Words and undercurrents

The listserv is buzzing about Bishop John Howe's missive about the Bishops' meeting. It was sent out, then revised for the diocesan newsletter. Here it is, with revisions noted:

The All-Important Meeting

From the October, 2007 Central Florida Episcopalian

Dear Diocesan Family,

I said last month that I did not think there would be any surprises in the meeting of the House of Bishops and the Archbishop of Canterbury. I was wrong. The House leaned much farther toward what the Archbishop and the Primates of the Anglican Communion asked of us than I believe anyone expected.

In the end we produced two statements (see links at left). One of them is a "contextual" narrative about the whole of our experience in New Orleans, touching upon a wide variety of specific topics. The other is our response to the requests made of us by the Primates in their Communiqué from Dar es Salaam last February.

In their Communiqué the Primates asked us to:

- Make an unequivocal covenant that the Bishops will not authorize any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their Dioceses or through the General Convention, and

- Confirm that the passing of Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention (in 2006) means that a candidate for Episcopal orders living in a same-sex relationship will not receive the necessary consents (from the Bishops as well as from the Standing Committees) until or unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the Anglican Communion as a whole.

In my opinion, we did not fully comply with either of these requests, but we came much closer than I ever thought we would.

The Bishops made a distinction between "public Rites" and "private blessings." In many Dioceses permission to use officially authorized public Rites has been withdrawn, and the House as a whole has, indeed, confirmed that until or unless there is a "new consensus" there will be no such authorization. There is, however, an implicit acknowledgement that in some places private blessings are still being offered as part of the "pastoral response" the Primates themselves said might be called for.

In reaffirming B033 from last year's General Convention, the Bishops stated that "exercising restraint" means withholding consent, and that specifically pertains to non-celibate gay and lesbian persons.

Many voices have already been raised, denouncing the Bishops' Statement as "non-compliance." I disagree. I would characterize the decisions of the House of Bishops as being in partial compliance [changed from "very substantial" compliance] with what the Primates asked of us.

Unfortunately, the Bishops failed to even mention a third request from the Primates, that we put an end to the lawsuits that are being pressed in many Dioceses against congregations that are attempting to leave The Episcopal Church and yet retain "their" properties. [New paragraph]

In our failure to do all that the Primates asked of us I was unable to vote for the Bishops' Statement, [New] but I was grateful to see a far higher level of concern for the unity of the Communion evident throughout our meeting than I have ever witnessed previously. Whether or not that level was high enough remains to be seen. Ultimately, of course, it is for the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates to make that call.

On behalf of all the Bishops, I thank you for your prayers.

With love to all of you in our Lord,

+ John W. Howe

I'm not sure what the amendments mean. He obviously back-pedaled a bit on his approval of discussion and the HOB statement. Why he added in concerns about "putting an end to lawsuits" is the subject of speculation -- does the Bishop want to cut deals with parishes that want to leave the church?

Meanwhile, Bishop Howe apparently attended only the last day of the Network/Common Cause Partners meeting. Those Network people have been through more aliases than a two-bit grifter.

An Episcopal News Service article by May Schjonberg on the meeting, titled "Common Cuase bishops pledge to seek Anglican reconciliation," stated, "Duncan and others compared the steps taken during the meeting to those of the Reformation, the American Revolution, the U.S. Civil War and martyrdom."

"During his short homily at Eucharist, Duncan urged the congregation of about 100 to be fruitful even if their fruit is not what the world wants, and to be willing to face the consequences of their actions. Those consequences in the past, Duncan said, have included death."




Images of violence toward those who disagree run rampant at Stand Limp, as Father Jake documented in his entry Father Jake Stops the World: Who is Worth Killing?. Those guys got their guns, and they're ready to use them. It certainly calls up some images:


No Freudian symbolism here!

What's with all the uber violent imagery at Club Common Cause Partners?










Just what kind of social order are they seeking?