#1
The Church Times is posting an important article entitled, "Listen to the majority African voice of grace" featuring comments by the Bishop of Botswana, the Rt Revd Musonda Mwamba. You'll want to read it all here ... but here's a quote:
In an incisive address, the Bishop concluded that the minority of Africans who had “the luxury to think about the issue” did not want to see the Communion disintegrate. They valued the bonds of affection, and would prefer to follow the process recommended by the Windsor report. He rebutted as “simplistic and a distortion of the truth” the belief that the African provinces were a monochrome body.
And let the people say, "AMEN!"
=========
#2
The Episcopal News Service is reporting on a presentation to the House of Bishops called "Steps towards the Covenant" by Ephraim Radner. You'll want to read it all here ... but here's a question (or two!):
Was Mr. Radner introduced as a Board Member of the IRD (Institute on Religion and Democracy) when he made his presentation to the House of Bishops? (And if not, why not?) And when did "consideration OF a covenant" become "steps TOWARDS a covenant?"
And let the people say, "WASSUP WITH THAT?"
14 comments:
Now I'm lost...how did IRD get such a prominent place on the bishops agenda?
And Susan, your church says "Amen" and "thank you" for you.
Dr Radner said: "The proposal came in the context of the [Windsor] Report's recommendations to enhance the unity of the Anglican Communion:
''This Commission recommends, therefore, and urges the primates to consider, the adoption by the churches of the Communion of a common Anglican Covenant which would make explicit and forceful the loyalty and bonds of affection which govern the relationships between the churches of the Communion'' (118)."
This speaks of an ecclesiological covenant; of the "hows" of a closer bonding between the 38 Provinces.
Nothing here about a Confessio Anglicana - which would be a near to impossibility in Anglicanism anyway, since both the Elizabethan and the Carolingian Settlements were State-brokered Marriages of Inconvenience between the Neo Platonist Radicals and the Conservatives of the 16th century Renaissance, for the purpose of preventing another Civil War.
I am disgusted and ashamed that a member of the Board of the Institute on Religon and Democracy would be invited to speak to the House of Bishops. I'll bet the Holy Spirit took an exit from that gathering as the fox entered the hen house.
Once again, Ephraim Radner hits a home run.
All of your worries fade away. Dr. Radner was present at the HOB as one of the two Americans on the Covenant Design Group and, judging by his comment that "Kathy" would shortly address the House and argue a contrary position, the other member of that Group, the Rev. Dr. Kathy Grieb, also made a presentation.
You ask why Radner was not presented as a Board Member of the IRD. Presumably this would taint his testimony before the HOB? He was there in his capacity as a member of the Design Group, not as a proponent of a specific "side" in the debate that you cannot ever let go of. For all we know, his membership on the IRD Board was mentioned. In any case, I'm sure that Dr. Radner would not feel it was anything to be ashamed of nor that it invalidated what he had to say.
As a parallel, although I don't know what boards Bishop Robinson sits on, I might imagine that some (Planned Parenthood? Integrity? Human Rights Campaign?) could be controversial. Do you suppose that each time he speaks to the HOB, he needs to be introduced as a Board Member to whatever? Of course not. Regardless of the boards he sits on, he is there and given the floor not as a board member of some organization, but as the Bishop of New Hampshire. Apply the same to Dr. Radner. He's there as a member of the Design Group.
As to the dangerous title "Toward the Covenant," Dr. Radner is simply echoing the title of the Consultation Paper commended by the Joint Standing Committee of the ACC and the Primates that led to the formation of the Design Group. It was titled, "Towards an Anglican Covenant."
It would seem that you are implying that Dr. Radner is insidiously tilting the debate. Your concerns will be alleviated by this quotation: "That TEC has entered into covenants with other Anglican churches is, therefore, beyond doubt, and on mutually restraining and binding bases on a number of levels. That TEC could enter into a covenant with all the members of Anglican Communion is obviously possible, either through her General Convention (the usual way) or through Executive Council. But should TEC want to do so?"
I can't help thinking that the mere fact that an articulate, American voice devoid of the anger and "homophobia" you constantly see in you opponents who is in favor of the Covenant was allowed to speak at the HOB makes you think there is a nefarious plot afoot. Why so touchy otherwise? Your concerns are clearly unfounded.
Could it be that you've lost that very "trust" that Dr. Radner so forcefully explains constitutes the reception of God's providential grace? If so, you're not alone. I think I've lost mine, too. Which means, given Radner's categories, that there is precious little "communion" left to articulate in some Covenant. Perhaps it (and Anglicanism itself) will go down in history as a lost opportunity.
Fr. Doug misunderstands the significance Dr. Radner’s IRD connection, then proceeds to compare apples to oranges. If Bp. Robinson sits on any of the boards Fr. Doug suggested, there is no comparison. The significance of the IRD connection is not that it is controversial in some quarters, which I agree might be equally true of Planned Parenthood, Human Rights Campaign Fund, etc. What is significant is that IRD has for quite some time had a publicly acknowledged agenda to promote a conservative “takeover” of the Episcopal Church and has worked closely with the American Anglican Council to set aside or circumvent or overrule the decision-making processes of TEC. The very idea that an Anglican Communion covenant is under discussion is a direct outcome of IRD’s work. And Dr. Radner’s appointment to the Covenant Design Group was precisely because of the viewpoint he represents.
By way of contrast, none of the groups named as possible affiliations of Bp. Robinson has ever stated any intention to set aside the decision-making processes of the Episcopal Church, nor are they known to have funneled money to any groups within the church—neither those advocating schism, excuse me, realignment, nor those advocating gay or feminist perspectives. In my own experience, it has usually been the other way around, i.e., non-church groups asking like-minded people in the church to donate money. Another point of significance to Dr. Radner’s IRD affiliation is that two other members of the board are members of the Virginia parishes that have attempted to expropriate and privatize the material goods of the community by attempting to “secede” from the Episcopal Church and take church property with them.
As the Boy Scouts have it, "Charecter Counts." Dr. Radner is now a board member of an institution that seeks to subvert any church that is not in support of its political agenda. He was presumably selected because he shares their views. The cherecter of the IRD is hostile to TEC.
Willingness to be in the IRD's management is a decleration of intent. I simply choose to believe Dr. Radner means it.
FWIW
jimB
The title "Towards an Anglican Covenant" means "On" or "About" a such,
the title "Steps Towards an Anglican Covenant" is an entirely different matter...
One needs to be observant with these people ;=)
(and you're supposted to be indigenous? sssheeesh!)
Nothing untowards in sitting on the board of anything which is not tearing one's Church /your church) and the Anglican Communion to pieces. Or?
The IRD is a different matter, that one also...
Ephraim Radner has a long track record of opposition to everything progressive in the Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion. For years he has mouthed the fundamentalist line, touted the AAC position on everything, and proclaimed that homosexuals could be "cured." Who on earth called this crackpot to speak at the HOB meeting is surely overboard. The IRD connection is serious...they've poured mucho money into fighting every sensible idea in TEC for years as well, and despite their fearless leader's death last year, they keep on keeping on. The bottom line is that the Christofascists have had a chance to bitch and whine at the HOB meeting. What's a mother to do?
Father Doug-
Radner now is a director for an organization that wishes to destroy TEC, the PCUSA and the UMC at least. I trust he is working twords those goals.
BTW- I trused that Lambeth 1:10's injunction to listen to GLBT people would be followed through. As recent events in Nigeria prove, taht has not been the case. Trust has been broken on both sides.
Whatever we may think of IRD, I don't think there's anything particularly sinister about Dr. Radner's being invited to speak to this meeting. For better or worse, Radner was one of the two American representatives on the committee which drew up the proposed covenant, and the bishops simply invited both of those representatives to report on what had happened. That looks like standard operating procedure to me.
Radner completely lost my interest when he so patronizingly and with untoward familiarity referred to Bishop Katharine as "Kathy". Gag me already. The man obviously was being condescending toward our PB, and his unless he plans to move to Africa. Dr Greib's proposal is far more cogent than his filler.
for anoymous 11:05am ...
Never said anything about "sinister" ... just wondered outloud if his IRD credentials were part of his intro in order for the good bishops to "contextualize" his hermenutic
This is anonymous from 11:05.
Susan,
I didn't mean to suggest that you saw anything sinister in these events. But I thought that some of the previous comments (anonymous 8:05, Dave 3:47, etc.) were making more of Radner's invitation than it perhaps deserves.
Catherine+
I took Radner's "Kathy" as a reference to Katherine Grieb, not to ++Schori.
Post a Comment