The Truth Needs To Be Heard

I had wondered about this yesterday and it seems that the rumor mill is doing nothing to allay my fears.

It is very important for the cause of clarity to see a breakdown of which bishops voted for which candidates. Did Network bishops deliberately vote for +(+)Schori in order to “push things along”?

Update! This from the Bishop of Texas (perhaps a more reputable source than David Virtue…): “As for the vote, Bishop Jefferts Schori was consented to by our deputation in the House of Deputies with two non-consenting votes, one lay and one clergy. The House of Bishop’s vote is not public. However, I will say to you that I understand she received votes from supporters and a solid number of more conservative bishops who supposedly hope to move the split of our communion forward. Politics can make strange bedfellows. Further, this same undercurrent is attempting to undermine the good work of the Special Committee on Windsor.”

I will note that Bishop Don Wimberley is not someone that I know much about. He himself is not a member of the Network. He says this is his understanding so this is still in the realm of hearsay as far as I am concerned. His full text is here.

Further Update Again…hearsay but pointing in the same direction. In the biblical studies field we might start calling this multiple attestation…:

“I have sources in purple shirts who verify David
Virtue’s allegation that the PB election was heavily,
even unduly, influenced by Bp. Bruno of LA. Check out
VirtueOnline for details. [Here is the link.]{{I refuse to link to VOL…}}The same sources tell me that the Network bishops and
those bishop who wish to be windsor-compliant are
meeting secretly every morning, often in the
afternoons, and occasionally in the evenings.”

Hat tip to Whitehall for the full thing…

And just to note, power politics has been part of church life at least since the writing of First Corinthians so this really is nothing new. The divisions and strategies are the same; only the names change.

Advertisements

About Derek Olsen

I'm a layman within the Episcopal Church with a PhD in New Testament and an interest in most things medieval, monastic, and liturgical. My chief job is keeping up with my priestly wife and our two awesome kids. In addition to that, I earn a living, run the St Bede's Breviary, listen to loud goth/industrial music, and do some stuff for the church. I currently serve as Secretary to the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music where I'm also co-chair of the Calendar committee and chair of the Digital Publications committee.
This entry was posted in Current Unpleasantness. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to The Truth Needs To Be Heard

  1. David B. says:

    David Virtue seems to confirm some conservative bishops voted for Schori, but he has been wrong on many, many, occasions.

  2. Caelius says:

    David Virtue also reports that the election was driven by some sort of conspiracy by my present bishop to take vengeance on the Presiding Bishop. I see no evidence in the voting of Jenkins votes flowing readily to Schori, unless the orthodox bishops started the ballots by voting for her. If +Iker, for instance, did so, that act combined with his request for alternative primatial oversight seems like a serious offense of some sort. He would be quite welcome to do either in good faith but to do both…

    Yes, some light needs to be shed here. But the Lord does work in mysterious ways, His wonders to perform.

  3. Derek the Ænglican says:

    I trust Virtue to report rumors. Somebody has got to have the facts, though, right? Or was this vote done by secret ballot? If so, it might be hard to get truly trustworthy reports without some very candid bishops making statements…

  4. David B. says:

    I am assuming the vote was done by secret ballot, because certainly someone would have published the data by now, unless it will be released later.

  5. Gaunilo says:

    I hadn’t heard this, but it’s extremely important. Such a deliberate incitment of schism would give the lie immediately to the Network’s talk about unity and adherence to Christian truth. It’s certainly suspicious how quickly the diocese of Ft. Worth appealed to Canterbury – it has the marks of a premeditated move, imho. It’s deeply disturbing to contemplate the fact that certain elements went to Convention with the intention of causing division.

  6. Anastasia says:

    i’m disgusted with this.

  7. Anastasia says:

    the conservatives, i mean.

    where’s a right leaning woman to go?

  8. Derek the Ænglican says:

    Funny, M was asking me just the same question last night…

  9. Gaunilo says:

    Thanks for the updates, Derek. This truly is appalling.

  10. David B. says:

    If this is true, it is ridiculous, underhanded, and pathetic. Although the question remains, did they throw their votes with Schori initially or after it was thought to be a done deal (since it took 5 ballots or so).

    While I don’t think the house of deputies has a say officially, when you look at the votes to consent to Schori’s election, you will find that for the most part, Network dioceses voted no, but Albany consented, and Pittsburgh was divided. (see http://www.standfirminfaith.com/
    index.php/site/sr_article/
    vote_to_concur_with_house_
    of_bishops_on_schori/), which seems pretty suspicious.

  11. Derek the Ænglican says:

    Thanks for the link, David. You’re right. Albany and Tennessee consented. That alone is quite suspicious.

  12. Nate says:

    Guanilo wrote:

    I hadn’t heard this, but it’s extremely important. Such a deliberate incitment of schism would give the lie immediately to the Network’s talk about unity and adherence to Christian truth. It’s certainly suspicious how quickly the diocese of Ft. Worth appealed to Canterbury – it has the marks of a premeditated move, imho. It’s deeply disturbing to contemplate the fact that certain elements went to Convention with the intention of causing division.

    There is another explanation for how quickly the Diocese of Ft. Worth requested APO. Instead of them having planned for the election of Bishop Schori (and I’m not saying they didn’t, I have no idea), they could have been planning to request APO regardless of who was elected Presiding Bishop. It seems to me that the Episcopalian conservatives were looking for General Convention to give them any reason to walk away; Bishop Schori was the reason, but I think they would easily have found another if she had not been elected.

  13. LutherPunk says:

    Maybe St. Paul was wrong…it isn’t that the Gospel is the stumbling block, but the church.

    May God help us all, because whatever happens to the TEC ultimately impacts the ELCA.

  14. Derek the Ænglican says:

    I think the Network was planning something no matter what but this did catch everybody by surprise.

  15. Gaunilo says:

    Nate – I agree. Actually, when I posted yesterday, I mentioned that I thought Ft. Worth may have gone in expecting to “react” to handling of the resolution on the Windsor Report. I have no doubt that some ACN elements were bound to act as they did with any MacGuffin that was convenient. This is the force of my comment about going to Convention with the “intention of causing division.”

  16. Anastasia says:

    I think it’s just as probable that some bishops on the left had the intention of pressing the issue to force a reaction from the right and/or global south. My guess is there were people at both endd of the spectrum who wanted something decisive to happen at general convention.

  17. Derek the Ænglican says:

    Yeah, Anastasia, I think the two ends are joining one another against the middle. The extremes on both sides are eager to be outside the influence of the other. Just as in secular politics compromise is apparently an evil and ugly word…

    Henry Clay! Thou shouldst be living at this hour: America hath need of thee…

  18. Nate says:

    Just as in secular politics compromise is apparently an evil and ugly word…

    It is evil and ugly when the ones who have to sacrifice for the compromise are an unwilling, persecuted minority.

    With that said, I agree that extremists on both sides may have been seeking division. But I think that the middle (with whom I am currently intensely angry) was also seeking unity at all costs, which can be just as bad.

  19. Anastasia says:

    “It is evil and ugly when the ones who have to sacrifice for the compromise are an unwilling, persecuted minority.”

    to whom does this refer?

    therein lies the rub.

  20. Nate says:

    “It is evil and ugly when the ones who have to sacrifice for the compromise are an unwilling, persecuted minority.”

    to whom does this refer?

    therein lies the rub.

    It describes GLBT Christians. The keywords there are persecuted minority — the conservatives are neither persecuted nor are they a minority. They may think they’re a persecuted minority, but that’s certainly not based in reality.

  21. Annie says:

    I don’t know … it seems that if they thought they could use Schori they might have shot themselves in the foot. It seems that Bishop Duncan has been compromised. I was visiting titusonenine and found a great many deroguetory comments about him. It seems that he has a couple of women priests serving under him and isn’t perhaps sufficiently horrified by her election. In other words, her election is and will divide the ranks of the Network–and the Network has given up the issue of womens ordination, you know, in favor of greater numbers. It was one of the very first moves they made.

    Not brilliant or clever.

    A.

  22. Derek the Ænglican says:

    Nate–
    The conservatives aren’t a minority? If we are talking about theological conservatives in TEC, they actually are. Look at the two dissenting reports…the liberal one had 30-some bishops (reported as of last night; haven’t verified this morning yet) and last I knew the conservative one had 8–not even the full Network.

  23. Anastasia says:

    I think they are definitely a minority and persecution is a matter for debate.

    I am not saying they are or aren’t. It doesn’t matter. All I really mean is that your position is as uncompromising as everyone elses and therien in, as I said, lies the rub.

  24. Nate says:

    Nate–
    The conservatives aren’t a minority? If we are talking about theological conservatives in TEC, they actually are. Look at the two dissenting reports…the liberal one had 30-some bishops (reported as of last night; haven’t verified this morning yet) and last I knew the conservative one had 8–not even the full Network.

    If the conservatives are a minority, then how did the resolution pass?

    I don’t believe that conservatives are a minority in any mainline American church, and I certainly don’t believe they’re persecuted. Asking people to accept people they don’t like is not persecution.

  25. Anastasia says:

    it isn’t about simple acceptance and it certainly isn’t about liking. It’s about holy orders and it’s about the sacrament.

    but there isn’t any point in continuing discussion on who is the minority and who is persecuted. That is a completely unhelpful way to approach discussion. It will get us nowehere. In fact it is getting us nowhere except closer to schism.

  26. Nate says:

    I’m sure people said the same thing back when the Episcopal Church supported slavery, and then segregation. I can almost hear them: “But there isn’t any point in continuing discussion on who is the minority and who is persecuted…” But of course this is different. No one can ever get around to why it’s different; it just is.

    But I guess I can look forward to a General Convention a hundred years from now at which the Episcopal Church will finally apologize for its treatment of GLBT people. That will, of course, be too bad for the GLBT people who lived a hundred years earlier, but hey, it’s the thought that counts.

    Some things are worth schism, as Jesus himself said when he talked about dividing father from son, mother from daughter. It seems odd for a Catholic to have to argue with Anglicans that some things are worth schism — don’t you agree?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s