Posted on 06/17/2005 7:54:56 AM PDT by sionnsar
The Anglican Consultative Council meeting in Nottingham, England begins in a few days and Frank Griswold is tanned, rested and ready:
On the eve of his departure for the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) meeting, Presiding Bishop Frank T. Griswold said he was eager to be helpful and was confident that the delegation he helped assemble will be able to explain how a majority of General Convention deputies could consent to a “partnered” homosexual person as bishop.
Living Church doesn't like your chances, Frank.
Recently Bishop Charles E. Jenkins III of Louisiana and Bishop Henry N. Parsley, Jr., of Alabama wrote separate letters to their clergy stating that the views to be presented to the ACC were those of the ad hoc group and did not represent the mind of either the House of Bishops or the Episcopal Church at large in any official capacity.
In other words, ECUSA is just going through the motions.
In an interview with a reporter from The Living Church, Bishop Griswold said he took great care to select a delegation that would be representative of the 2003 General Convention.
Frank? You do know that over 40% of the 2003 General Convention voted against Robbie and allowing same-sex marriages(you did too, Frank!), don't you? You have heard that ECUSA parishes are bailing right and left. So if you wanted a delegation that looked like GC2003, it seems to me that you would have included an actual conservative in your delegation. Dr. Harmon, Bishop Salmon or Bishop Duncan would probably have been delighted to go.
The six-person delegation includes theologians, a “partnered” homosexual person, the mother of a homosexual person, as well as bishops who took opposing positions on the New Hampshire consecration. “I wanted to make it clear that the Episcopal Church is not of one mind on this issue,” he said.
But ECUSA went ahead anyway. Since it is driven totally and completely by emotion, ECUSA has never ever let things that it says or resolutions that it passes hold it back from doing whatever the hell it wants to do, as the Windsor Report pointed out:
Within the Episcopal Church (USA), the Theology Committee of the House of Bishops concluded as late as March 2003, that
“Because at this time we are nowhere near consensus in the Church regarding the blessing of homosexual relationships, we cannot recommend authorizing the development of new rites for such blessings. For these reasons, we urge the greatest caution as the Church continues to seek the mind of Christ in these matters.”
but in August of that year, the 74th General Convention commended the development of public Rites of Blessing for same sex unions as being within the bounds of the Episcopal Church (USA)’s common life (see , paragraphs 27 and 123) without formal theological justification or consultation in the Communion.
Back to the PrezBish. Frank's little group isn't going to defend ECUSA's departure from Christian orthodoxy, mind you. He thinks it doesn't need to since we're all one big happy family here.
Bishop Griswold said the purpose of the delegation is to supply information, not to have a debate or defend what the Episcopal Church has done. Members of the group also have been encouraged, Bishop Griswold said, to make themselves available to answer questions. “I look upon this from within the context of family relationships,” he said. “We want to do everything we can to foster deepening relationships.”
Sigh. From the Windsor Report:
The clear and repeated statements of the Instruments of Unity have also been to advise against the development and approval of such rites[100]. Whilst proponents of actions in the Diocese of New Westminster and the Episcopal Church (USA) may argue that such advice has only moral authority, we believe that it must be recognised that actions to move towards the authorisation of such rites in the face of opposition from the wider Anglican Communion constitutes a denial of the bonds of Communion. In order for these bonds to be properly acknowledged and addressed, the churches proposing to take action must be able, as a beginning, to demonstrate to the rest of the Communion why their proposal meets the criteria of scripture, tradition and reason. In order to be received as a legitimate development of the tradition, it must be possible to demonstrate how public Rites of Blessing for same sex unions would constitute growth in harmony with the apostolic tradition as it has been received.
Notwithstanding the request of paragraph 14 of this communiqué, we encourage the Anglican Consultative Council to organise a hearing at its meeting in Nottingham, England, in June 2005 at which representatives of the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Anglican Church of Canada, invited for that specific purpose, may have an opportunity to set out the thinking behind the recent actions of their Provinces, in accordance with paragraph 141 of the Windsor Report.
It's entirely possible that Frank Griswold can see the forest for the trees. Since ECUSA is basically the Metropolitian Community Church with funny clothes and a dubious historical pedigree, it's to be expected that its delegation would be heavily weighted to the pro-homosexual position. Frank may well be saying to the ACC and the rest of the Anglican world that if you're going to kick us out, we're going out on our own terms. But I think there's another possibility.
After Robbie got his pointy hat, it occurred to me more than once that ECUSA was genuinely surprised by the firestorm it caused. How else to explain Frank signing the October, 2003 Primates statement and repudiating it before the ink was dry, his condescending pats on the head to the other primates and orthodox Anglicans everywhere, ECUSA's tentative initial reaction and indifference to those Anglican churches who broke relations with them and ECUSA hearing whatever it wanted to hear from the Windsor Report and the Anglican primates? The make-up of ECUSA's delegation and Frank's airheaded insouciance here suggest that even now, at this late date, Frank still doesn't think the rest of the Anglican world is serious.
Of course, it's not like he's had any reason to. When your only response to the greatest crisis in the history of your church is to form commissions, hold meetings and issue statements, it's tough to get all that worked up. I don't expect anything serious to emerge from this meeting; the 2006 General Convention, the 2007 General Synod and the 2008 Lambeth Conference will be where the rubber meets the road. But if one or more of the sitting ACC members demands that the American and Canadian ACC members unofficially attending not be allowed to attend and walks out if they are permitted to remain, Frank may finally get the message.
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. Good Friday morning to you...Off topic question,if I may be permitted. I don't recall seeign anything recently regarding the Connecticut six. Have your seen/heard anything new? regards..
I keep checking it daily, but there is no news.
Thanks...
Thanks for posting this for us to read.
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.