Once again, Anglican Curmudgeon hits it out of the park. Get thee hence.
The Presiding Bishop "begins to determine" who would be a suitable bishop, but it is the dioceses that "choose", "name", and "appoint" the ones she nominates. This language is worthy of Machiavelli's advice to his fictional prince.
The snippets from the memorandum to which the article treats us are indeed, in the whole, what a twenty-first century Machiavelli might write in the language and strategy of today. Through its disclosure of that strategy, ECUSA has laid bare its litigious soul. The article ends by quoting what almost amounts to a cynical self-parody:
In addition, Kostel's memo said that many Episcopalians in the dioceses "have questions about the church's theology and mission" and others are "conflicted over their desire to stay in the church while remaining loyal to their bishop, while others struggle with the church's position on the protection of church assets."
"Each of these issues demands a pastoral response," Kostel wrote, explaining that the response begins with Jefferts Schori appointing a priest to provide "interim pastoral assistance." She also recently named former Diocese of Bethlehem Archdeacon Richard Cluett as "pastoral assistant to reorganizing dioceses."
"
Demands a pastoral response . . ."---as a litigator, I am not surprised. A strategy that has litigation at its core means that the bridges are burned, the ground is scorched, and there are no prisoners taken. People who are asked to underwrite that kind of strategy will
need pastoral counseling. Because, as the
Wikipedia article on Machiavelli aptly sums up his greatest work,
The Prince:"The Prince is a guide to acquiring and keeping power. In contrast with Plato and Aristotle, the ideal society is not the aim."
Read it all here.
2 comments:
Well I'm sorry but -
The Presiding Bishop "begins to determine" who would be a suitable bishop,
- about time! The rot in ECUSA started - or at least was allowed to grow and fester - because laypeople and clergy could elect bishops. Few Anglican provinces do anything like this: NZ, Australia outside Sydney - and guess what - it's those provinces that have fallen to the revisionist heresy. In Africa, in GAFCON, the idea of electing bishops by laypeople would be seen for the foolish heresy that it is!
This is why - for example - the Roman Catholic church doesn't have problems with heretical bishops or popes - and can deal switfly with those who subsequently betray the faith: they have no other source of legitimacy, and especially none of the "XXX was validly elected" special pleading that happened for both New Hampshire and South Carolina.
A bishop is chosen by God: that choice is received and recognized by the house to which the new Bishop will belong. Laypeople, clergy, and especially elections should have nothing to do with it.
So, ironically, TEC is moving closer the "form" of an Anglican province - while having completely abandoned the truth of the faith.
Meanwhile APNA is organized as a congregational federation, with no true discipline or control, and yet (for now) holds true to the faith.
What this means we can be sure:
ECUSA will never leave the revisionist heresy;
and APNA will fragment, and its core will end up where ECUSA is now within a generation.
I'm not sure I can agree with your assertions. I believe that the root all heresy in TEC lies first and foremost with clergy not holding themselves accountable. Then laypeople for not paying attention to what was going on the Seminaries that they were blindly supporting. What happened to TEC was a very successful generational insurgency against the apathetic majority of laypeople by the clergy.
Post a Comment