The Bishop of Newark’s Reflections on the House of Bishops’ Meeting

Posted by Kendall Harmon

There were a remarkable series of dynamics in play at the just concluded House of Bishops meeting in New Orleans. For starters, there was the dynamic between the Episcopal Church (increasingly identified as TEC by the rest of the Anglican Communion)– represented by the House of Bishops; and the rest of the Anglican Communion – represented by the Archbishop of Canterbury and several leaders of the Anglican Consultative Council (the ACC). The Archbishop and the representatives of the ACC presented to us a rather united front in their disdain/concern/anger at TEC for getting out ahead of the rest of the Anglican Communion in our actions over the last three years (the more gentle presentation) – or abrogating our commitment to the Communion and the Gospel (the more harsh presentation). We later learned that the ACC position may not have been so united – in that some of the ACC members present, who represented different views, were not given the opportunity to speak to us. It was also troubling to learn that an edited version of the most ardent presentation was on the internet within an hour of it being presented to us.

Another dynamic in play was the sense I had that we are dealing with more than one house of bishops. The primary house is comprised of the vast majority of bishops who stayed through the whole meeting – and who worked hard, and well, to build bridges and create solidarity in the midst of diversity. It appears to me that an ancillary or adjunct House is made up of a small group of dissident bishops who left the meeting as soon as the Archbishop of Canterbury did. Their media champions stayed – and seemed to have versions of our work – with their own unique commentary on it, out in public before we even finished that work.

To my mind, the “primary” House of Bishops was able to sort through these various dynamics, and build on the work that we did at our meeting in March. Although it may not be reflected in our final statement, there was a growing sense during the meeting that we are willing and able to honor our differences – which are reflected in our differing theologies and liturgical practices. There was not an attempt to demand conformity – or to diminish any particular diocesan response to the invitations and challenges of the Gospel.

Read it all.

Filed under: * Anglican - Episcopal • - Anglican: Primary Source • -- Statements & Letters: Bishops • Episcopal Church (TEC) • TEC Bishops • Sept07 HoB Meeting

16 Comments
Posted September 26, 2007 at 7:08 pm [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]



1. Cennydd wrote:

As far as I’m concerned, this statement amounts to a tacit admission that there are in fact two Churches within TEC, and that the two are on different courses and are incompatible.

September 26, 7:43 pm | [comment link]
2. Alli B wrote:

He says, “The Archbishop and the representatives of the ACC presented to us a rather united front in their disdain/concern/anger at TEC for getting out ahead of the rest of the Anglican Communion in our actions over the last three years (the more gentle presentation) – or abrogating our commitment to the Communion and the Gospel (the more harsh presentation).”

People are upset because TEC got ahead of the rest of the Communion?  What revisionist tripe!  The rest of this diatribe is deserving of a box of Pampers.

September 26, 7:44 pm | [comment link]
3. Adam 12 wrote:

“honor our differences”...the same old cant…but some insights on the politics

September 26, 8:10 pm | [comment link]
4. BCP28 wrote:

Didn’t TEC ask to be called TEC?

I would love to call it ECUSA or PECUSA again, if it meant that.

September 26, 8:10 pm | [comment link]
5. dwstroudmd+ wrote:

This Newark, come in earth!  This is Newark!  Parish closing capital of the ECUSA/TEC!  This is Newark!  Is anybody out there?

Gotta be a Twilight Zone re-run!

September 26, 8:39 pm | [comment link]
6. Rob Eaton+ wrote:

Cennydd,
I think if you read this response as nothing deeper than a surface observation of basic group dynamics you might come to the conclusion that the bishop is not saying anything so profound as you are suggesting is a tacit admission.
I don’t know this guy, so I’m not sharing any insider info.  Just my take on it.  To be quite frank, and I want to be generous because he just got back from a very intensive time, but if this is it from this bishop, well….I’m going to say a few prayers for the Diocese of Newark.
Actually, the tacit admission you are looking for may just be the PB allowing a Visitor plan with 8 (not one or two) different bishops.

RGEaton

September 26, 8:39 pm | [comment link]
7. RalphM wrote:

I keep hearing the line “the emperor has no clothes” as I read about the work of the HoB.  EpiscoGroupthink allows laughable pronouncements that are seen through by a 10 year old. 

BTW, the “small group of dissident bishops” left because they had real work to do.  Why should they stay for the wordsmithing of a year old response?

September 26, 9:47 pm | [comment link]
8. Brien wrote:

What a bother it is to the princes/esses of the Church that there are actually ways for news to reach the people of the Church quickly and without filters!  You would think that there were only conservative bloggers on the internet.  And, as for this bishop and his HOB, I suggest a new patron saint, right out of the sixities: Cleopatra. Queen of De-Nile.

September 26, 10:03 pm | [comment link]
9. Hursley wrote:

So, let me get this right: Christ is with those in the margins, unless they are a dissident group of bishops in TEC? I better go purchase one of those AMPD’s (“Acceptable Marginalized Persons” Detectors) ASAP, because this is clearly nothing for a layman to be fooling with!

September 26, 10:07 pm | [comment link]
10. Christopher Johnson wrote:

Plus Beckwith has a really nice plug for Stand Firm though.  Great job, Greg! wink

September 26, 10:58 pm | [comment link]
11. Barry wrote:

” build on the work that we did at our meeting in March”

Building alright…........a house of cards!

Has the fat lady sung yet?  God I hope so.

Let’s get on with building the Anglican Church of North America.

Peace,
Barry

September 26, 11:53 pm | [comment link]
12. John Wilkins wrote:

When conservative bishops decide not to participate, they invite greater conflict.  They didn’t have much of an interest in the proceedings to begin with.  duncan, et al, don’t need my respect, but I admit, the fact that they aren’t present simply demonstrates to me that they aren’t interested in communion.

September 27, 12:03 am | [comment link]
13. Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) wrote:

Which is the higher good: Communion with apostates and heretics or following Christ?

Unity is lovely, and desirable amongst Christians, but it is quite the opposite when Christians and unbelievers aggregate.

September 27, 7:10 am | [comment link]
14. Br. Michael wrote:

12, John they recognize that they are now irrelevant in TEC governance.  Current TEC “moderates” such as yourself only need us to retain your “moderate” lable.  Without us you become the new conservatives.

September 27, 7:31 am | [comment link]
15. Sherri wrote:

but I admit, the fact that they aren’t present simply demonstrates to me that they aren’t interested in communion.

How many times have they been to the well and come back with nothing? Not the least concern with providing pastoral care to reasserters?

September 27, 10:06 am | [comment link]
16. In Newark wrote:

And what, precisely, does communion mean to a bishop who distributes the Eucharist “to all who seek God and are drawn to Christ” ?

September 27, 11:24 am | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.



Next entry (above): The Diocese of San Joaquin responds to House of Bishops’ Meeting

Previous entry (below): Chip Webb: Possibly the Most Significant Detail of the Mind of the House Statement

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)