterday. We were not quite ready to release it, but in the light of this significant distortion, I am doing so tonight:
Communion Partners
In the context of the Episcopal Visitors concept announced by the Presiding Bishop at the House of Bishops meeting in New Orleans, a number of us have reflected a need for a larger gathering which we are calling Communion Partners. We believe such a gathering will afford us the opportunity for mutual support, accountability and fellowship; and present an important sign of our connectedness in and vision for the Anglican Communion as it moves through this time of stress and renewal.
Purpose:
· To provide a visible link for those concerned to the Anglican Communion
Many within our dioceses and in congregations in other dioceses seek to be assured of their connection to the Anglican Communion. Traditionally, this has been understood in terms of bishop-to-bishop relationships. Communion Partners fleshes out this connection in a significant and symbolic way.
· To provide fellowship, support and a forum for mutual concerns between bishops
The Bishops who have been designated Episcopal Visitors together with others who might well consider being included in this number share many concerns about the Anglican Communion and its future, and look to work together with Primates and Bishops from the Global South. In addition, we believe we all have need of mutual encouragement, prayer, and reassurance. The Communion Partners will be a forum for these kinds of relationships.
· To provide a partnership to work toward the Anglican Covenant and according to Windsor principles..
The Bishops will work together according to the principles outlined in the Windsor Report and seek a comprehensive Anglican Covenant at the Lambeth Conference and beyond.
Scope:
· The Communion Partners will be informally gathered – there will be no “charter” or formal structure
· Are committed to non-boundary-crossing: the relationships will be governed by mutual respect and proceed by invitation and cooperation
· Will work with mutual cooperation within and beyond the partnership
Participants:
· The Episcopal Visitors who desire to participate (EVs named at House of Bishops New Orleans)
· Those Bishops who are willing to serve as EVs
· Initially, five Primates of the Global South: West Indies, Tanzania, Indian Ocean, Burundi, Middle East
Transparency:
· Communication of activities with both the Presiding Bishop and Archbishop of Canterbury
· Respect for the canonical realities, integrities and structures of the Episcopal Church and other Churches
Our purpose in meeting with Bishop Schori yesterday was to apprize her of this plan, seek her counsel, and assure her that we remain committed to working within the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church, and that the Primates involved in this discussion are NOT involved in "border crossing," nor would we be. We will visit no congregation without the Diocesan Bishop's invitation and permission. We do believe this is a step forward, albeit a small one.
I hope this is helpful, and I thank you for your prayers regarding this important meeting.
Warmest regards in our Lord,
The Right Rev. John W. Howe
Episcopal Bishop of Central Florida
8 comments:
I think Matt Kennedy said it best with "this plan, in my opinion, is just the same old DEPO pig gussied up in a nice pink dress and lipstick."
Great mental imagery, but it seriously appears as if they think all will be well if they can only placate for a little while until folks get used to the idea of the "new thing."
Why would right believing Anglicans in Virginia even want Bishop Howe to provide them oversight? Isn't he willing to compromise too much?
Seems like a real opportunity for all to stay in the same tent but it will take humility on everyone's part - and I feel there are many stiff-necked individuals on both sides whose pride will stand in the way of their love for one another- so a tumble from grace appears likely.
Smells like Vichy to me.
Well, Rick, I happen to agree that it stinks.
1) It has been done in secret. As any person in recovery can tell you, secrets are dangerous things. Sick things. Damaging things. So, too, in an institution.
2) The plan and conclusions have been arrived at by a bunch of purple shirts. Where are the other clergy in this conversation? Where are the laypeople?
3) What provision is open to progressive parishes in conservative dioceses? From what I hear, they are as much punished as the reported discrimination toward conservative parishes in liberal dioceses.
4) I suspect all this would have to be approved by GC, or Exec Council at least. The invitation to foreign prelates is particularly troubling.
I don't like it, I wouldn't agree to it (not that that would matter a hill of beans!), I think it is a potential train wreck.
I had always admired +Howe, even back in the days when I was a Pentecostal pastor. After reading the post, he seems to be playing the Chamberlain to PB's Fuhrer.
I find his his proposal to be faulted and problematic for many reasons. Consinder:
1. It vindicates the apostasty of TEC.
2. It makes the suprious claim that CANA, AMIA, et al, exist outside the global anglican communion.
3. It places reasserters into a parochial internment camp where their preceived threat to TEC will be contained.
My three cents...
Peace,
AT
Hello:
I think I know the answer to this. But where does this leave CANA members? What of the Common Cause Partnership? Does anyone have any inside info on what the CC partners think of this?
a
Truro Church
Fairfax, VA
Post a Comment