Oh noes! Anglican problemz!

I mostly ignored the Anglican blogosphere while I was in Japan — and for the last couple of weeks. Maybe I missed something, but here’s what I think happened. If you are one of the people (like I usually am) who follows these things closely, perhaps you can tell me if I missed anything.

  • Archbishop Rowan Williams has written a letter telling some bishops to stay home from Lambeth George Conger says. N. T. Wright says yes, but not yet. Oops! It’s weeks later and there’s no letter. Once again bishops and journalists were reporting their own wishful thinking, with no apparent correspondence to reality.
  • Our favorite Uncle Fester look-alike came to America. Some people thought our Presiding Bishop should drop everything to sit in the audience and have him remind her that she’s not in The Club. But she was out in Utah doing the work of the church. Snub? Mission-focused? You decide. Note that your decision will depend on whether you have decided that a priori that +KJS is the antichrist or the Christa. A lot of virtual spilled ink on this one.
  • Meanwhile, there has been much sophisticated discourse on these and other matters on the email list for the House of Bishops/Deputies. Oh, wait, that was me reporting my own wishful thinking. I think I deleted around 8,000 messages that contained “He’s mean!” or “She’s a jerk!” Most of these had to do with Rowan, or Bishop Katharine, or San Joaquin, or who gets to sit at which lunch table. It’s depressing to see the leaders of our church stoop to this low level. I console myself by noting that 7,960 of those messages came from the same six people. Maybe things aren’t so bad after all.
  • The Presiding Bishop sent out a letter to the House of Bishops saying that what she did in San Joaquin and with the recent depositions was legal, according to canons. Why? Because she and her peeps say no. I’m with those who say that just because you say it’s true doesn’t make it true. In my view, the situation with San Joaquin and with the depositions was not handled according to canons. In all cases, I think the outcome was foregone and right. But I wish we could have had more collective patience to follow canons and do things justly. Just because I like the results does not mean that justice was served. Sadly, our church has lost some moral ground in the last few months. I hope we can have the grace and strength to resume the noble course.

More later, as I think of things. If I missed anything, or got something wrong, let me know.

You may also like...

2 Responses

  1. George Conger says:

    The Bishop of Durham is told by the Archbishop of Canterbury that a letter will be sent. The Archbishop of Canterbury says in his Advent letter he will do this. The Archbishop of Canterbury’s staff tells me that this is being done—and when the YouTube video message on Lambeth is released tell me that this is not the letter mentioned by Bishop Wright, but a second document. The letter mentioned by Bishop Wright has yet to be sent, they said. Help me understand your comment about the correspondence between wishful thinking and reality? Is it your wish that the letter not be sent and hope that the Bishop of Durham and the Archbishop of Canterbury’s staff are fantasists, and that those who have reported their comments are engaged in wishful thinking?

  2. A friend who’s a deputy in another diocese once offered me the opportunity to be a “kibbitzer” on the HoB/D list. I said no. It was one of the best decisions I ever made.

    I can’t be too self-satisfied, though. After all, I do still read blogs.

%d bloggers like this: