Replies

"In this spirit of intentional practice, we affirm that all need to repent, as the Archbishop of Canterbury reminded us in his Advent Letter 2004. We repent of the ways we as bishops have sometimes treated each other, failing to honor Christ’s presence in one another. Furthermore, too often we have also failed to recognize Christ’s presence fully manifest in our sister and brother Anglicans around the global communion. We honor their full voice and wisdom. We desire mutuality. We recognize our interdependence in the Body of Christ"

Interesting. Maybe I am missing something here but this looks like a very manipulative and perhaps even mean-spirited paragraph. First they use the word 'repent' to signal that somehow they are going even further than they were asked by the commission. But their 'repentance' is based on the request of the ABC in his Advent message. Not a bad thing in and of itself, but not exactly repentance in response to the commission's request.

I would think I might be splitting hairs if it were not for language such as 'we all need to repent' and 'We desire mutuality.' Also the 'moreover' in the next paragraph leads one to believe that their regret and repentance have gone beyond what they were asked to do when in fact, I think they have done less. From where I sit they are still condescending to the Global South.

So here is the language the Bishops used to express regret:

Moreover, we as the House of Bishops express our sincere regret for the pain, the hurt, and the damage caused to our Anglican bonds of affection by certain actions of our church. Knowing that our actions have contributed to the current strains in our Communion, we express this regret as a sign of our deep desire for and commitment to continuation of our partnership in the Anglican Communion.

Here is the language the commission used, Paragraph 134 of the Windsor Rept.:
"...the Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to express its regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached in the events surrounding the election and consecration of a bishop for the See of New Hampshire, and for the consequences which followed, and that such an expression of regret would represent the desire of the Episcopal Church (USA) to remain within the Communion"

Notice the difference. Windsor asked for regret relating to breaching of the 'proper constraints of the bonds of affection.' I think that is polite way of saying that the ECUSA acted autonomously and out of order. But the Bishops expressed regret, not for breaching the bonds of affection, but for the pain it caused. Kind of like the guy who commits adultery and then apologizes to his wife that she felt hurt by it. Not that it was wrong, it's just sad you were hurt.And oh, by the way, don't kick me out of the house.

Substantively what else have they done?

They are 'already' established a committee that explains their theological position of how 'a person living in a same gender union may be considered eligible to lead a flock.' but they didn't mention when we might see anyghint out of the committee.

However, they have only begun to figure out how they might respond to Windsor's call for a moratorium on ordination of gays and lesbians. In other words, no moratorium at this time. (Ever?)

And there will be no moratorium on same sex blessings till they can study some more. Then in what appears to be tossing the orthodox a bone they couch the question of a moratorium on diocesan boundary violations in the same language.

I certainly can understand the frustration of Bp. Duncan surrounding ECUSA's ‘graceful’ language' that masks contradictory behavior.

Let me say for the record that I do not see the question of ordination of gay people to be the most significant issue facing the church today. I think the problem runs much deeper. And I think the language of this 'word to the Church' is symptomatic. The deeper problem has to do with a sense of independence from Christ and the Word of God that enables those on both the left and the right to use Scripture (and human words) to manipulate others for their own power-driven goals.

I hesitate to brand the House of Bishops with this comment, but the earliest Biblical reference to that sort of manipulative use of language was when Satan asked Eve, '"Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?"

I write marketing and advertising materials for a living. I recognize weasel language when i see it. (Probably because I have written too much of it myself). If sounding noble while obfuscating the message was their goal, they have done a masterful job. Somebody please tell me I'm wrong.