Taonga reports here and that this forum has happened!!
Will Presiding Bishop Schori meet with supporters of the Covenant in our church?
The Anglican Church League is protesting her visit to Australia, and on the grounds which nearly all our bishops here are (I sense) poorly informed about: the treatment of Episcopalians who disagree with the lead of General Convention and the House of Bishops in TEC. [corrected from earlier].
Some questions are emerging in my mind:
For a visit which has been a year in the planning, according to the ENS report, why is so much being arranged at the 'last minute' and why has so little been said about the visits to each province?
What was the nature of the invitation to the Forum at St John's College yesterday? In the photos I see at least one prominent clergyperson from a diocese some hours travel from Auckland. Was this forum one to which some were invited and not others (i.e. apart from the obvious and proper invitations to students and staff at St John's College who could have been invited, literally, at the last minute to a spontaneous event)? If invitations were issued on what grounds were they issued to some and not to others? Were likely disputants kept well away from proceedings?
The covenant, she suggested, was a type of "cheap grace", an "enlightenment response to postmodern" era disagreement. It was a legal move to avoid the harder "work of the heart", of building relationships in the face of diversity.
So litigation against dissenters is a better way to do the hard "work of the heart" of relationship building?
You ask good questions, Peter. But you are well-aware of the labyrinthine processes and communications within ACANZP.
The Presiding Bishop was invited by ACANZP to participate in the Hermeneutics Hui. And then that invitation was retracted. She alludes to this in your linked article: "Bishop Schori said her intention in visiting New Zealand and Australia was "to speak with people there about their conversations around human sexuality".
Now having her in NZ, yes you are having to make something of her visit. In your diocese the meeting announced in the cathedral has also been moved. You are asking when people like you can meet with her - the schedule in your diocese includes such an open invitation. Has that invitation also not reached you? It is on the web.
It's all in the rhetoric, Peter. As you must know from your reading of Mark Harris' frequent posts on the subject in his blog, Preludium, the actions you refer to as "the treatment of Episcopalians who disagree with the lead of General Convention and the House of Bishops in TEC" have an entirely different appearance from the other side of the story. For the great majority of
Episcopalians, the legal action taken on their behalf by their national executive is simply protecting the property rights of local parishioners who chose not to follow their leaders out of the Episcopal church into a new denomination. And some of the legal cases have been initiated by the leavers. This "poor me" swansong is becoming an unconvincing dirge, at least to some of us. This is no persecution, just another instance of the "actions have consequences" reality you frequently espouse.
Christchurch folk have a chance to meet the Presiding Bishop, as do Auckland folk, without much trouble re travel. That leaves many other Anglicans from many other places who may or may not have appreciated an invite to a forum for which no notice appears to have been given, but to which some people appear in photos who, shall we say, moved with alacrity if they happened accidentally to hear about the forum by word of mouth!
Another note: you are a very well informed person if you know that the Presiding Bishop was initially invited to the Hui and then counsels prevailed which pointed out that the protocols of the Hui would be difficult to sustain with such a distinguished international visitor present. I am wondering if you live in our fair islands!
Peter, you have just been writing how difficult it is to know about things if you live in NZ! The constant cryptic statements, comments, allusions, lack of names, are a feature of your blog. And now you are irritated that not all of the Presiding Bishop's itinerary has been presented to you! You gave ordinary clergy one Sunday to announce to parishioners that the Presiding Bishop was coming, and then the links you provide for her itinerary do no such thing! http://anglicandownunder.blogspot.com/2010/06/presiding-bishop-schori-visits.html
With whom are you irritated?!
Would you prefer TEC's level of openness? Or do you continue to prefer ACANZP's approach and culture where some know some things, and you know some things - some of which you will say, some of which you allude to with cryptic whispers, and some of which it benefits you to withhold, etc.?
ps. why are you again allowing through an anonymous ad hominem comment?
Not irritated but intrigued!
Whoops, yes, I did let through an anonymous comment - I will try to be more vigilant in future.
I note you do not give an indication of how you know what you know ...
But that's okay - am intrigued by that not irritated!!
I am concerned about the real world in which North American Anglicans/Episcopalians have felt faced with situations either barely tenable or untenable in respect of their remaining as welcome members of TEC in respect of their wishing to be faithful to Anglican orthodoxy and orthopraxy.
That some choices have been made which have been naive, or accompanied by foolish rhetoric, does not alter the fact that TEC has moved in a certain direction without moving as a whole church.
In some situation the 'faithful Episcopalians' seeking to prevent property shifting jurisdictions is amounting to such a thin body of people and resources that churches are subsequently being sold to non-Christian organisations. Even commenters on Preludium are getting puzzled by that!
[This (slightly revised) comment was originally posted inadvertantly as an anonymous comment].
Peter, I must admit that I am deeply saddened to read of this warm welcome, and personally disappointed in the Archbishops.
As someone who knows the stories of good friends and their families who have been subject to (in my view) quite appalling and unchristian treatment - in some cases quite deliberately mean-spirited - while still members and clergy of TEC, for no cause other than daring to express an interest in exploring the HoB sanctioned option of DEPO, such a welcome I find personally offensive.
Up to this point I have been largely disinterested in +KFS's visit. I have little respect for her statements or actions, no matter how smoothly and folksy they are expressed. But reading the Taonga accounts stirred an unexpected emotional response of anger and disillusionment of the ACANZP's misjudgement in this. I think the Australian (non) response much better reads the realities of the tensions and mess throughout the communion for which the PB and leadership of TEC are in large measure responsible.
It is precisely this facade of Anglican courtesy and the proverbial 'tea parties' culture despite any outrageous behaviour and actions that has led to the break down of trust, respect and confidence in all too many Anglican leaders.
Just a quick correction. It's the Anglican Church League that is protesting the Presiding Bishop's visit, not the Australian Church League.
I presume by 'tea parties' you mean 'afternoon tea' and not the current political movement in the States!
I am not so worried by the hospitality being given because hospitality is hospitality. But I am concerned about two aspects: one, that the Presiding Bishop will leave our shores without any great sense of our diversity; two, that some of our leaders (by which I mean, not just our bishops) will remain underdone on knowledge of the hurt and pain in North America.
The Presiding Bishop's visit to Australia is more low-key than a Barry White concert!
Post a Comment