A "Sub-Group" of four, appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury to gauge the Episcopal Church's response to the Windsor Report at ECUSA's 2006 General Convention, released its findings. I tend to concur with Fr David Anderson's analysis, which said in part:
“This report gives a ‘best-case scenario’ picture of TEC that is not only skewed in favor of TEC but quite simply fails to reflect the reality of life in the Episcopal Church..."
I wonder whether the sanguineness of the report is not, in part, out of a charitable generosity toward ECUSA. On the other hand, I agree that it does not represent the "facts on the ground" in America. A particularly trenchant point was made by Canon Harmon near-adequacy of the Episcopal Church's response to Windsor is belied by several subsequent bishop nominations of people living in non-celibate, same-sex relationships, as well as by the authorization of rites for the "blessing" of non-celibate, same-sex relationships in several dioceses. Sure, there haven't been lots of such instances. But the several that there have been illustrate that the phenomenon is a burgeoning one in ECUSA, and that ECUSA, whatever her intentions (which I suspect were not conducive of Anglican unity to begin with), has not managed to halt its drift away from the teaching of the Communion, to say nothing of the Church catholic. The report seems either blithely blind to the fact of such authorizations and nominations, or content that they are only happening (so far) in a few dioceses. But then again, they are happening right where one expect them to be (i.e. NOT Fort Worth or Pittsburgh). And their occurance is in the face of ECUSA's ostensive (near) compliance with Windsor. How does that work exactly?
NB: TEC = ECUSA = The Episcopal Church (in the United States of America).
“This report gives a ‘best-case scenario’ picture of TEC that is not only skewed in favor of TEC but quite simply fails to reflect the reality of life in the Episcopal Church..."
I wonder whether the sanguineness of the report is not, in part, out of a charitable generosity toward ECUSA. On the other hand, I agree that it does not represent the "facts on the ground" in America. A particularly trenchant point was made by Canon Harmon near-adequacy of the Episcopal Church's response to Windsor is belied by several subsequent bishop nominations of people living in non-celibate, same-sex relationships, as well as by the authorization of rites for the "blessing" of non-celibate, same-sex relationships in several dioceses. Sure, there haven't been lots of such instances. But the several that there have been illustrate that the phenomenon is a burgeoning one in ECUSA, and that ECUSA, whatever her intentions (which I suspect were not conducive of Anglican unity to begin with), has not managed to halt its drift away from the teaching of the Communion, to say nothing of the Church catholic. The report seems either blithely blind to the fact of such authorizations and nominations, or content that they are only happening (so far) in a few dioceses. But then again, they are happening right where one expect them to be (i.e. NOT Fort Worth or Pittsburgh). And their occurance is in the face of ECUSA's ostensive (near) compliance with Windsor. How does that work exactly?
NB: TEC = ECUSA = The Episcopal Church (in the United States of America).
1 comment:
Just remember... the Church's foundation is Jesus, not +Schiori.
At the same time, it is a sorry commentary on the state of our church, when we have to pray that our presiding bishop becomes a Christian.
Post a Comment