tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post114590724562541933..comments2024-02-15T03:32:25.686-05:00Comments on Preludium, Anglican and Episcopal futures: Windsor Nosh #3 On the Windsor Report "Speculation"Mark Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06871096746243771489noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1146055845015917572006-04-26T08:50:00.000-04:002006-04-26T08:50:00.000-04:00Mark,Thanks for such a thoughtful response. It is...Mark,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for such a thoughtful response. It is quite helpful at resolving my questions.<BR/><BR/>I agree 100% with your description of the job of the Special Commission in that you and the other members have given our church a wonderful starting point for beginning the discussion this summer. If no one has done so already, let me (a simple layman) say "Thank you for your work."<BR/><BR/>Let's hope our deputies and bishops can continue your good work. It sounds to me that you will be doing your part and I hope you find your efforts appreciated and blessed. It will not be easy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1145998676011952022006-04-25T16:57:00.000-04:002006-04-25T16:57:00.000-04:00Widening Gyre says: “you end this nosh hoping the ...Widening Gyre says: “you end this nosh hoping the EC will “stand firm” this summer, which implies not changing its position on human sexuality and the interpretation of Scripture.”<BR/><BR/>1. I meant by “stand firm,” that General Convention will continue to act in a responsible way concerning elections to the episcopate recognizing that it may indeed affirm the suitability of elected persons whose community / family is not formally acknowledge by the church, and that GC will continue to describe with frankness the reality that it is not yet able to provide rites for blessing same sex relationships and at the same time honors those who live in committed relationships and believes that the blessing of such relationships occurs and that the blessed and the ministers of the Gospel so engaged are “operating within the bounds of our common life.”<BR/><BR/>I think we did about as good as we could last time around, and I see no reason not to do much the same with whatever questions are at hand now.<BR/><BR/>2. On your question about positions - I am not sure that the Episcopal Church has a “position” on human sexuality and the interpretation of Scripture. Some seem quite sure - sexual activity is only appropriate or right in marriage and the Bible is not to be intrepreted, but read as given, "with plain meaning." Many Episcopalians, myself included, are only sure this is too narrow a reading of the gift of sexuality and the gift of Scripture and that what makes them the greater gift is the gift of the Holy Spirit which informs our hearts and our understandings. <BR/><BR/>3. The Special Commission Report and its Resolutions:<BR/><BR/>The work of the Commission was to provide a view of the Windsor Report and documents that followed (that being very important since the WR has become something of a stand- alone piece of writ for some) that would in turn suggest responses (which in General Convention take the form of resolutions.) I think we gave a good start to the work at hand at Convention. I feel honored to have worked with this group and struggled with a response we thought could be useful.<BR/><BR/>Having said that, nothing of what is written – not the Windsor Report, not the statements of Primates, ACC, etc, and certainly not the Special Commission – stands alone. Publishing these Resolutions has given people on all sides of the question a chance to work at adoption, modification or dismissal of them. So we are at work perfecting what was in some cases a starting point.<BR/><BR/>The Resolutions, and the text of the Special Commission’s Report, are the work of people of very differing views and the crafting of the document pushed and pulled at us all. We knew then that when our common work was done we, as individual members of the Commission, might have more to say and do. <BR/><BR/>I have tried to be very clear that what I write here and elsewhere is not as a member of the Commission now soured by the work (which is not the case), but as a member of the House of Deputies now working with what we have in the Special Commission’s Report. My desire to further think on these resolutions in the light of what we did together in the Special Commission is a sign of the high regard in which I hold our common work. But our common work does not exhaust my work or yours.<BR/><BR/>But let me be clear that I believe the Resolutions are, in their current form, respectful of the continuing concerns to hear what the churches are saying, both within the Episcopal Church and in the Anglican Communion, and respectful of the actions taken at GC 2003. They are not perfect.<BR/><BR/>I believe we did exercise considerable caution in electing Bishop Robinson and the debate and votes show it. We knew perfectly well that what we were doing was in many ways a challenge to the wider church. In the same way I believe C051 stated the facts on the ground – that the Church was not ready to develop formal rites of blessing but that we are called on to respect the dignity of committed relationships and that support by way of the blessing community is both essential and “within the bounds of our common life.” I wish we were ready to develop such rites, and I hope there will be some movement on that at GC 2006. But then I hope eternally, I suppose.<BR/><BR/>This is a long way to say, yes, I believe we must stand firm, meaning that we cannot give up the canonical requirement to consent or not to the election of bishops, and that we do so mindful of many things regarding manner of life. I do not, by the way consider being gay or lesbian a “manner of life” any more than I do being straight, being male or female, etc. On the other hand I do regard the health of one’s community a reflection of manner of life. And it would be interesting to enquire about any manner of life that supports and condones violence or injustice. <BR/><BR/>At least that’s the best I can do now. More later.Mark Harrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06871096746243771489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1145985829994880602006-04-25T13:23:00.000-04:002006-04-25T13:23:00.000-04:00Mark,I'm somewhat confused by your recent nosh. T...Mark,<BR/><BR/>I'm somewhat confused by your recent nosh. The tone of this and the other noshes suggests one of challenge and resistance to Windsor. You then end this nosh hoping that the Episcopal Church will "stand firm" this summer, which implies not changing its position on human sexuality and the interpretation of Scripture. <BR/><BR/>Here is my confusion. The proposed resolutions from the Special Commission (which if I am not mistaken included you) are being billed by the powers that be as our attempt at doing the Lambeth Walk (Oy!) (Any Me and My Gal fans out there?). <BR/><BR/>So your posts suggest that you are NOT in agreement with the proposed resolutions from your own Special Commission, which seem to be asking the Episcopal Church to "move" from its 2003 GC position (and by implication not "stand firm"). Have I missed something? Thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1145923181596861422006-04-24T19:59:00.000-04:002006-04-24T19:59:00.000-04:00Yes, its a threat, and this from a group that was ...Yes, its a threat, and this from a group that was supposed to come up with a set of recommendations about how to maintain the highest degree of communion possible. Threats are a WONDERFUL way to do that.<BR/><BR/>Linzey's article is very good. I would disagree that Canterbury has anything to do with being Anglican. No one knows what being Anglican means, which is why we have to argue about it. A common history (which looks different depending on where you sit) and some form of the BCP are part of the definition, but facile appeals to the Elizabethan settlement, the great Lux Mundi and post Lux mundi traditions of progressive Catholicism, or such formularies as the 39 articles never seem to settle the question. Perhaps the reason we argue about Anglican Identity is that it is so diffuse. The future of Anglicanism may depend on redefining our identity in specifically missional terms. Here too, though, we disagree about what the mission of God is and what it entails.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com