Posted on 04/24/2005 2:17:10 PM PDT by sionnsar
Griswoldian scholars know that trying to interpret Frank Griswold's meaning is always a dicey proposition. But judging from his reaction to the letter some Episcopal bishops sent to the Archbishop of Canterbury requesting an emergency meeting, I think Frank is slowly coming to the realization that he's got a major problem on his hands:
Meanwhile, this morning I learned that you had submitted a request to the Archbishop of Canterbury set out along similar lines and asking for a meeting with him. The circulation of the letter to me and the Archbishop of Canterbury has been reported by The Living Church. It seems to me extremely discourteous to me, and to the Office I hold on your behalf, not to inform me or send me a copy of what you submitted to the Archbishop. I must also ask myself why an appeal was made to Canterbury before receiving a response from me.
Oh Lord, there aren't enough hours in the day to do that one justice.
But I have a feeling that this might have something to do with the fact that Frank's dishonesty from 2003 to the present, his and his church's relentless evasions, his demonization of opponents and the fact that he has chosen sides in this dispute means that a significant number of Episcopal bishops no longer trust him.
Your concerns are quite properly addressed to me because it is our task together to continue to seek a way in which we can situate our differences within the larger context of Christ’s mission to the world. Given the nature of the Anglican Communion, the determination of how best we can do this needs to be worked out within the givenness of our life together as the Episcopal Church.
Being Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church means never having to say much of anything, really. You've got a church with two mutually-exclusive sides and if you say something that makes one side happy, the other side will get angry at you. You have to hide what you want to communicate behind vague generalities. So I think the above paragraph constitutes a threat.
No appeals to primates of other provinces can excuse us from the hard work of living the mystery of Christ’s reconciling love within our own province. This difficult and demanding work may not in the end bring us to the reconciliation of opinions but rather a reconciliation of hearts. My belief in the power of Christ to draw all things to himself is the ground of my faith and the source of my hope for the future of our church.
Since the idea was repeated in the next paragraph, it was definitely a threat. Go over my head again, says Frank, and I'll come down on you like a ton of inclusive-language Bibles.
In your letter you have drawn attention to my comment at Camp Allen in response to the notion of "irreconcilable differences" that such is a "faithless" perspective. I believe what I went on to say was that we have in fact been reconciled to God in Christ through the Cross and that it is our work to remove all that obstructs what has been achieved in Christ.
Two meanings are possible here. The PrezBish answered the question that he wanted to answer instead of the one he was asked. Or Frank rhetorically flipped them off.
In my discussions with several of you it became clear that there is a fundamental difference of opinion among you. Some of you are clearly committed to the ongoing life of the Episcopal Church and are eager to find the best way forward. Others among you question if, in fact, there is a way forward other than walking apart from the Episcopal Church while seeking a way to remain within the Anglican Communion. Given the different hopes and expectations that may exist among you, before I proceed any further it would be extremely helpful to me to have some indication from each of you as to your own thinking at this time.
Since leaving ECUSA, there haven't been too many times when I've had to answer the question of why I haven't been in church lately. To show you what a popular guy I was there, it was about six months before anyone at all said anything to me about it and I still haven't heard from any of the clergy. I'm not criticizing them for it; they all have lives and families of their own and they all know that I've been a solitary guy pretty much since day one.
But the few times the question was hinted at or came up directly, I danced around it. I've been real busy lately, I told them, or this or that has come up or I've had some personal business that needed attention. I think one or two of them probably suspected why I wasn't there but no one said anything. And I was content to leave it at that and hope that I didn't meet any of them(unrealistic since Webster Groves is not that big and I work in its public library) or quickly excuse myself and leave if I did.
The other day, though, I ran into a liberal parishioner that I've known for a good chunk of my life. She taught school with my mom and she's been a good friend for a long time. When she asked the question, I initially hemmed and hawed before finally deciding, "Enough." And I came out and told her directly. She looked a little shocked and quietly said that she didn't agree with me. I told her that was all right, that this was something I probably should have done a long time ago and that I'd see her around town. And that was that.
At some point, ECUSA conservatives are going to have to face facts. With its present leadership and hierarchy, ECUSA has no intention whatsoever of doing what the rest of the Anglican Communion wants it to do; it will remain Anglican on its own terms and only on its own terms. And no matter what he may say to the contrary, Frank Griswold has chosen sides; he heads ECUSA's liberal wing and has been its point man in the current controversy since it began.
If Frank Griswold wants the "thinking" of these bishops, they should drop the Anglican circumlocution and give it to him, to borrow Luther's phrase, "without horns and without teeth." He and the rest of ECUSA's liberals are the problem. ECUSA conservatives are going to have to tell Frank directly that they can no longer remain Anglican with him as the head of the church and that the chances of remaining Anglican within the Episcopal Church, no matter who heads it, are microscopic.
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. I'm glad I'm not Anglican -- I simply would not have the patience to be polite and charitable in the face of the endless obfuscatory word salad that Bishop Griswold dishes out!
Shocked. Shocked that someone in her own parish would actually speak disagreement with her and Griswold. Shocked that the subject of the disagreement is powerful enough to leave a church over. Shocked that what she hears some whispering about is real. A liberal gnostic facing some reality is a little shocked...
This is not an obligation that comes with being Anglican (though it is, um, traditional). Being Episcopalian, though, is admittedly a little tougher here.
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.