Skip to comments.Endgame? [ECUSA delegation to ACC named]
Posted on 05/21/2005 6:58:40 AM PDT by sionnsar
Frank Griswold names the delegation that will make ECUSA's case for Gene Robinson and same-sex marriage to the Anglican Consultative Council next month:
Writing to the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church on May 18, Presiding Bishop Frank T. Griswold announced the composition of the delegation accompanying him to next months meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) in Nottingham, England, to make the case for the Episcopal Church.
The Rt. Rev. J. Neil Alexander, Bishop of Atlanta; the Rev. Michael Battle, associate dean of academic affairs and vice president of Virginia Theological Seminary; the Rt. Rev. Charles Jenkins, Bishop of Louisiana; the Rt. Rev. Catherine Roskam, suffragan bishop of New York; the Rev. Susan Russell, President of Integrity; and Mrs. Jane Tully of Clergy Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (C-FLAG) will join the Presiding Bishop and a delegation from the Anglican Church of Canada in addressing the ACC on June 21.
In their Feb. 24 communiqué, the primates requested the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Anglican Church of Canada voluntarily withdraw their members from the Anglican Consultative Council for the period leading up to the next Lambeth Conference. During that same period we request that both churches respond through their relevant constitutional bodies to the questions specifically addressed to them in the Windsor Report and to consider whether they are willing to be committed to the inter-dependent life of the Anglican Communion understood in the terms set out in these sections of the report.
Both the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada have agreed not to send an official delegation. The Episcopal Churchs ACC delegationBishop Roskam, the Rev. Robert Sessum of Lexington, Ky., and Ms. Josephine Hicks of Charlotte, N.C.will not participate but will observe and respond to questions.
In discussing a response to the primates request at the April 13 Executive Council meeting, several council members argued that it was important that a gay or lesbian clergy person be part of the delegation to Nottingham.
One of Kendall Harmon's commenters thinks Frank is throwing in the towel.
The PB has put together a more political group of Episcopalians than I thought he would have. I think he is surrendering any hope that a reasoned theological argument will carry the day. His plan may be to simply present the emotional side of the debate to shore up support in ECUSA.
While another believes that this delegation is great news for orthodox Episcopalians.
There should be no hand-wringing or gnashing of teeth over this. The selection is actually quite ideal; the people ECUSA will be sending are ones who support the current theology (or lack thereof) and will be perfect representatives of who and what ECUSA is all about. Since the Integrity folks are basically running the show, it makes sense for them to be highly visible - and their visibility, and the statements they are bound to make, will certainly not go unnoticed by those attending the conference from other members of the Communion. If +Frank keeps on saying things like hes been doing lately (especially his Dromantine Six comments!) his presence and words, along with Russell, will be the most eloquent argument possible in favor of the traditionalists. Im usually pessimistic, folks, but this is one time when those of an orthodox persuasion should be glad that the people having to answer tough questions will be the ones who created this terrible situation - and glad that the delegation (that isnt really going, of course .) is so willingly walking up the steps to the gallows, inserting their heads into the noose, and grinning widely. I suspect that someone is going to pull the lever on them - wait and see.
Given the fact that ECUSA is to present a theological case for making an unrepentant sinner into a bishop, this is a curious delegation. Are these the best theological minds the Episcopal Church has? Or is Frank so convinced that 2003 was an actual move of the Holy Spirit that he believes that he doesn't have to bother with theological argument at all? Does Frank seriously think that all he has to do is let Ms. Russell say a few words and all opposition will instantly melt away?
The selection of Ms. Russell and Mrs. Tully for this duty seems needlessly provocative for a church which needs to show that it is "willing to be committed to the inter-dependent life of the Anglican Communion." So on the face of it, this looks an awful lot like a declaration of independence on Frank's part. I think the Presiding Bishop knows that Newry was the last good deal he can expect from the Anglican Communion and that his church's Anglican standing is just about over. So he wants to go out on his side's own terms.
We shall see.
As a Catholic who is deeply concerned with the crisis among the Anglicans, my hope is that the Anglican Communion tells the ECUSA that they must either repent or be prepared to have all ties severed.
I appreciate your concern, and I think that your hope will be realized. We'll see. If it isn't, I, for one, will very probably become a Catholic (I may anyway). God knows every church has it's problems, and I don't see the Catholic Church as perfect, but they do have strong leadership willing to speak the truth even if it offends some folks.
Roskam is one very scary lady...
My hope too.
I googled "suffrgan bishop"; first link:
Well, googled it without the typso...
Agreed. I didn't know the other names, but when I saw hers...
I've brolken bread with her twice...Imagine Barbara Milkulski in purple..
Suffragan bishops don't have right of succession after the "diocesan" bishop (the one with jurisdiction powers) retires. The diocese elects a co-adjutor, usually before the diocesan retires. Also distinguish suffragans from assistant bishops who are usually retired diocesan or suffragan bishops who help out with running a large diocese.
Oh my goodness, I just ate.
Thanks to both of you.
Sorry, didn't mean to upset you...(G)
No problem, but what does the (G) stand for?
Gg) = grin, grinning...
Well, that settles it for me.
I just posted on another thread that he is one of the most vengeful and hateful bishops towards the orthodox in his diocese. (He is the one who issued the order barring Bishop Duncan from setting foot in the Diocese of Atlanta for an AAC meeting. I was at the AAC meeting when Duncan read the order aloud -- he appeared in civilian clothes without his collar as a nod to the order.)
Anyone who disagrees with Alexander's view on homosexuality is a homophobe and not a good Christian, and he wishes they would just leave. He is also one hundred percent political, and bends his "theology" to the winds of passing cultural fads.
FWIW, he was a last minute rather hurried choice as the previous candidate for bishop turned out to be divorcing his wife and filing for bankruptcy, two matters he had failed to mention to the search committee . . .
Ugh. That almost rounds out the list then, leaving only Battle I've not heard/read about. This does look like endgame now...!
Their website is utterly bland and non-informative (which in itself makes me suspicious).
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.