Comments: Statement from "Communion Partner" bishops

Doesn't look as though they got much encouragement from Rowan.

Posted by Lapinbizarre at Tuesday, 8 September 2009 at 10:43am BST

Why is co-dependency such a flaw with Episcopal clerics, both liberal and conservative?

Posted by choirboyfromhell at Tuesday, 8 September 2009 at 11:32am BST

Well, my, that is a very spare statement. It says nothing new at all. Golly.

Posted by Lois Keen at Tuesday, 8 September 2009 at 2:17pm BST

People´s what one will do to get the attention and validation that one thinks they MUST HAVE to be RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT! (of course it´s a temporary ¨fix¨ as it´s a fake/flawed human despensed reassurance).

Lord, spare us from those who have so little TRUST in God and respect for all of Gods children that they must stur up and DEMAND self-serving validation to calm their spiritual ills. Insisting their fragile religious CORRECTNESS on the broken backs of those who are persecuted, demonized, loathed (and jailed by religious zealots in Uganda, Nigeria and beyond) and excluded at Church is deadly and wrong.

Codependency, a sign of grave soul sickness, is clearly visiable amongst those who passively are herded into vile selfrighteous behavior by selfseeking Bishops who threaten witholding the Kingdom of God. Those clergy or laity who take aggressive actions against their brothers and sisters at the Body of Christ are criminals and instigate crime...they are emotionally and spiritually sick.

There you have part four of the pending Gomez/Williams/Gafcon Covenant enforcing ¨inquisition¨...a model for those who are addicted to control by fear and hate.

Lord have mercy on those who would EXCLUDE other Anglicans/Christians/others and for what they do to further harm themselves and others by fearing and hating at The Anglican Communion...they will not reconfirm selective Scriptural corruption nor enhance their extremist religious viewpoints by initiating the abominating, exploiting and thieving from neighbors in the name of a God whose basic Commandments need no defense.

Posted by Leonardo Ricardo at Tuesday, 8 September 2009 at 2:43pm BST

If the ABC is wise, he will make no comment at all. Anything he says will likely be "twisted by knaves to make traps for fools."

Posted by Robert Dodd at Tuesday, 8 September 2009 at 3:40pm BST

I think they mean B030 not D030 - D030 is about Gaza and did not pass bishops.

Posted by Ann at Tuesday, 8 September 2009 at 6:00pm BST

Yes, B030 is here:

Posted by Simon Sarmiento at Tuesday, 8 September 2009 at 6:16pm BST

I observe that only those showing support are invited to make comments. Guess those of us who disagree will have to set up our own website.

Posted by Bonnie Spivey at Tuesday, 8 September 2009 at 6:23pm BST

Bonnie-- I have never seen any comments refused for unpopular opinions. It is true politeness and insight seem to be nourished at this site - at least that has been my observation over a few years. If the comments are able to stand the scrutiny of others they seem to be welcome.

Posted by ettu at Tuesday, 8 September 2009 at 7:55pm BST

Of these seven, I know only one, +Ed Little, and I disagree with him completely about +Rowan's misguided and a-historical hope to convert Anglicanism into a church. That being said, however, Bp. Little is the furthest thing from self-serving (nor is he a knave, though I realize Robert didn't say that he was). Indeed, he is considerate, pastoral and thoughtful, a father to his diocese in something of the same mold as his sainted predecessor +William C. R. Sheridan, whose own conservatism did not make him any the less beloved by all sides. Iirc, +Ed's last special trip to Lambeth Palace was taken in the attempt to find a way to get +Gene Robinson invited to Lambeth Conference (even though +Ed certainly voted against +Gene's consecration).

Posted by 4 May 1535+ at Tuesday, 8 September 2009 at 9:03pm BST

This statement is just another weather report interim, in the ongoing storms and flurries which are global conservative Anglican realignment.

It's spin is same old, same old. First, we are uniquely imprisoned by Lord Carey's mean-spirited Lambeth 1998 1.10. Though hardly any other existing Lambeth resolution is construed so narrowly, selectively, and blindly - the other resultions are just resolutions, no? The mind of all uniquely captured and chained in L-1998-1.10, when it patently was not the mind of all, so had to be passed as the going mind of all believers in our big tents. If one asks any leading conservative Anglican bishop when he last sat down and listened to the daily life goods of any of the queer folks to whom 1.10 alludes in its second part, you will no doubt get facile shuffle, probably to the effect that the bishop doesn't actually know any ethical or functioning queer folks in daily life, so the point is moot.

What invisible, voiceless, powerless Anglican sheep all the progressive believers, plus queer folks plus allies - are.

Second, the covenant is going to be a sorting sheep from goats sort of reality; though of course Canterbury himself has said he sees this sorting as some other kind, based on some other grounds besides up/down, inside/outside, and so forth. At least until sufficient monies have been sucked out from TEC on the second track; then I don't doubt, we shall revisit this sheep and goats sorting matter.

Third, what this really is about is power and making sure one is included in the new powers that first track Anglicans are presumed to possess, and avoid the voicelessness and powerless that second track Anglicans are inevitably defined to suffer.

Mean maneuvering, insofar as these bishops want to speed up the sorting, and get going ahead of time with this thorny Anglican matter of who exactly in IN, and who is by that default status, OUT. Innies, only, then as believers in these bishops' individual dioceses? Canny maneuvering, then, insofar as these bishops set themselves up as potential DEPO figures - assistants to any parish/diocese which would like to go out on a conservative limb or two, before the redrafting of the covenant has even been completed, let alone studied and signed. Or can a progressive parish in one of the CP dioceses also ask for DEPO?

Posted by drdanfee at Tuesday, 8 September 2009 at 9:10pm BST


* No endorsement of the notions that TEC dioceses can sign on to the Covenant individually.
* Dioceses can express support for parts 1-3 of the Ridley Covenant Draft, but not part 4, as that is now being revised. No thought here of signing on to all of the original RCD as a pre-emptive strike against revision.
* No encouragement here for those who would say that TEC has already repudiated the Anglican Covenant by its actions at GC 2009. Those with concerns are encouraged to sign the Anaheim statement.

So, most interesting for what it does not say, and whose viewpoints it does not endorse.

Posted by Charlotte at Tuesday, 8 September 2009 at 10:10pm BST

As Simon indicates by his juxtaposition of the stories, far from saying nothing this is one of the most significant statements of recent years.

It is, in my view the most dramatic victory Rowan has won in this whole sorry mess and a crushing defeat for the Durham/ACI/Fulcrum axis who have done everything they can to undermine and rubbish Rowan's handling of the matter so far.

This is a humiliation that, I believe isolates Durham and shows his true colours. He despises Rowan's strategy, his performance for the press at Lambeth was as close to spitting in Rowan's face as can be. I think this might mean his resignation - any honourable man would accept this as a reasonable outcome.

Posted by Martin Reynolds at Tuesday, 8 September 2009 at 10:45pm BST

This seems very tame after all the hushed and not so hushed whispers leading up to the meeting. I imagine Rowan must have reinforced two messages he has tried to make clear on many occasions: (1) the Covenant is the way forward; (2) even if TEC doesn't sign on, it will still be in the Anglican Communion, though participating less actively in some of its mechanisms.

Until the final Part 4 is seen, I remain hopeful TEC will be able to sign on to the Covenant. I do not see anything to be panicked about in the first three parts -- though if I were to edit, I would no doubt make a few changes. But without section 4 it approaches being a covenant in the best sense. So we shall see...

Posted by Tobias Haller at Tuesday, 8 September 2009 at 11:15pm BST

I understood Bonnie's comment as a reference to what the bishops wrote. They asked supporters of the covenant to write to say so. They didn't invite those who disagreed with the covenant to say so.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento at Tuesday, 8 September 2009 at 11:22pm BST

"This is a humiliation that, I believe isolates Durham and shows his true colours. He despises Rowan's strategy, his performance for the press at Lambeth was as close to spitting in Rowan's face as can be. I think this might mean his resignation - any honourable man would accept this as a reasonable outcome" - Martin Reynolds -

This statement, by Martin reynolds - together with that of Tobias - seems to pretty fairly sum up what has transpired out of the 'Big 7' meeting with the ABC; that the conservatives have not gained anything from their meeting - except to put +Durham into his rightful place, that of less than authoritative when push comes to shove in the Communion.

If TEC feels able to sign up to any version of the Covenant, it will have to be on terms which they, and other inclusive Churches within the Communion, are able to subscribe to, without watering down their pro-active stance towards women and gays within the Church.

Rowan has not been the 'pushover' he might have been perceived to be, and it may turn out that his eirenic way is the best outcome for those of us who want to continue the Anglican ethos of reasonable openness to all people in the Gospel tradition of Anglicanism.

NT Wright and the ACI have been proven 'Wrong'

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Wednesday, 9 September 2009 at 1:10am BST

Martin Reynolds, Tobias Haller: Mary Frances Schjonberg of the Episcopal News Service reads the announcement quite differently. See
I think she may be mistaken in some of her particulars but perhaps one might be willing to dialogue with her?

Posted by Charlotte at Wednesday, 9 September 2009 at 1:11am BST

Could you clarify what it is in Mary Frances's report that is so different?

Posted by Simon Sarmiento at Wednesday, 9 September 2009 at 8:44am BST

Yes, thanks, Simon. It's nuance perhaps rather than information. She mentioned the Communion Partner bishops' interest in being able to sign on to the Anglican Communion as individual dioceses, even if the Episcopal Church does not. The bishops' statement does not allow for this possibility (as we've been noting on this site). That was not brought out in her article.

Lumen Christie commented on TitusOneNine as follows:

"The [ENS] article stated:

“The Communion Partners have said that individual dioceses could sign onto a covenant whether or not the General Convention agreed to do so.”

There was a deanery meeting this evening in the Diocese of Albany at which Bp Love read the statement that the seven bishops wrote in response to their meeting with the ABC.

The bishop was then asked what Achbp Rowan’s response was to the idea that individual dioceses could sign on to the Covenant regardless of TEC’s response. He answered that, “The Archbishop was very guarded in his response” meaning, apparently that NO assurances were given. Bp Love also said that “there are 4 instruments of unity, and they would all have their part in making any decision regarding what the dioceses may be able to do in regard to the Covenant.” He also indicated that dioceses might have to be content with merely “endorsing” the Covenant rather than signing on to it.

So it is pretty clear from the information he gave that there is no actual evidence suggesting that any diocese will in fact be allowed to join the Covenant aside from the GenCon decision concerning TEC’s membership or lack of it. Rather, it seems to be that the ABC is not planning to do anything to allow this to happen, and the ACC will be able to block diocesan membership if it so chooses—and who imagines that it will not so choose."

Posted by Charlotte at Wednesday, 9 September 2009 at 12:54pm BST

The Sixth Form Head has had some of the boys back in his office again because they have produced yet another (shorter) piece that contradicts the outlook of the seven and the Head Boy.

Posted by Pluralist at Wednesday, 9 September 2009 at 6:22pm BST

The Archbishop noted in his post-GC reflections that the question of individual dioceses signing on would have to be given a very clear answer. He has obviously not given the desired answer, at least as far as the Seven Visiting Bishops were concerned. His "guarded" language was no doubt in the general form of "that is a something that will require very careful thought and I am not on my own in a position to make such a decision..." It is astounding to me that people keep asking the Archbishop to do things he plainly has said he will not do -- and that goes for both sides in this saga.

Posted by Tobias Haller at Thursday, 10 September 2009 at 11:59pm BST
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.