Skip to comments.More thoughts on Griswold’s Tantrum
Posted on 03/17/2005 5:50:33 PM PST by sionnsar
Now that Im somewhat over yesterdays utter amazement at ++Griswolds rant at the House of Bishops meeting, I have some thoughts.
This confirms my past suspicions posted here that Griswold and his allies dont give a flip about unity. If he did, why would he make such a statement?
I think this is an important point. If you dont want to get wiped out in a conflict, you must know your enemy. Before that, you must know who is your enemy. ++Griswold is not interested in unity with the orthodox. All his talk about reconciliation blah blah blah is a cover. He, Bennison, Robinson, Ingham et al want victory over the orthodox. They want submission, not unity. Orthodox Christians are about the only devil they believe in anymore. And they want their complete defeat. And if any orthodox Episcopalians havent figured that out yet, they had better soon.
Now not all liberals or all liberal bishops are that evil. There are a number of liberal Episcopalians I personally respect and even count as friends. But the ones running the show in the ECUSA are not nice people as hard as they try to appear so. Get a grip. They are not our brothers. They are the enemy.
As for Griswold himself, I think its very possible the man has lost it.
Hes seen his push for liberal/gay domination of ECUSA backfire. He thought having his friend Rowan Williams as Archbishop of Canterbury would protect him. He was wrong. He was visibly humiliated at the Primates Meeting. This photo speaks volumes. And now, with dioceses bleeding money, with most orthodox Episcopalians finally showing some backbone, with the Primates siding with the orthodox, with the very real and immanent possibility that ECUSA will be booted out of the Anglican Communion, hes staring at defeat by the orthodox and at his tenure being a clear and utter disaster.
And hes clearly not handling it well.
But maybe Im being too serious about all this. Griswolds tantrum is so absurd, maybe the proper response is to have fun and laugh him to scorn, which Stand Firm of all people has done quite well
So, do you have a link to the tantrum?
This has been their intention from day one, and it is patently obvious to anyone with eyes to see. Why would any true Christian believer stay within the "bonds of affection" of the ECUSA? I just don't understand it.
I understand it's hard for non-Anglicans to understand this, but it's not the "bonds of affection", it's really our identity. To one who is raised Anglican, part of that is being a member of the world-wide Anglican Communion. That is simply part of who we are; I am guessing (at a rathe rlate hour of an exhausting day for me) in ways not much different from being under the Magisterium for a Roman Catholic.
Events in the Anglican Communion's wealthiest church, and some of her hangers-on, have masked the corrective mechanisms that exist in the AC. Granted, they do not have the power to act swiftly or powerfully. But they still exist, though they work slowly.
I left ECUSA many years ago. It was agonizing -- similar, perhaps, to climbing into a lifeboat when the grand liner is going down. But I left (personal situation) with hope of someday "returning home" to the Anglican Communion. One can be thoroughly Anglican outside of the wwAC, but.. like an "imdependent" Roman Catholic, there's no check or correction. This is not a good thing.
Robinson and Griswold are persona non grata out here.
I'm afraid that I don't get the dig about the photo.
Any explanation would be appreciated.
As I see the photo, he is standing alone. No one will stand with him for photo
He's all alone in the very back row.
Sigh. Fuzzy Frank came to our parish and my revisionist priest slapped a huge plaque on one of the columns commemorating the event.
Dear secret garden,
Thanks. I eventually figured it by googling for photos of Bishop Griswold. He does seem a bit on the periphery in the photo.
I guess these things are arranged with purpose when photo time comes in the Anglican Communion?
Thank you for resolving that. I did not see that photo from home -- people forget that there are those of us who, for whatever reason, still use dialup (and mine only gets up to 26 kbps).
Well, if the arrangement of the photo was intentional, you really are missing a doozy. ;-)
The 35 primates are arranged, all dressed up in their bishop get-ups, in front of the altar of a church (I guess that's what it is).
In the front row, sitting, in the middle, is the Archbishop of Canterbury. Sitting with him are another eight bishops. A row back, there are another nine or so bishops. All standing.
A row further back are another group of perhaps nine or 10 bishops. The distance from the first row is starting to get noticeable, as the images of the folks in the third row are clearly smaller than that of the first row.
Another row back, a smaller number of bishops, becoming increasingly indistinct.
Still one more row back, in a fifth row, there appear to be two or three bishops. Bishop Griswold is in this group, although I'm not sure that he is actually in the fifth row with the other two bishops, or all alone, set back just a little bit further in his very own, special sixth row. He doesn't appear to be as close to the front as the other fellow to his left. Also, he is higher up than the fellow to his left, who appears to me not to be such a short guy. I've never seen Bishop Griswold in person, but he doesn't appear to be quite as tall as the picture would make him out to be if he were, indeed, in the fifth row.
Anyway, fifth row with two other fellows, or all alone in the back, it appears that he is doing his level best to try to crane his neck over the top of the entire host of primates who are in front of him, so that some part of his little square head can get in the photo.
The look on his face is somewhat indistinct, as he is so far from the camera that it would have been better for him to take the shot with a telephoto lens, but my best guess is that it is the look of a younger sibling looking up at the older brother and the older brother's friends, hoping to be included in the activities of the "big boys."
To give you some idea of just how far back he is, in absolute size in the photo, his head is half the size of Archbishop Williams' head.
Who is to the right of +Rowan?
I don't know. I'm not all that familiar with the Anglican primates to begin with, and the fellow to Archbishop Williams' right is an African fellow whose face didn't get caught well in the light, so I can't really make out the features of his face. He appears significantly shorter than Archbishop Williams, although perhaps that is exaggerated, as he also appears rather bent over, while Archbishop Williams appears to be seated rather ramrod straight up.
+Peter retires at the end of the year and Fuzzy Frank's tenure ends next year. So it will be interesting to see who the upcoming players might be.
The picture is linked in the article, perhaps you might look and tell me what you think.
I couldn't tell.
Is he in front of Judas in the Last Supper depiction?
If Judas is wearing orange and green he is - and wouldn't that be telling!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.