Sunday, June 01, 2008

TEC House of Deputies President Attacks Rowan Williams during VTS Lecture

No, it wasn't fisticuffs. He was safe over at his palace on the Thames. But she was hurling from her podium in Virginia (she sure does get around - does she have day job?). From the "We can't even make this stuff up even if we tried" file here's a quote from the May 30th Bonnie Anderson Show on preparing for Lambeth:
"Some of us in TEC in the past have thought that perhaps the Archbishop (of Canterbury) and others in the Anglican Communion do not understand the baptismal covenant that we hold foundational." -Bonnie Anderson, President, Episcopal Church House of Deputies
Oh, there's more here. We may disagree with Rowan Williams on occasion (but we've become a big fan of his theologian wife and listen to her podcast teachings at St. Paul's Theological Centre here), but we've never questioned that he somehow comes up clueless on what a baptismal covenant is. That's a somewhat audacious and, to be frank, arrogant charge. The problem is, TEC doesn't have a "baptismal covenant" in the Anglican sense of the phrase, what TEC has - and exploits - is their free-for-all fun pass to all the attractions.

What the Archbishop of Canterbury may not know, which is perhaps what Bonnie is alluding to, is that in the Episcopal Church often uses the Baptismal Covenant cunningly as a political weapon. It is the justification for inclusion of anyone to be a bishop or to be married in the church. If you've been baptized then there are no barriers. Zip. The Baptismal Covenant is a free pass for all and their appears to be some fear amongst the Episcopal leadership that the proposed Anglican Covenant (which, as we know, Rowan Williams has now required those bishops attending Lambeth to sign on to its concept before accepting his invitation - including the Americans), seriously threatens the Free Fun Pass so much that it may turn out that it wasn't so free - or so fun - after all.

Read the rest here, including the bits about splitting bishops into the "prophetic" camp and the "conformist" camp. What a slam. One does wonder, is everything all right?

6 comments:

robroy said...

That should treat Rowan better. The interloper Lamb of the rump diocese of San Joaquin is announcing that he received an email stating that they are looking forward to his presence at Lambeth. I can just picture the conversation:

KJS: So how much to buy an invitation for Jerry Lamb?
RW: I won't take any less than 40 silver pieces.
KJS: That's outrageous. 25!
RW: No way. 35 is my absolute minimum.
KJS: Well, 30 is my absolute maximum.
RW: OK, 30 silver pieces.

I didn't even know that interim bishops got Lambeth invitations.

Anonymous said...

How to win friends and share your zeitgeist it ain't.
Careful,Ms. Anderson,people have been known to get surprised in spite of how many covenants they invent to justify their innovation.

Perpetua said...

Doesn't England still uses the traditional baptismal service that doesn't have the extra bit? What she is referring to as the most important part of the Baptism, isn't it new to the 1979 Prayer Book of the Episcopal Church?

ettu said...

Indeed, my understanding is that all recognized Bishops do receive an invitation to Lambeth. I find the "Interloper" and "rump diocese" in the first comment to be inflammatory and unlikely to accomplish much other than to vent Robroy's "black bile" but each to his own taste as the French say......

Anonymous said...

The dreaded Bonnie Anderson strikes again. She has too much time on her hands and her carbon footprint is out of control. She pops up everywhere. Think how many greenhouse gases are emitted from all these junkets!!! I think she should have to attend a mandatory Global Warming Conference and perform community service. Like planting trees with a spork.

Anonymous said...

RE: "Indeed, my understanding is that all recognized Bishops do receive an invitation to Lambeth."

No, it is all recognized diocesan bishops who receive an invitation.

RE: "I find the "Interloper" and "rump diocese" in the first comment to be inflammatory and unlikely to accomplish much other than to vent Robroy's "black bile" . . . "

I found it merely communicative, which would be what, I expect, RobRoy intended to accomplish. He successfully communicated in his use of those words, although some certainly may object to the content of that communication. But generally speaking I think the use of words is mean to communicate ideas, which RobRoy accomplished, at least for me, and no doubt for other readers.


Sarah