From “Scout”:

Dear Dr. Harmon:  I should first thank you for your work on maintaining the site.  It is a masterful mix of secular and spiritual items of importance.  My daily reading life is very much enriched by it.  It helps that you and I seem to have strongly overlapping interests, and I find myself less embedded in the major newspapers than is my habit, simply because you have gone through and gleaned many of the articles and columns that would have caught my interest.  Your selection of spiritual readings, both scripture and other offerings, also is very, very helpful to me.  I know this must take an enormous amount of time and thought, and I want you to know (I’m sure you do know this - but it would be a lapse not to say it) that this ministry (and I take it to be that) is reaching a number of people in meaningful ways at a troubling time in the Church.

Bishop Henderson’s piece was important.  I have been utterly dismayed by the tone of some of the comments about Andrew Waldo (and many others).  Must they really be evil persons consigned to hellfire?  The name-calling and type-casting going on is base and pointless.  I appreciate that your elves police that kind of thing as best they can, and your site stays fairly sane.  Alas, ...[another Anglican site ]has become more and more shrill and harsh to the point where, to my tender tastes, it has become a very uncomfortable place to go to think about issues. 

Bishop Henderson makes the welcome point (in a welcome and welcoming tone) that Bishops are offered by the people to be used by God.  I have known several bishops well enough to know that they come in all shapes, sizes and degrees of effectiveness and leadership.  Some are failures, some are inspired leaders.  The very best that can be said of the invective hurled at Father Waldo is that it is premature.  Let’s pray that he doesn’t come to merit it.  But we simply don’t know what will happen.  I hope his proximity to your diocese will help him to find the right path (and vice versa, I suppose - your Bishop’s approach is one I’m watching with interest to see how it plays out).

Thanks for this particular post, and, more generally, for your work over time in this medium.

Yours faithfully,

  (slightly edited-ed).

From Theophilus:

While I don’t doubt that +Dorsey wrote his letter in good faith, the fact is that virtually everything being said about Waldo+ is taken directly from his answers to Search Committee questions, his public statements made at walkabouts, his archived sermons and statements, or published in his parish bulletin.  In order to stay well-informed, I read all the major SC newspapers and the vast majority of relevant blogs and have yet to find examples of outright mendacity.

From SSISC:

How typical of an Episcopal bishop to mistake clear communication about another bishop’s theology, ideas, and beliefs with “the bishop-elect” being “already under attack.”  Typical—and over-dramatic too.

There has been, of course, no such “attack” on Bishop-elect Waldo.  There has been a robust web communication [and truth to tell, parlor communication] about the theology of Bishop-elect Waldo and it’s certainly understandable that some would not want that robust—and wide-spreading—conversation to occur.

Further, nobody in this diocese “pledged to avoid” “anxious voices” . . . whatever that means.  Of course traditional Episcopalians are all anxious in this diocese.  We’re anxious because the clergy and the lay leaders of this diocese—with the support and promotion of certain members of the diocesan staff—elected a man who practices communion of the unbaptized, counts Christ as “my way, my truth,” supports same-sex blessings and the agenda of the national church, and names Gene Robinson as his “friend and mentor.”  In short, they elected a man who is completely opposed to the traditional values of this diocese, as revealed in its very well-participated-in survey.

It’s not as if those “inclusive values” have brought growth to his parish either—the parish’s ASA has declined—that’s right declined—to under 200 in 2008.

So yes, traditional Episcopalians are anxious, concerned, heartsick, and in some cases—as those wretched blogs display—leaving the diocese.  One would have to be non-human not to be anxious, concerned, and heartsick and it’s a pity that Bishop Henderson wishes the diocese would repress those feelings, or at least not communicate about them.  But feelings can, I suppose, be threatening, especially when backed up by solid reasons.

There is more drama from Scout’s comment above, too, I see.  Nobody has said Waldo is an “evil person consigned to hellfire.”  And if Scout finds other websites shrill and harsh then one wonders why he suddenly began commenting on those sites only a few weeks ago.  I can see how they would be “uncomfortable places” for him, though.

Scout further states: “Bishop Henderson makes the welcome point (in a welcome and welcoming tone) that Bishops are offered by the people to be used by God.”
Well, bishop-elect Waldo has been offered by some people—the clergy and lay delegates of this diocese—but other people don’t want him.  Will he be my bishop?  Maybe—I have yet to decide.  Will he be everyone’s bishop in this diocese?  No—because people will leave the diocese rather than have someone of his theology as their bishop.
So far, the main point of the comments, the blogs, the parlor conversations, and more has been 1) Bishop-elect Waldo has dreadful theology on a number of major points and 2) it will very very badly effect our diocese both in terms of division and in terms of some people leaving and in terms of others withdrawing their support financially.  Neither of those two points are false—they are utterly true. 
The one positive I can say for Bishop Henderson’s missive is that at least the staff are still printing out the blog posts they gnash over the most and letting him read them.  It’s good to see that we are getting something for the $459,061 we pay for staff salaries and benefits—the second highest chunk of money in the diocesan budget after clergy insurance.
Keep reading, ....[all in the diocese of Upper South Carolina]
And Kendall—thanks for posting this twaddle.  It’s good for people to see a bishop declaiming against non-anxious voices while he himself is rather obviously anxious.  To paraphrase a friend of mine’s chuckled comment: “pay no attention to all those blogs and persons to whom I am paying attention by mentioning their “attacks” and “points” in this letter.”

(Slightly edited-ed).

From EWISC:

Bishop Henderson’s letter contains no references, no specifics, and is therefore unhelpful.
This letter does suggest the presence of a certain amount of angst at the Diocesan house.
I am certain that people will love Fr. Waldo because he is a nice guy. His responses to the search committee and his responses at the walkabouts indicate that he will act as another revisionist bishop in the HoB. Is this an attack?

From Bull Street:

Bishop Henderson’s invoking of the Holy Spirit is used as a conversation-ending fact.  His conclusion is that the vote of a majority or clergy and elected delegates is the infallible voice of the Spirit.

The syllogism is 1) Major premise: The Holy Spirit always reveals the
will of God through the vote of a majority of delegates; 2) Minor
premise: The majority of delegates elected the Rev’d Waldo; 3)
Conclusion God positively wants the Rev’d Waldo as a bishop and the bishop of this diocese.

The obvious error is in the major premise. Thinking people on both sides of the current divisive argument cite majority decisions of church councils in the past that were in error.

A more accurate syllogism might be: 1) God’s will allows many events that are hard to deal with as well as many blessings; 2) the Rev’d Waldo was elected by the majority of delegates; 3) the election of the Rev’d Waldo occurred within the will of God and will either be a blessing or will turn out to be hard to deal with.

A possibility is that God let the diocese have the Bishop the delegates wanted as a big life-lesson for the 25,000 people of the diocese.