Secret plan to avoid church gay split

[Iosias]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/23/nchurch123.xml

[higgs2]

This article seems to have been written by someone who has no understanding whatsoever of how the Anglican Communion works, and how TEC is governed. Must have overheard a conversation in a pub or something.

[No Swansong]

This article seems to have been written by someone who has no understanding whatsoever of how the Anglican Communion works, and how TEC is governed. Must have overheard a conversation in a pub or something.
What a wonderful rebuttal to an article that makes some very good points. The scholarship of this response is unimpeachable.

[No Swansong]

How've you been Richard?

[Iosias]

How've you been Richard?

Fine thanks mate. Just very busy! How about yourself. Any better?

[higgs2]

More about the "article" in the OP, from Bishop John Howe of Central Florida:
http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/10323/

an excerpt (emphasis added by me):

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

It is not quite 11:30 PM here in Orlando. In London it is not quite 4:30 AM tomorrow. And Jonathan Petre of the London Telegraph has just released a story about yesterday's meeting between four American Bishops (Howe, Central Florida; MacPherson, Western Louisiana; Smith, North Dakota; and Stanton, Dallas) with the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church.

Petre could not have been much more inaccurate! Here are his opening remarks:

"The Archbishop of Canterbury is backing secret plans to create a 'parallel' Church for American conservatives to avert fresh splits over homosexuality.... Dr Rowan Williams has held confidential talks with senior American bishops and theologians who oppose the pro-gay policies of their liberal leaders....
"Dr Williams is desperate to minimize further damage in the run up to the once-a-decade Lambeth Conference this summer which could be boycotted by more than a fifth of the world's bishops....
"According to insiders, Dr Williams has given his blessing to the plans to create an enclave for up to 20 conservative American bishops that would insulate them from their liberal colleagues."

No, Dear Friends. Here is a summary of what we presented to the Presiding Bishop yesterday. We were not quite ready to release it, but in the light of this significant distortion, I am doing so tonight:
...

I would think the reporter would try checking sources next time.

There is some very interesting stuff in their proposal about episcopal visitors and *acting within TEC canons*, quite pertinent to recent discussions here.

[PaladinValer]

**Adds the Telegraph to his list of publications to read with a carton of salt**

Thanks Higgs for proving the facts! :)

[AngCath]

**Adds the Telegraph to his list of publications to read with a carton of salt**

Thanks Higgs for proving the facts! :)
Yes,
Thank you Higgs


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to higgs2 again.

[ChaliceThunder]

Yes,
Thank you Higgs
I've got her for ya! ;)

Good links, higgs.

Also, the Telegraph writes a story that is so obviously slanted against our Presiding Bishop - so slanted as to be factually wrong.

[Albion]

Honestly, I'm amazed at the reaction that says this is anti-Anglican propaganda, a lie told on the ABC, or something Anglicans could never do.

The whole idea of the Anglican Communion is relatively new, yet now it is treated by some as if it were the Anglican version of the Papacy. The American church itself, TEC, was not authorized to exist apart from being a mission of the CofE until it went behind the back of the English church, found some Scottish bishops who had less standing than the Southern Hemishphere bishops today, and got themselves bishops and, ultimately, autonomy. Still, no one gives that a second thought today, and TEC IS "the establishment." It doesn't take being for or against anyone in the currect crisis for that to be realized.

The ABC almost certainly has worked behind the scenes. He is a problem-solver if he is anthing, or at least we know that he would like to be that. This is either craven or it's leadership, depending upon how one wants to view it, but it's Abp Williams.

As for the plan itself, I have the suspicion that it's too little and too late. For the past several years TEC and the ABC didn't act, while the dissidents grew progressively stronger and more exasperated at the lack of accomodation. A few years ago, they were only individual dissenters within TEC, but whole dioceses are in the act now and with support from Anglican Communion provinces around the world. Not only that but some are part of those provinces now. That wasn't the case just a few years ago. AMiA didn't exist. CANA didn't exist as it does now, etc. In fact none of those organizations within TEC did--ACN, ACC, and so on.

So, I think Abp Williams probably has been looking for a compromise, that Bp Schori has found it unacceptable, and that what is underway otherwise will continue until a new jurisdiction is created, probably a relatively small one that TEC can get over losing while, at the same time, believing herself to have retained her integrity. That's my guess.

But the idea that the Archbishop might be proposing something along the lines reported doesn't defy belief in the least.

[higgs2]

I don't know that anybody has said those things, Albion. I think the point is that the article is a distortion, inaccurate, and written by someone who does not have any sort of understanding of the situation or the issues.

[Albion]

I don't know that anybody has said those things, Albion.

No?

.I think the point is that the article is a distortion, inaccurate, and written by someone who does not have any sort of understanding of the situation or the issues.

Well then, you just confirmed what I said, didn't you?

[higgs2]

No?



Well then, you just confirmed and what I said, didn't you?

Word games, my friend. ;) So what what the Bishop of Central Florida said, and what I posted, is what you are finding amazing?

[Albion]

Word games, my friend. ;) So what what the Bishop of Central Florida said, and what I posted, is what you are finding amazing?

Amazing? I wouldn't say that. But I am finding it hard to square all the opinions that have been expressed on this thread so far which amount to saying this can't be, it is a slur against the Archbishop, those changes are impossible to make, etc. when there's nothing remarkable at all in the Archbishop seeking a compromise. THAT'S ROUTINE.

And of course, I don't understand why you'd say to me that no one has disavowed the article as unfair or untrue when you yourself called it "a distortion," "inaccurate" and written by someone with no understanding. :scratch:

Would that not amount to "word games," to quarrel over synonyms?

[Polycarp1]

I think Albion is correct in saying that Abp. ++Williams is seeking a compromise.

I also think that it goes contrary to the principle of autocephalous national churches which we borrowed from Orthodoxy to propose "alternative primatial oversight." It is a distinct attack on the polity of the Anglican Communion in a way that "alternative episcopal oversight" is not.

I believe that, thanks to Higgs, it has been made clear that the Telegraph story is a slanted and fabricated contradiction of what even the four conservative bishops which it references were doing with ++Williams -- as the vehement protest by Bp. +Howe, certainly no liberal, makes clear.

Finally, it might be worth everyone's time to contemplate the words of Sir Winston Churchill, an Anglican, when in 1942 English sensibilities were up in arms over the recognition given by Gen. Mark Clark and ratified by Gen. Dwight Eisenhower to the French Admiral Darlan: "Since 1776 his Majesty's Government has not been in the position of mandating the policy of America." The same is true of the Church of England since 1784.

By the way, anyone with a smattering of knowledge of Anglican history should be aware that +Seabury did not "go behind the back of the English bishops" but went to the Scottish Church for consecration on their explicit recommendation, since the Primus was free from the oath they themselves had taken that precluded them from consecrating a bishop for America who would not swear allegiance to George III -- a measure rapidly changed by statute to permit the consecration of +White and his colleagues.

Compromise to preserve the Anglican Communion is wise. But compromise does not entail surrender of one side's ethical values to those of the other side, nor does it entail the creation of what is effectively a parallel province contrary to the historic traditions of Anglicanism.

[higgs2]

Amazing? I wouldn't say that. But I am finding it hard to square all the opinions that have been expressed on this thread so far which amount to saying this can't be, it is a slur against the Archbishop, those changes are impossible to make, etc. when there's nothing remarkable at all in the Archbishop seeking a compromise. THAT'S ROUTINE.

And of course, I don't understand why you'd say to me that no one has disavowed the article as unfair or untrue when you yourself called it "a distortion," "inaccurate" and written by someone with no understanding. :scratch:

Would that not amount to "word games," to quarrel over synonyms?

I do think the article appears to be a "distortion", I'm basing that on the description of it ("a distortion") by the Bishop of Central Florida, who btw is not only very conservative but is personally involved in the situation. The way it was written was sensationalist, slanted, and inaccurate. That does not mean that there is not a grain of truth in it.

I am sure the ABC is working with many people to try and find some sort of compromise or way forward. I hope so.

I hope that explains my meaning a little bit. :)

[Albion]

I do think the article appears to be a "distortion", I'm basing that on the description of it ("a distortion") by the Bishop of Central Florida, who btw is not only very conservative but is personally involved in the situation.

Yes, he's been considered a conservative over the years, but he's also been a loyalist to TEC in the recent dispute and outspoken as an opponent of the bishops wanting alternate oversight, etc. Anyone interested in the facts wouldn't ignore this.

The way it was written was sensationalist, slanted, and inaccurate. That does not mean that there is not a grain of truth in it.

For my part, I think--

1) the words I was reading were way beyone what +Howe said, anyway. So if the idea is to immediately "high five" him, how about keeping it credible? What on earth would make us conclude that the article shows "no understanding" at all of Anglican ways? Is it unthinkable to Anglicans that the ABC might talk to American bishops? Someone explain that without the armwaving.

2)+Howe is hardly an impartial observer!

3) then to have you also say that you "don't know that anybody has said" more or less, what was said and what you yourself did (slanted, inaccurate, etc.), is flat out weird IMO. You not only stated your view by quoting ChaliceThunder but were told by several other TEC loyalists on this very thread that your views mirror theirs.

How does that add up to "I don't know that anybody has said those things, Albion."
:scratch:

I hope that explains my meaning a little bit. :)


Sure. But even Howe didn't immediately start making accusations like "fabrication!" "no understanding!" "obviously slanted against" etc. He said the report is inaccurate, not that the plan was impossible or a conspiracy against Williams.

You know, there are some pretty smart people on these forums, but I can never get over how all it takes is something embarrassing or even possibly embarrassing to happen to their churches...and immediately the damage control begins in terms that remind us of the Clinton administration screaming that "A vast right wing conspiracy" had a plot against him "fabricating" stories of his sleeping around.

[higgs2]

Yes, he's been considered a conservative over the years, but he's also been a loyalist to TEC in the recent dispute and outspoken as an opponent of the bishops wanting alternate oversight, etc. Seems to me that this is more significant than that he's been called a conservative in the past.



For my part, I think--

1) the words I was reading were way over the top and not what +Howe said, anyway." What on earth would make us conclude that the article shows "no understanding" at all of Anglican ways? Is it unthinkable to Anglicans that the ABC might talk to American bishops? Someone explain that without the armwaving.

2)+Howe is hardly an impartial observer!

3) to have you also say, for some unknown reason, that you "don't know that anybody has said" more or less, what was said and what you yourself did (slanted, inaccurate, etc.) , is flat out weird IMO, given that you stated your view using the exact word used by ChaliceThunder a few posts previous and were told by several other TEC loyalists on this very thread that your views mirror theirs!

How does that add up to "I don't know that anybody has said those things, Albion."
:scratch:



Sure. But even Howe didn't immediately start making accusations like "fabrication!" "no understanding!" "obviously slanted against" etc. He said the report is inaccurate, not that the plan was impossible or a conspiracy against Williams.

You know, there are some pretty smart people on these forums, but I can never get over how when one of has his church's ox gored, in even a passing way, it requires all the response of the Clinton administration screaming that "A vast right wing conspiracy" had a plot and fabricated Ms. Lewinsky.

Honestly, Albion, I don't want to seem argumentative. I'm really just trying to clarify my words for you and be clear on what you are saying.

I don't understand your point in 1). In 2), yes Howe is not impartial, he gives a first had account of the situation which is why his words are persuasive to me.

And 3) You said, "Honestly, I'm amazed at the reaction that says this is anti-Anglican propaganda, a lie told on the ABC, or something Anglicans could never do." This is your paraphrase of what you thought you were hearing, but nobody said those words. I did not say those things. I basically said the reporter didn't know what he was talking about and doesn't understand TEC or the Anglican communion. (My paraphrase). I don't understand why you keep insisting that I said those words.

[Albion]

Honestly, Albion, I don't want to seem argumentative. I'm really just trying to clarify my words for you and be clear on what you are saying.

I don't understand your point in 1). In 2), yes Howe is not impartial,

But you didn't admit that before I put it up to you. Before this post, he was to be believed since, as you said, he is involved and called a conservative, as if either of those says it all.

gives a first had account of the situation which is why his words are persuasive to me.

Had you said you were "persuaded," I'd probably have said nothing. But what I read wasn't that. It was to help out by saying much more than he did. Maybe "gild the lily" is a way of explaining it.

And 3) You said, "Honestly, I'm amazed at the reaction that says this is anti-Anglican propaganda, a lie told on the ABC, or something Anglicans could never do."

Yes, and I was surprised at the exaggerations and 'circle the wagons' mentality that instantly believed what it wanted to believe, but you know what, I don't have to prove the obvious when it's all still there to read in black and white.

[higgs2]

But you didn't admit that before I put it up to you. Before this post, he was to be believed since, as you said, he is involved and called a conservative, as if either of those says it all.





I didn't realize that it was something I should "admit". I believed his involvement and conservative leanings (which make him "partial") made his words more persuasive. And really, all he said was the article is "inaccurate" and a "distortion", not exactly hysteria. I believe I added to that criticism of the reporter's knowledge of the situation and his journalism abilities. I wonder if you somehow have the impression that this is a bigger deal to me than it is? It really is just a blip.

[higgs2]

Yes, and I was surprised at the exaggerations and 'circle the wagons' mentality that instantly believed what it wanted to believe, but you know what, I don't have to prove the obvious when it's all still there to read in black and white.

Yes, it is all in black and whiate, and I never said "this is anti-Anglican propaganda, a lie told on the ABC, or something Anglicans could never do." Never.

[Albion]

By the way, anyone with a smattering of knowledge of Anglican history should be aware that

Well maybe if I try real hard I can someday ascend to the status of having a smattering of knowledge of Anglican history like you have.

+Seabury did not "go behind the back of the English bishops" but went to the Scottish Church for consecration on their explicit recommendation

I suppose "behind the backs" can be taken several different ways.

...but the point is that if this were happening today, your logic would be to oppose having a TEC at all. But as we should know, with the passing of years the unthinkable often becomes thinkable.

Compromise to preserve the Anglican Communion is wise. But compromise does not entail surrender of one side's ethical values to those of the other side, nor does it entail the creation of what is effectively a parallel province contrary to the historic traditions of Anglicanism.

Just what ARE those ethical values--that you can't possibly think of a church in which some diversity exists?

Funny, but that's not at all what I read when gay bishops were being discussed in principle. But now that one side has prevailed, it's supposed to be a violation of "ethical values" to allow any minority opinion to exist.

It seems almost too much to ask, but did you happen to notice that Williams was reported only to have put the idea of a compromise to the American church for consideration, and did NOT impose anything upon TEC?