I have considerable respect for lawyers because they have a healthy regard for process, and we get into much trouble when we don’t. But I also know when legal process is being substituted for theology. And that’s what we have with this report.

Does this feel like the Keystone Cops a bit?  The report is denied to exist by an official spokesperson, but great trouble is taken to print it and send it to all the bishops before the meeting.  One of the endorsers whose name is printed on the report does not even fully endorse its contents.

TEC’s leadership is not looking good at all heading into the meeting.

To paraphrase a well known politician “I was for the report before I was against the report.”

I was surprised to find Bishop Henderson’s name on the list, and I’m glad that he asked to have himself removed.  I immediately had some suspicions about the document when I saw Doss’ name mentioned.

TEC has become Humpty Dumpty.

“‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.’

‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master—that’s all.’”

TEC sits on a wall
TEC will have a great fall

I wonder if all the Presiding bishop’s legal processes and and all her toadies will put it together again.

The Bishop of Upper South Carolina is a choice that reflects a lack of understanding by those in power in TEC of the reasserting community.  While he voted no in 2003, he said he wished there were a third microphone where he could stand (instead of yes or no) at the open hearing there.

He does not have the strong support and trust of reasserters, and is not someone they would have chosen for themselves.

None of this is to suggest he is not a nice or well meaning individual.  It does not reflect well on the TEC leadership that he was chosen, however, nor on him for accepting it (which I presume he did).

Of course, there’s a difference between process and lawyering. And what we have in this report is lawyering. Shameful.

Having read through the document late last night, I think everyone involved would be better off to have their names removed.

The document states that the bishop-attorneys putting it together represent different parts of the church. However, if Bp. Henderson has withdrawn his affirmation of this document its authors look strangely monochrome and unrepresentative of anything that can be found in the mainstream of Anglicanism. What I have read of the document so far suggests to me that the whole thing is every bit as confused as that extraordinarily empty and misleading statement that came from the House of Bishops in March.