Follow up on the ACI Email Controversy: Louie Crew and Bishop Howe go Back and Forth

Posted by Kendall Harmon

Worth the time.

Filed under: * Anglican - EpiscopalEpiscopal Church (TEC)TEC BishopsTEC ConflictsWindsor Report / Process* Culture-WatchBlogging & the Internet

Posted May 29, 2009 at 6:28 pm [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]

1. dwstroudmd+ wrote:

I recollect Louie’s whining about someone’s betrayal and release of his emails from some muckety-muck in the ACC.  Anyone else recall that little bit of history?

May 30, 12:17 am | [comment link]
2. Chris Taylor wrote:

Release of the email doesn’t bother me.  If people are careless enough to fire off email without checking to whom it’s going, they deserve what they get.  I frankly find Bishop Howe’s statement more offensive:

“I am offended by your calling us schismatics. We have never sided with those who have chosen to leave The Episcopal Church. We have repeatedly stated our commitment to remain within and loyal to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of TEC.”

Thanks Bishop Howe!  So the faithful Anglican Christians of ACNA are schismatics?  This seems ironic in view of the fact that more Anglicans around the globe are in communion with ACNA than with TEC!

May 30, 12:26 am | [comment link]
3. montanan wrote:

I realize there is great naivete in the assumption I’m making, but I really am a bit stunned by the reaction to the paper, with the CP bps and ACI being called names and accused of preparing the way for schism.  They are clearly those committed to staying ... and the paper is an erudite exposition of an argument, designed to put forth a position and to invite debate.  None of the brouhaha has focused on a debate of the merits of the paper; rather, it has focused on the charges of being “cretins” and “schismatics”.

It seems clear that the perspective (in relation to the above) of the person analyzing the publishing of the e-mails fully informs their view of the appropriateness of what occurred with those e-mails.  +Howe’s argument about ‘behavior unbecoming’ seems to me to be the obvious one, but it is so diametrically different than that of those who hold to the opposing view.  Maybe I’m really commening on how remarkable it is how little perspective and objectivity can be called into existence in the blogosphere - myself apparently included.

May 30, 1:33 am | [comment link]
4. Alice Linsley wrote:

Bishop Howe is arguing ethics.  Louie may need a course in that foreign language.

May 30, 6:58 am | [comment link]
5. Sarah1 wrote:

RE: “It seems clear that the perspective (in relation to the above) of the person analyzing the publishing of the e-mails fully informs their view of the appropriateness of what occurred with those e-mails.”

Montanan—I think I disagree.  For instance, my perspective is that of a conservative and I don’t think there was anything at all wrong with publishing the emails [as long as nothing illegal occurred in their publishing, and we’ll never know that unless it’s adjudicated anyway].

Chris Taylor,

I’m not certain why you should be offended by Bishop Howe mistaking Louie Crew’s meaning of “schismatics.”

You see, Howe thought, I suspect, that Crew’s meaning of the word “schismatic” was “you want to leave TEC.”  Therefore, Howe responded to what he believed to be Crew’s definition of the word “schismatic”—ie, “you left TEC” which obviously Howe hasn’t.

Of course, Crew means by the word “schismatic” anyone who “resists the power and rhetoric of the TEC leaders that I like and agree with.”

May 30, 8:24 am | [comment link]
6. Henry Greville wrote:

The comment of #3 montanan above is wise. When it comes to disagreements about religion and religious vocabulary among adults, each of us is right from our own point of view. The Episcopal Church used to work when no one involved ever expected or demanded to be the center of attention.

May 30, 11:52 am | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.

Next entry (above): ENS: In Forth Worth, TEC affiliated Bishop asks clergy to verify decision

Previous entry (below): The Los Angeles Bishop and Standing Committee Vote no on Northern Michigan

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)