Friday, August 18, 2006

Bishop Confab Set for September

Posted today on the Anglican Communion News Service ... much wondering about "what it means" but what I'm wondering if the ACNS couldn't have bothered to spell the Presiding Bishop-elect's name correctly.

[ACNS] Following consultation with the Presiding Bishop the Archbishop of Canterbury has asked Bishop Peter Lee of Virginia and Bishop John Lipscomb of Southwest Florida to convene a small group of bishops from the Episcopal Church (USA) to meet together to discuss some of the difficult issues facing the Church and to explore possible resolutions. Along with Bishop Griswold, those invited include Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori, Bishop Bob Duncan, and Bishop Jack Iker . The Secretary General of the Anglican Communion will also attend. The first meeting will be taking place in New York in the first half of September


Anonymous said...

There's only one right way to resolve the issue of normalizing same-sex relations and that is to abolish the idea without compromise; there should be no half-measures any more than there should have been any half measures regarding slavery. When it comes to human suffering, compromise is unacceptable.

Hiram said...

Rev Susan -- the Anglican Communion Network and the Anglican Communion News Service share some initials -- but the ACNS has been around for years, and the Network for only three. The Network did not mispell anyone's name....


hiram ... thanks for the typo-patrol ... correction duly noted and made


PS -- but the point stands that I wish the ACNS has spelt her name right

Anonymous said...

I really hope that something emerges that will allow all of us - traditionalists and progressives - to remain in some sort of loving and mutually respectful relationship. I am way more conservative than average in LA and I wish to remain an Episcopalian without acceding to the prevalent theology in the diocese (think this blog). Sorry, I don't buy your 'radical inclusion' and I fear that it does not include me anyway. If you folks on the progressive wing really want a big tent, how about allowing freedom of conscience to conservatives, quit threatening to take over dissenting parishes and dioceses, and please quit with remarks at clergy conferences and elsewhere about "not letting the door hit you in the ass." Maybe progressives are treated analogously in other locales, but my fellow clergy (progressives) in FL and TX dioceses tell me its not the case.

I must say I hate this fighting and look forward to the day when All Saints and folks like me can be colleagues in Christian ministry and not each other's enemy. When that day arrives I hope I'll be so blessed to call y'all friends. ' Hope its before the second coming.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous - Quit your whining and thank your lucky stars that there is a diocese like LA where progressives and conservatives alike can co-exist. What is your problem? As for taking over's the conservatives who are forming their own so-called networks and hijacking the property of parishes along the way. Wake Up!!!

Anonymous said...

tnwdwbBeyond Reconciliation,

Whining? Try to step back to before beyond - this ain't war. Coexist we do, and I am blessed to have many friends who are progressive. It may be a long time before I "come out" as a conservative, even one who wants to stay ECUSA, because of the petty nastiness on the other side. Who needs it?

Does it really all come down to whose ox gets gored, or can we really try to treat each other as sister and brother (oh, I just remembered how my sister and I are still holding grudges left over from fourth or fifth grade).

Maybe we all need a family therapist to sort this out, but I think most would recommend a separation or a divorce if the rhetoric reflects any reality. Is that what the progressives want? If so, and you take the community property and the kids now that you hold all that formerly patriarchal power, you are going to drive out a lot of conservatives and moderates.

If and when that's me and my family - I'll try not to let the door hit me. Thanks for the opportunity to rant; Susan, you're all right!


anonymous ...

1 - what "don't you buy" about radical inclusion?

2 - which conservative has been asked to violate his/her conscience?

3 - which "dissenting parishes" have been "taken over"??? and by who?

4 - what clergy conference are you referring to?

My experience in this diocese ... Los Angeles ... is that the progressive wing of the family has bent over backwards again and again and again and AGAIN to keep the conservative kin at the table ... and while we were planning reconciliation weekends they were honing exit strategies ... while our bishop was offering them AEO as an olive branch they were getting their Ugandan passports ... and while our criteria for inclusion is a willingness to be included theirs is the exclusion of those who do not agree with them ... sign their "declarations of faith" ... toe the party line, Anglican comprehensiveness be damned.

I should probably delete this comment but I've been listening to the Dixie Chicks this afternoon and thinking "I'm Not Ready To Make Nice" just might be the post-GC06 anthem so I'm letting it stand.

I wish it were different, too, and it just isn't. And it won't be as long as the militant conservative fringe continues to steer this church toward the schism that serves their agenda, never mind the rest of us.


I'm done now.

Anonymous said...

Hi susan

I do agree that the most important thing to emerge from this meeting is ...

The Correct Spelling of the Presiding Bishop Elects Name

Nothing could possibly be as Important as That.


Ummm ... I'm not thinking I agree with that. What I do think is that it illustrates some systemic issues that bear paying attention to

Anonymous said...

To be afraid to come out as a conservative in the diocese of Los Angeles?????? Oh pleeesee, let me cry some crocodile tears for you. It has a lot more to do with your inability to speak your own truth than it does with anybody slamming doors. This diocese, with the bishops we have, will greet you with open arms. If you don't have the intestinal fortitute to be who you get NO sympathy from me. Weenieness in not next to Godliness!

Anonymous said...

Rev. Susan, OK, the question wasn't directed at me, but:

1. "For many are called, but few are chosen." "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats." What I don't buy about radical inclusion as interpreted by liberals is that I see it used to mean, not that all are called by the Gospel but must repent and amend their lives, but that there are no expectations or standards whatsoever for the Christian, with regard to behavior or belief. But, clearly, from these passages (and there are others), the Son of Man will judge and not all will enter into His Father's glory.

2. My answer to this is that those that are in communion with others who have consciously decided to gravely alter the universal witness of the Church (as they see it; I understand you disagree) are being forced to violate their consciences. I'm sure you'll say that doesn't matter unless an individual conservative is forced to directly do something he/she disagrees with, so never mind. But, there it is.

3. For starters, six parishes in Connecticut. See

I can't speak to number 4.


phil ...

thanks for the clarification.

1 - "there are no expectations or standards whatsoever for the Christian, with regard to behavior or belief." ... I don't know who you're reading but I hang with people who profess very high standards and expectations regarding behavior and belief. Of course, we apply those standards equally to gay and straight folk, which is a different argument altogether.

2. forced to violate their conscience by being in communion with those with whom they differ? I thought we settled that in the Elizabethan Compromise ...

3. I was hearing the comment to apply directly to this diocese of Los Angeles where the situation with dissenting parishes is very different than in Connecticut

4. me either ... which was my point!

Lisa Fox said...

Susan, you might want to note that The Episcopal Majority has now posted a response to the announcement of this meeting.

Anonymous said...

Hi Rev Susan,

On the point of conservatives being asked to violate their consciences, I could number myself in that group.

During the last diocesan convention I attended I was told by progressive clergy and laity that if I did not support the actions of GC 2003 I had three options:

1. Join their side (which would have required violating my conscience)

2. Sit quietly and support it by silence (again, which would have violated my conscience).

3. Get out of the Episcopal Church, which given the direction of the church and the nonsense options being offered by the conservative "leadership" was the only option I realistically had.

One other note, although we are on differing sides of this debate, the commentaries you posted prior to GC2006 made more sense than anything else on the web. You are a gifted writer and make your points well (loved the ones on the spin cycle!)


gobo ... Hi, yourself! Thanks for the nice feedback on the commentaries and hope your diocesan convention experience wasn't here in Los Angeles!

Anonymous said...

Hi Susan

Which blog had this as its loving and inclusive message to go on a tee-shirt, with the intro

"my all-time favorite is this:

“End Gay Oppression: Spay and neuter all Fundamentalists.” "

And you think there are agendas on the conservative side, when your admired friend supports this!!!

Anonymous said...

Hey I know the answer to Anonymous's question -- which blog site posted this
“End Gay Oppression: Spay and neuter all Fundamentalists.” as thier favorite saying.

It was Elizabeth Kaeton -- the link is:

Now I remember Susan that you described yourself as "I am a huge Elizabeth Kaeton Fan."

Would you like to provide this fundamentalist with an explanation for the level of "love and inclusion" being displayed here by your favorite person.

It does make worrying about the spelling of a particular name by a news service look just a trifle petty, when your friend Kaeton is promoting genocide.

Toewalker said...

Fascinating... anonymous is drawing the conclusion that there is an anti-heterosexual agenda from what he/she saw on a t-shirt.

When did homosexuals ever band together to actively try and deprive heterosexuals of life, liberty, access to the law, to church, to housing?

And yet this bumper sticker / t-shirt slogan is enough for some to infer an anti-heterosexual agenda...

[shaking head, wandering away]

Dave said...

Toewalker, don't be surprised. Fundamentalist Christianity has become a fertility cult on the level of Baal worship, only instead of sacrificing their firstborn sons on a pagan altar, they sacrifice the souls of gays and lesbians. They insist that child-rearing is the only reason for marriage, and that every single civil or governmental or ecclesiastical action be... say it with me now... FOR THE CHILDREN.

No mention of ministry to the single, or the childless, or the widow, or the friendless.

So the "spay and neuter fundamentalists" remark is tacky and mean-spirited because hits them where they really fear, in their ability to have children. Instead, we should be ministering to them in love, to come back to the way of Christ instead of the way of Baal, to cast out their fear.

Isaiah 56:4-5 says, "For thus says the Lord: To the eunuchs who keep my sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, I will give, in my house and within my walls, a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off."

Anonymous said...

Hui Susan

I do like the subtly of the censorship you apply. Two of my comments - both contrary views but neither offense - don't seem to have appeared. One has.

I find that your normal censorship rating is one missed comment out of three rather than two our of three, so I take it that this thread is causing you unease.


or you could take it that I'm a parish priest back from a month of vacation and only sporadically online to "play blog."

Honestly, folks, if you want to comment on Elizabeth's choice in t-shirts feel free to do it ... on her blog. Meanwhile, the subject here is the September confab of bishops in New York ... happy to receive comments on that topic... equally happy to delete the others.