Frank Griswold: The Foxes In the Henhouse Will Protect the Hens
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030930/ap_on_re_us/episcopal_leader_interview_4
In the above article, our Episcopal presiding bishop, Frank Griswold, has recently said that if there is to be a separate Anglican province in America, then it will probably be the responsibility of the Episcopal Church's General Convention to create such a jurisdiction...Hmm, is this not asking the foxes (who just took over the henhouse) to create a separate location for the hens?? Will the foxes protect the hens?
Why would a small local body (ECUSA) that just recently voted to separate itself from the wider communion, create a separate jurisdiction for people who agree with the wider communion? Perhaps such a delay will keep money in the coffers of the national church for a little longer while we "have dialogue." Regardless, I don't think the Anglican communion will play ball on this proposition.
In the same article, Bp. Griswold says that the issue of sexuality has not been resolved in our Church, and that Robinson's approval simply means that he was duely elected by the New Hampshire Diocese. I don't know if "due election" and "good meetings" are biblical or historical christian values that trump all sorts of behavior the Church has classified as sin, but boy do Episcopalians do "process" well. If "doing meetings" and "talking about an issue forever" are virtues, then ECUSA is virtuous. While I am sure Bp. Griswold is not trying to be dishonest, outside of the insulated urban world of ECUSA in which he lives, most people understand that by electing Robinson and looking the other way at gay unions, ECUSA has made a fairly obvious decision. Call ECUSA's position "continuing the discussion" or whatever phrase expresses it in its most cloudy nuance, but ECUSA has pretty much made a decision. And despite what is said, many feel that the discussion has been stopped. After all, astute historians know that in the late-modernist period, many in ECUSA often act in violation of the canons, forcing the hand of the entire group to change the canons.
We'll see what happens to ECUSA, but at least let's be honest.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030930/ap_on_re_us/episcopal_leader_interview_4
In the above article, our Episcopal presiding bishop, Frank Griswold, has recently said that if there is to be a separate Anglican province in America, then it will probably be the responsibility of the Episcopal Church's General Convention to create such a jurisdiction...Hmm, is this not asking the foxes (who just took over the henhouse) to create a separate location for the hens?? Will the foxes protect the hens?
Why would a small local body (ECUSA) that just recently voted to separate itself from the wider communion, create a separate jurisdiction for people who agree with the wider communion? Perhaps such a delay will keep money in the coffers of the national church for a little longer while we "have dialogue." Regardless, I don't think the Anglican communion will play ball on this proposition.
In the same article, Bp. Griswold says that the issue of sexuality has not been resolved in our Church, and that Robinson's approval simply means that he was duely elected by the New Hampshire Diocese. I don't know if "due election" and "good meetings" are biblical or historical christian values that trump all sorts of behavior the Church has classified as sin, but boy do Episcopalians do "process" well. If "doing meetings" and "talking about an issue forever" are virtues, then ECUSA is virtuous. While I am sure Bp. Griswold is not trying to be dishonest, outside of the insulated urban world of ECUSA in which he lives, most people understand that by electing Robinson and looking the other way at gay unions, ECUSA has made a fairly obvious decision. Call ECUSA's position "continuing the discussion" or whatever phrase expresses it in its most cloudy nuance, but ECUSA has pretty much made a decision. And despite what is said, many feel that the discussion has been stopped. After all, astute historians know that in the late-modernist period, many in ECUSA often act in violation of the canons, forcing the hand of the entire group to change the canons.
We'll see what happens to ECUSA, but at least let's be honest.
