Interesting question about the existence of a minority report.  Why wouldn’t there be one?

I don’t even see how the resolution addresses the issue of consecrating actively and openly homosexual bishops.  Read the exact wording of the resolution again:

“We reconfirm that resolution B033 of General Convention 2006 (The Election of Bishops) calls upon bishops with jurisdiction and Standing Committees “to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.”

To state that: “We reconfirm that resolution B033 of General Convention 2006 (The Election of Bishops) calls upon . . .” is simply to restate the obvious.  We know that the General Convention called for this—what we don’t know is whether the bishops of the TEC will abide by it.  To reconfirm that the General Convention has called for something, is NOT the same thing as saying that one pledges to abide by that call!  This is more playing with words.  ALL bishops can acknowledge what the Convention called for, that’s NOT what the Primates asked for, they asked for a commitment from the bishops that they will, as a body, commit themselves to abide by the terms of B033—THEY DID NOT SAY THEY WOULD.  It therefore clearly remains a local option as to whether or not TEC bishops will abide by the terms of B033, just as does the blessing of same sex unions.  As I recall, a substantial number of TEC bishops have already declared that they WILL NOT and CANNOT abide by B033!  In giving them a 40 out of 100, Dr. Radner+ has been far too generous.  The ONLY clarification I see in this resolution is an acknowledgement from the HOB that openly gay people fall within the scope of resolution B033, which again is a no brainer.  But I stress again, to RECONFIRM that something happened at the General Convention IS NOT to pledge to abide by what the Convention called for.

Comments 1 and 2 look at the first and last paragraphs respectively. Let’s look at the second, the analogy with the body, and remember that the church is a body. The eye cannot say it has no need of the other parts. Now just how the coordination of all the parts happens is a mystery—and it is hampered because we are human—but it happens.

The ONLY clarifications I see out of the meeting in New Orleans are as follows:

(1) The bishops of the TEC do NOT, as a body, have the integrity to acknowledge and declare openly the new theology they embrace.  They believe it, and they act upon it, but they will not “own it” publicly.

(2) There is NO meaningful body of “Windsor Bishops” out there willing to act.  This is made crystal clear by the lack of a minority report.  There are ONLY Network bishops who have the courage of their convictions to either: (a) act decisively to preserve their relationship with the vast majority of the worldwide Communion, or (b) leave the Anglican fold altogether.

It seems to me that the sex question has boomeranged.

What this HOB meeting could have been about is much more comprehensive. The Communion should have taken up Spong’s ten points for repudiation—or not, then moved to the sex matters, which ought to have included the entire matter of fornication and sexual ethics in the Church.

Sex is theology, yes, but only part of it. And by being preoccupied there we have limited the debate and played into the hand of the larger—and frankly more dengerous—revisionism.

We have long said that the sex issue was a smokescreen for a broader agenda. It is. But did we take it up? No. This was a lost opportunity for clarity across the theological board. Too bad.

3, all you need do is look at the Reformation.  Protestants did in fact say to Rome: “We have no need of you.”  What will happen now will happen.

Ephraim is far too generous in giving this a 40%, but even that is a failing grade.  Given that the ACO will pressure Rowan Williams to accept this and he likely will, I feel sorry for the ACI.

How could there be a minority report when there was only one dissenting vote? Will +Rhode Island write a minority report? I doubt it.

#8 be careful about making assumptions on a voice vote.  That is why they are so unhelpful.  Bishop Howe of Central Florida, for example, has already said he voted no.

That there should have been a minority report is without question.

Kendall—Has Bishop Howe issued a statement or was this person-to-person? I can picture a very quiet “no” out of exhaustion and discouragement. After all, he had worked up a major proposal that was just swept away with the other individual resolutions.

The absence of a minority report is a great disappointment. It suggests that the Camp Allen Bishops just want to survive ecclesiastically until they retire or that they are truly in harmony with the direction of TEC.

Once again Rev. Radner and I will agree to disagree, and to think 3 years ago I thought he was going to be my internet buddy!
Chris Taylor is right in his observation above about the Bishops issue.  Rather than “reconfirming a call to restraint,” the HOB could have simply said there will be no consents for gay Bishops, period. Certainly Rev. Mark Lawrence is well aware that TEC is fully capable of not consenting to the election of a Bishop if it so chooses.
I wouldn’t give the HOB a 40, I would give them a zero.  Moreover, given that the gay Bishops and SSB’s are presenting issues, the clear re-affirmation about their theology in these matters is about as in your face as it gets.

Thanks for clarifying an important point, Kendall. I was upset that there was very little talk in all of this of the pain that is being caused for the orthodox, or of provision for them. No talk of an independent province. And, as always, the wild card of the ABC who continues in his Hamlet-like indecisiveness and ambiguity amid a kingdom usurped.

To the (so called) Windsor bishops-

Every hour in which you delay issuing a SIGNED minority report, that spells out your INDIVIDUAL support of Windsor and DES, is costing the orthodox cause THOUSANDS of members.  Our Lord did not call you to acquiesce to the will of the majority of the HoB, but rather called you to witness to the Way, the Truth and the Life.

And while you are at it, what are you going to do when 6 or 7 revisionist bishops are assigned as “episcopal visitors” in your dioceses?  Or haven’t you figured out the real reason for that proposal? 

With apologies to any of you who remain ministers of our Lord.  But, currently, and until you publicly state such, it is difficult to “discern” that there are any Bishops (capital “B”) who are not currently in Pittsburgh.

And with apologies to Dr. Radner, who must be the most disappointed of us all, and with thanks for his forthright statement above.

TJ

Anglican Scotist has an interesting take on the statement and reactions like Dr. Radner’s at http://anglicanscotist.blogspot.com/.
I think his analysis of the Tanzania statement makes sense, and that the HOB statement (despite all the scorn heaped upon it from some quarters) will satisfy enough moderate primates to keep TEC in the AC and the conversation. The bishops made it clear that they are going to attend Lambeth 2008, and without shoving it in their faces, they put Nigeria and Uganda on the spot about Lambeth. The challenge to the latter is, are you willing to sit down with bishops from a Church you have been attacking for four years now and engage in respectful conversation over biblical issues and the Draft Covenant? It will be interesting to see what sort of response they give now. I hope they don’t react hastily. If they refuse to come, there won’t be a covenant, in my view.

I also look forward to any statment from the JSC and the ABC on the HOB statement. It may provide some clues as to how all three Instruments will proceed in the progress to Lambeth vis-a-vis TEC.

I also await a statment from the so-called Common Cause Partners meeting in Pittsburgh, mainly to see if they can address the issues successfully that +Duncan set out in his statement posted on the Network web site. I look forward to commenting then.

The response to requests documents reject 2 of the 3 requests outright. To the third, that of ordination of homosexual bishops, they state that b033 disallows that. This will buy them a tea with the queen in 2008. In 2009, they will then repeal B033 and we will have total rejection of DeS. And no, this treacherous lot aren’t worried about invitations in 2018.

Minority report? Only those who actually dissent can write dissenting reports. Apparently, this would be Bp Bennison.

At what point will Kendall and Ephraim tell their flock that we are betrayed? Fly for your spiritual lives (to Pittsburgh).

The post of the Anglican Scotist is all too typical these days of stuff from both sides, in that is mischaraterizes those with whom he disagrees,

He says we do not know how to compromise.  That is simply untrue.  It is certainly unfair to Ephraim and me.  What so many fail to realize is that Windsor itself was a compromise.

It is the status quo.  And a “no” to the primates’ communique at Dar es Salaam (DES).  That is not good when things are breaking down.  Essentially, the TEC bishops’ resolutions represent the following:

1.  On refraining from more consecrating more openly gay bishops, not a ban, but “exercise constraint” until they chose to do it again.  The same loophole as B033.  Grade: 50.

2.  On SSBs, no officially authorized rights.  But unofficially authorized rites are just fine, including with bishops attending (pace Bruno).  Local option is fine.  Grade: 20

3.  On adequate alternative oversight, and, specifically, the DES proposal: no.  But maybe they will think about sending someone to do baptisms and confirmations.  Down the road.  Grade: Zero.

In other words, no movement by TEC.  Unfortunately for all, the only passing grade was a 100% “yes” for all three.  DES was already the compromise, and accepted unanimously by the primates, including the American one.  Further negotiation was never an option.

The Howe proposal was the only positive response to DES, and it was rejected.

So where now? 

The ABC seems clearly to be under pressure by TEC, the source of a great deal of funds, as well as the revisionist majority of his own church, to not discipline TEC, and so seems likely to want to kick things further down the road.  There are reports he and the ACC tacitly already marked the resolutions as acceptable to them.  Only they will not be so to many primates.

I’ve never thought that the orthodox primates would just announce one day that they are starting another communion.  I still do not expect to see that.  But it seems likely to start de facto.  I suspect we will see orthodox primates setting up an orthodox province in the US.  The global south will proceed to implement the DES pastoral council/primatial vicar scheme.  It is, after all, the approach all the primates have agreed to.  Only it will be done without the participation of TEC, and possibly the ABC as well.  TEC and the ABC might complain, but of what?  For being the only ones to follow the path all the primates agreed to?  What will Willams do, call a primates meeting to complain?  Not invite the global south bishops to Lambeth when many of them may not be coming anyway?  In the meantime, CANA, AMiA and the rest of the common cause, and a handful of TEC bishops, will join, and form something new.  It will be very messy, and TEC will redouble its nasty, scorched earth efforts to stop it.

Williams is in a difficult spot now.  Personally, I think the only thing he could do to redeem the situation is to invite all of the CANA, AMiA and other global south-related bishops to Lambeth to try to get everyone to commit to remaining active in the communion to some extent while still duking it out.  But I have a hard time seeing that.  If he does so, it is tantamount to condoning the alternative oversight mechanisms some primates have and will be implementing to protect the orthodox, and TEC hates those more than it hates almost anything.  If TEC has purchased his loyalty, he will find it a hard taskmaster.  Indeed, I would not be surprised if some day they insisted, on pain of further loss of funds, that he kick out of the communion any province that deigns to oversee an orthodox church in the US.  Maybe at Lambeth.

Sad.  I’d hoped Williams would not make the choices that resulted in our current situation.  But it is in the Lord’s hands.

Kendall,
True—abstaining from Lambeth would be a compromise, but then neither you nor Ephraim are Anglican Separatists. It’s not just that the compromise of abstaining is not at this time efficacious—what can Howe and a few other HoB bishops do who amount to less than a consensus and have no organization? Windsor/CA are in disarray; the Network is fatally fractured!

It’s also that the fact of ongoing Realignment changes the fundamental nature of the conflict—even if you are not for ongoing Realignment, you should agree that any proposal not taking Realignment into account is missing a Major issue for the HoB and moderate provinces in the AC.

Somewhere Sarah Hey wrote a long piece asking why institutional church liberals suddenly swung hard against the Global South faction; the answer might be that they perceived the conflict had fundamentally shifted. Why compromise with a GS faction already intent on and carrying out Realignment?

If Nigeria/Uganda/et al had waited until after 9/30 to ordain their bishops, for instance, the situation might have been perceived differently, and a case that Realignment is the GS’ current aim would have been much harder to make.

“If Nigeria/Uganda/et al had waited until after 9/30 to ordain their bishops, for instance, the situation might have been perceived differently, and a case that Realignment is the GS’ current aim would have been much harder to make.”

Or, alternatively, had the global south not taken these actions - none of which subtracted one Episcopal bishop from the number in New Orleans - TEC would not have thought that the communion was serious about even one of the things requested of them at DES, and would simply have ignored the request entirely.  They would have done less, not more, without the threat of realignment.

The consecrations were reactive, not proactive. The initiating action was the premature invites to Lambeth 2008. In one move, a immature and disrespectful one, the ABC undermined DES, the announcements and consecrations to create rebuttal pressure back on the situation that was removed.

#4, Chris, spot on.

Not all of the episcopal ordinations were performed after the Lambeth invitations went out.

But in a way that is all water under the bridge. Two things now are very significant: (1)Will CoE evangelicals put enough pressure on Williams to bring him back toward an “ultimatum” reading of Tanzania/DeS?

(2)Where will Duncan, Iker, et al go now, given that Williams is—for the time being—cool to their pleas and the Windsor/CA deal is likely not going to give them much support in TEC or the AC?

I hope to see answers soon.