Comments: US news updates

The point is when these folks, oh so loyal, consult other masters about structural and administrative changes - when does pastoral oversight turn into other oversight that effectively means boundary crossing is going on? "We'll let you know what we are doing" does seem to be a thin basis of difference between all-out attempting to switch allegiance and switching allegiance on a limited basis.

Posted by Pluralist at Wednesday, 27 February 2008 at 4:16pm GMT

"Living Church" again quotes Bishop Howe's comment "that the Primates involved in this discussion are NOT involved in "border crossing". Does Bishop Howe need to be reminded of the whereabouts of Drexel-Gomez, a central figure in this latest scheme, on 31st August last, when two new bishops (Atwood & Murdoch)were consecrated as Kenyan "missionary bishops". Guess Drexel-Gomez & Howe believe it doesn't count as "border crossing" if you keep your hands to yourself? Just plain preaching ain't border-crossing?

Posted by Lapinbizarre at Wednesday, 27 February 2008 at 6:19pm GMT

Southern Cone are also breaking the proviso in the canons of regulating the liturgy by the standards of the 39 articles.

Posted by robert ian williams at Wednesday, 27 February 2008 at 6:54pm GMT

"House of Bishops will Address ‘Bishops in Communion’ Plan"

That just means that the small group of conservative bishops who "informed" ++KJS of the scheme, plan to bring it up. :-/

Posted by JCF at Wednesday, 27 February 2008 at 7:08pm GMT

"Curiously, there has not yet been any mention of this matter on Episcopal News Service."

What is curious about this? The ENS has been very selective in its "news" for years now. On some blogs it is less charitably called "Pravda" -- but sometimes does seem to be doing its best to live up to the title!

Posted by MargaretG at Wednesday, 27 February 2008 at 7:54pm GMT

What was the "emergency" that required the Southern Cone to violate its own canons? That some poor bedeviled conservative in San Joaquin might have to acknowledge an affiliation with TEC? That constitutes an emergency?

Talk about degrading the language!

Posted by Pat O'Neill at Wednesday, 27 February 2008 at 8:55pm GMT

Regarding Drexel Gomez and the Atwood/Murdoch consecrations, Stand Firm's annotated photograph of the event clearly indicates that in addition to preaching at this event, Gomez participated in the actual consecrations. Which leads one to inquire what level of participation in shenanigans of this sort constitutes, by Bishop Howe's definition, actual involvement in a border crossing. Standing in the back row of bishops means that it doesn't really count - or do one's fingers have to be crossed at the same time?

SF photograph:

Posted by Lapinbizarre at Wednesday, 27 February 2008 at 8:58pm GMT

I note that +Greg Venables spokesman claims that in ignoring the canons "Both the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone and the General Synod decided to go ahead because of the nature of the emergency."

I believe that the emergency referred to was +GV getting left behind by Akinola, Orombi and chums in the race to be a contender for the "Not the Archbishop of Canterbury" role. There's nothing like a few US parishes to help show off the size of your crozier.

Posted by Doug Chaplin at Wednesday, 27 February 2008 at 10:23pm GMT

MargaretG: "On some blogs [Episcopal News Service] is less charitably called 'Pravda'."

These would be the same blogs where liberal voices are routinely banned and their posts removed? And where obscenities have been used to describe the Presiding Bishop?

Posted by Malcolm+ at Thursday, 28 February 2008 at 4:30am GMT

No, Malcolm -- I wasn't thinking of either Susan Russell's or Elizabeth Kaeton's sites -- which are the only ones I know that exercise really tight censorship and where people get very personal and abusive about folk on the other side of the debate.

I was actually thinking of other sites where the comments are not vetted before they are posted -- (though they may be "elf-ed" afterwards if they breach the clearly stated rules of posting) and where any banning is done publicly rather than secretly.

The correlation of tight and secret censorship and "liberal - 'I believe in a wide tent' " status, and immediate posting, with public controls and "conservative - 'I believe in strict adherence' " status always intrigues me. It seems inconsistent -- but that is just my view, and obviously not shared on this blog.

Posted by Margaret at Thursday, 28 February 2008 at 9:03am GMT

Thanks for the photo link Lapinbizarre. I had not noticed before that Archbishop Malango was one of the consecrators.

Malango is, of course, the primate who has protected a bishop charged with incitement to murder (Bishop Kunonga, a Mugabe henchman).

Amazing that the likes of Kunonga are, not only in the company, but honoured officiators, whilst bishops who supported the consecration of Gene Robinson are beyond the pale.

There's something very odd about this.

Posted by badman at Thursday, 28 February 2008 at 9:59am GMT

Schofield just doesn't get it, does he? Or is the problem that he gets it, but won't admit it?

TEC's position is the same as it has always been--persons can leave the church, parishes and dioceses cannot. Therefore, there is still an Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin, filled with faithful Episcopalians, despite the fact that its former Bishop and a good number of his clergy and laity have announced they are joining the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone.

That being the case, the PB has no choice but to prepare to minister to those remaining Episcopalians in San Joaquin (and there appear to be far more of them than Schofield anticipated).

Posted by Pat O'Neill at Thursday, 28 February 2008 at 12:24pm GMT

Out of curiosity, Margaret, were you able to write that with a straight face? Thanks for the giggle, either way.

Posted by Lapinbizarre at Thursday, 28 February 2008 at 12:34pm GMT

Margaret - In my fairly lengthy and deep observation of the religious blogs I am astounded by your statements - we must be looking at different blogs and/or using different colored lenses in our glasses. I feel the conservative blogs are extremely controlling - sometimes by the elves but more commonly by the tightly wound, often overwrought fellow bloggers. It is akin to a talk show where shouting is acceptable and is even encouraged by the host of the show. True this is just one opinion but it is a well considered one.

Posted by ettu at Thursday, 28 February 2008 at 12:55pm GMT

badman: Yes, you're right. Of course Bishop Kunonga gave as his reason for departing from his province that he could not remain in communion with those who were as notoriously liberal on homosexuality as they are (!).

Posted by Fr Mark at Thursday, 28 February 2008 at 6:57pm GMT

Oh, I understand now, Margaret:

Liberals remove a post (due to ad hominems, sexual slurs, four-letter words), it's "censorship."

Whereas when conservatives remove a post (and the poster, permanently) because they disagree w/ the FAITH expressed, it is to "elf" (How cute!)

Very simple for you, to live in such a Black&White world. Me? I'll keep the gray . . . and all the other God-given COLORS! :-)

Posted by JCF at Thursday, 28 February 2008 at 8:32pm GMT

For those interested in the secessionist history of breakaway US Episcopal churches, the following piece, from the May 7th, 1965 issue of "Time". throws light on a comparatively little-remembered incident. In 1965, St. John's, Savannah, daughter church of Christ Church, Savannah, which recently voted to place itself under the Anglican Province of Uganda, voted 785 to 75 (this starting to sound familiar?) rather than integrate the church and admit African-Americans to worship. Led by segregationist rector Ernest Risley, they "left" the Episcopal Church, returning five years later, under a new rector. The "Time" piece makes interesting "dèja vu all over again" reading.,9171,898756,00.html

Posted by Lapinbizarre at Thursday, 28 February 2008 at 9:57pm GMT

The Times piece is indeed interesting reading.

We (human race) never learn, do we?

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Friday, 29 February 2008 at 7:37am GMT

Platitudes only change perception for the inexperienced. Those of us on the sharp edge of censorship know the truth. TA is the wrong website to purport that censorship doesn't happen.

Posted by Cheryl Va. at Friday, 29 February 2008 at 9:01am GMT

2004 Massacre of Yelwa, Nigeria

based on

(the AB Akinola "No comments" interview starts page 2)

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Friday, 29 February 2008 at 11:31am GMT


You are allowed to post here, are you not?

However, I was banned from one conservative blog, supposedly because the webmaster didn't like the fact that I had my own blog! The real reason was his dislike for what I had to say.

There are others here who have had much the same treatment - I think you ought to be encouraging your own side to get their house in order before you start to lecture those who run this blog.

Posted by Merseymike at Friday, 29 February 2008 at 1:03pm GMT

Margaret, the word "Orwellian" isn't sufficient to describe your abuse of the language. Perhaps "Margretian" should be the new word to describe those whose use of the language is so blatantly dishonest.

Posted by Malcolm+ at Friday, 29 February 2008 at 3:56pm GMT

Good heavens !

That really is a conservative site, if they still subscribe to the agency of the elves !

I was banned from there too --but I was under no misapprehension as to the source of agency involved !

Posted by L Roberts at Saturday, 1 March 2008 at 9:09pm GMT
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.