Very good, Bishop Little.  Excellent, really.

Now where the heck was this 3-4 years ago when we needed it?  Oh, wait - such matters were being rejected by the PB and the HoB because such measures were offered up by the Network & Dar Es Salaam.

Again, sir, well done - but I am very afraid that it is far too little, far too late.

...but I am very afraid that it is far too little, far too late.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

The history of canonical solutions to dissent (at least in my thirty or so years of experience) goes back to the beginnings of the W.O. dissenters.  The Dennis canon dates from that time; changes in the canons about how clergy (especially bishops) may or may not minister elsewhere date from the same era (remember the first consecrations of bishops for the continuing church involved Bishop Chambers, with canonical changes flowing in right behind?).  The solution since those days to any new crisis is to react by legislation making the canons tighter.  The present application of the abandonment canons is Lewis Carroll brought from fantasy to fact:  “`No, no!’ said the Queen. `Sentence first—verdict afterwards.’ “

The last time a discussion along the lines the bishop proposes in the above piece took place was, I believe, the statement of the HOB from Port St Lucie (now disowned and forgotten conveniently by most of the present HOB).  In those days, bishops such as Atkins of Eau Claire and Coburn of Massachusetts acted as friends in the HOB, though widely separated in viewpoints and convictions. 

In fact, the bishops could solve this problem completely, but they have ceded their apostolic authority and responsibility in the name of polity, making themselves prisoners of the TEC process rather than being those who could lead and guide it.  Wimps.

Although much of what Northern Indiana says is laudable, who, among his colleagues, is listening?  Too busy sentencing, I fear.

Sorry, My Lord Northern Indiana, but the kind of partings that you envision occur only when both sides see each other as brothers who have chosen to pursue worthy ends, albeit in different ways. Unfortunately, because the liberal agenda is based on the idea that those who disagree with it are bigoted, Nazi, unjust, racist, sexist, phallo-centric, unjustly privileged, Euro-centric, Republican homophobes, those who depart from that agenda must not only be rejected, but anemathized.  So, as a matter of ecclesiastical parting, “go with God” just doesn’t fit in with the prevailing zeitgeist.

It often takes time and retrospection to be able to see issues with clarity.  And who is to say that this is Bishop Little’s first approach on these issues?  Also, while it may be “too late,” given these actions have already taken place, the willingness of Episcopal leaders to come forward now, can still influence future actions.

I think we should be all in favor of various voices coming forward to question the actions of the leaders of TEC.

We have O’Neill of Colorado deposing priests that had left nearly 10 years after the fact and Howard of Florida who has deposed 42 priests!  I am afraid that Bp Little’s plea will indeed fall on deaf ears. I wonder how much 815 is pushing for this - “If you want to be part of the inner circle of NICE, you will depose all fleeing priests.”

“I foresee a plunge into relational disarray.”  “Foresee?”  It’s already here, been here for some time now!  Too Little, too late +Northern Indiana!

I foresee a plunge into relational disarray.

The plunge already happened.  Apparently, you failed to notice.  Blind guide.

What cave did this Bishop just emerge from?? Rallys the VGR cause for Lambeth last March and then babbles on with this tripe?
Everytime this Bishop opens his mouth he but further compromises himself.
Intercessor

The House of Bishops has failed to manage its conflicts since the days of Bishop Pike, and if anything, its failures are increasing, as this article attests. Will Bishop Little speak out against the uncanonical juggernaut to depose Bishop Duncan in September, or will he continue to believe that those who vote in favor of the unlawful action “desire the best for Christ’s church, and believe these canonical actions to be an appropriate response to this wave of departures”?

There is much I agree with in what Bp Little has written.

Who can fault his major concern? “How do we say goodbye in a manner that honors the Gospel, indeed honors our Lord himself?” The example he gives of the parting of Paul and Barnabas is a helpful biblical model of handling disagreements between Christians. In an earlier article he used the biblical analogy of the wheat and the weeds that coexist in the field before the harvest (in the context of his remaining in TEC). That analogy suggests a qualitative difference between the two groups, which the Paul and Barnabas example does not.

He admits that life within TEC is “chaotic.” He “foresees”—while many of us “see”—what he terms “a plunge into relational disarray” or what I would call ecclesiastical civil war.

It is clear that “the church has made a significant error” in the way it has handled departing clergy (as well as parishes and one diocese and counting). Although I would place the primary blame on fallible human decisions, it is also true that “the canons … are profoundly inadequate for the crisis.”

He calls for a reasonable course of action: Fasting from canonical action and working to revise the canons while making “interim agreements between dioceses and parishes and clergy.” This course promises to provide the “breathing space” to achieve either eventual reconciliation or “honorable” institutional and individual separation. Then, as I see it, only time will tell whether this is fruitless artificial respiration or an opportunity for the Holy Spirit to renew life within a declining, and some would say, dying denomination and to foster true ecumenical cooperation.

In this short article Bp Little has not attempted to cover other aspects of the TEC’s “chaotic” situation. By implication, TEC’s course has led to a massive failure of stewardship—the squandering of millions of dollars on what I see as unnecessary litigation. Such money could, and should, have gone to proclaim the Gospel and help those in need. TEC’s course has also brought dishonor on the name “Episcopalian” and has caused many of those remaining within TEC to shun the use of “Anglican” lest there be a hint of collaboration with those who have departed. Most of all, it has brought dishonor on the name the Savior we all profess to love and serve.

So Bp Little does indeed show us a “more honorable” or, as Paul put it, “a still more excellent way.” The other way is spacious and leads to destruction.

I agree with all above who wonder why it is dawning on +Little now.  This crisis was long apparent to anyone who paid the slightest attention. 

Amputations are the order of the day, Bishop Little, band-aids will do nothing.

There are three ways to come to the moment of speaking out publicly re: the chaos existant, and the ecclesial disarray, that Bp Little articulates.  One, hear it from someone else and parrot it, because you assume they know what they’re talking about.  Two, make the conclusion (perhaps the hypothesis), and then an action plan, and then start working it, based on the conclusion.  And third, be openly aware of the impending demise, work hard on an action plan to knock it off-bearing, and then speak to the conclusion and an action plan, which has already been personally implemented.
Bp Little is of the third option.
His personal attempts, making use of his personal relationships and influence with certain persons in authority, have not been successful on his own.  So now, recognizing that what should have worked in the past is now ineffective to make course changes, the word has to be spoken - by a person who has had reasonable influence - to all the gatekeepers, a word of danger.
In other words, he is not a neophyte in this struggle, and he has applied himself to the struggle (even as a reasserter) already, and now faces the big wall.  But he is not allowing himself to stop there, as he stated as his conviction.  He could say, “Well, I gave it a good shot, and that’s it.  It’s all over.  I’ll just hide out here in the shadow of Notre Dame.”  On the contrary, I read this as his announcement that the struggle must be accepted as system-wide, and as a good-faith understanding of that, all guns must be laid down before there are no longer any feet left to stand on.  Those who are not for Peace in the Church will choose not to follow Bp Little’s action plan, and will experience the pressure from colleagues of being recognized exactly for who they are.
Many know who they are already.  But the House of Bishops needs to see themselves for themselves.  Who knows the method of success in the implementation.  I know I have made such an attempt myself in our little world, and been faced off with war-mongering. 
I would say this as an open strategy:  whenever Peaceful attempts to find solutions (outside of or within canons) to certain face-offs are denounced or rebuffed, and this is made Church-public (as the Bible allows for after repeated attempts to privately succeed have failed), then all those for Peace and measurable solution, allowing for the maintaining of differentiated scriptural positions, must immediately make the press of communicating appeal and admonition, Church-publicly, by whatever means of communication are available.
There are already examples of success in this regard, but too few and too far between.  And if Bp Little is correct, as I believe he is in this, the House of Bishops, and every individual bishop, is the first agenda.  The Bishops of Non-Peace must be displaced as the primary group of influence by the Bishops for the Peace of Christ.  But first they will have to be named.  Who are the bishops of Non-Peace of Christ?  What is the evidence of such an identification back in their dioceses;  and as they operate within the House of Bishops?  Are they parrotting; are they following someone else’s lead, willingly delegated; is this their own leadership nature and behavior?
Name them.

No. 4 - And, of course the other side is “apostate, unvelieving, non-Christian”, and more, but then of course you are right and they are wrong.

hmmm, why we parted…..  because our priest constantly put down and disparaged conservative episcopalians, called cradle episcopalians and conservatives self riteous and said they had a feeling of being more justified than anyone else.  She said God needs to shield his eyes from them because they are despicable in his sight.  When we approached her and asked her to stop saying these things and to put politics aside and get back to hearing the word of God she said it would not be possible and she will speak out and say what she feels she needs to say.  She then said if we didn’t like it then we could walk out the front door, sometimes good byes aren’t necessary, just walk out the front door.  We did, our whole family and our tithes.  We called the diocese but apparently the Utah diocese shares the same sentiments. We will never step foot in an Episcopal church again.  Perhaps we will try an Anglican church if we ever live near one.  But this cradle Episcopalian and her family is done with the Episcopal church forever.  Definately too little too late.

As far as I’m concerned, Bishop Little and his kind (the so-called Windsor Bishops) are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Bishop Little calls himself orthodox, but is happy to let Network bishops take all the risks (and the bullets) while he and his fellow Windsor bishops could not be bothered even to issue a minority report at the House of Bishops meeting in New Orleans. He is like the “enabling” spouses who are too afraid to leave the abusers and help to make the abuse possible. And one thing really bothers me about this piece. Bishop Little has a very nasty habit of sniffing that he chooses to side with “the Church” while those he considers to be schismatics are leaving “the Church.” Well, Bishop Little, so what if some of us have changed from one Anglican jurisdiction to another? The Eastern Orthodox have many parallel jurisdictions operating within the same geographical areas—if someone leaves the Greek Orthodox in order to affiliate with (let us say) the Romanian Orthodox, has anybody left “the Church”? Of course not. All the Archbishops who have taken parishes and one whole diocese under their wings are in communion with Canterbury and are in “the Church.” They are good Christians and good Anglicans. Who is Bishop Little to turn up his nose at these good people and say that, although they are schismatics, maybe we can refrain from throwing the book at them for a little while? Let me remind you of something, Bishop Little: you are a schismatic bishop yourself. You are in communion with neither Rome or Istanbul. So how about backing off the condescending, patronizing offer of generosity to those you choose in your cowardice not to support?

#15
When you tell of your experience with your former “priest,” why was I not surprised when I came to the “she”.  WO ushered in a huge wave of aggressive revisionist clergy.