we will repeat the scene that we experienced at Camp Allen; and each time, the debate will be less agonized and the result more assured.

Sounds very pastoral, but a bit naive.  I don’t believe for one second that 815 is at all interested in “reconciliation”, without capitulation.

Gloria in SC

And its “reconciliation” based on everyone doing what they want to do and no one objecting.  Or at least letting the reappraisers do what they want without objection.

Grandmother, when he says “the debate will be less agonized and the result more assured” he is NOT saying that is a GOOD thing!  He’s saying that that is what he FEARS.  And essentially, he is agreeing with you that TEC is not interested in reconciliation.

I agree with him that, “Nothing good ever comes from schism.”  So why has ECUSA done it?  And why does he support that institution?  And, if “theologically disordered” actions cause him so much concern, what’s he doing about his own institution, his own General Convention and his own Presiding Bishop?

“When Christians separate from one another, the gospel is hampered and our ability to offer Jesus to a needy world severely compromised.”

Let me offer a few changes to the quote above:
“When Christians separate from the gospel, our ability to offer Jesus to a needy world severely compromised.”

It’s one thing resorting to canons. It’s another thing resorting to a flagrant abuse of them. Why does the actual words of the canon seem to make no difference to him?

Utterly rhetorical question, I know.

When Paul and Barnabas separated from one another over John Mark, the result was TWO powerhouse missionary teams where there had been only one.  The Gospel spread twice as fast.

I shall pray that Bishop Little continues to be unsettled and conflicted in his mind until he comes to the clear realization that TEC and the reconciling Gospel of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, are diametrically opposed to one another.

Bishop Little reports that he voted NO on the Cox and Schofield depositions, and this was the first I had heard of NO votes.  Any other bishops claiming to vote NO?
  Also, Bishop Little reports that Bishop Cox was deposed for unauthorized ordinations and confirmations; I thought those charges were dropped after Bishop Cox switched over to Southern Cone, and that he was deposed for the PSC affiliation, not for the unauthorized sacraments.  Did no one read the charges?

I agree with him that, “Nothing good ever comes from schism.” So why has ECUSA done it?  And why does he support that institution?  And, if “theologically disordered” actions cause him so much concern, what’s he doing about his own institution, his own General Convention and his own Presiding Bishop?

Thank you Phil #4…Exactly! Let us also ask why Bishop Little did not ask why this vote was even taking place without the correct amount of Bishops in attendance voting not too mention the fact that there was no consent by three senior bishops for Bishop Cox? As well as for something as serious as this why was it a voice vote? Where was his protesting on these very serious issues?

“In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.”
Beware, Bishop.  You may be next ...

I find no little irony that the “open minded” folk who are taking the lead in TEC branded orthodox believers with the label “Pharisee” for having an unyielding affinity to “law.”

This is a Windsor Bishop?