Wednesday, April 02, 2008

Considering the Source of the New Attacks Against Our Presiding Bishop

There continues to be feigned shouts of outrage regarding the deposition of Bishops Schofield and Cox. Personally, I think the outrage is just a show. If the rejectionists were not outraged about this, they'd find something else to wail about. And I'm getting pretty sick of it, to be quite honest.

John-David Schofield resigned, and admitted that he had abandoned TEC and joined the Southern Cone. When asked about the charges against him, Bp. Cox responded by admitting that he was indeed guilty of abandonment. Both men have left TEC.

So, the House of Bishops deposed them. They used the same process as has been used in previous depositions. It is George Conger's reading of the canons in question that are the innovation, not the actions of our Presiding Bishop.

And yet there are those issuing all manner of threats and ultimatums. Who are these outraged people?

Not one Bishop objected during the meeting. But, after it was over, and he had tested which way the wind was blowing, Bp. John Howe suddenly became quite disturbed about the matter. This is the same Bishop John Howe who conspired with Bp. William Wantland in a coup attempt back in 1996. Bp. Howe is lucky to still be walking around free after such a stunt, let alone still wearing a purple shirt.

Bp. Howe, and his former conspirator Bp. Wantland, are not alone in this attempt to either take over TEC or destroy it, however. Maybe it is time to once again remind ourselves exactly what these rejectionists (also known as the American Anglican Coucil, Network, and Common Cause; all the same entity, just three different names) have been up to over the last decade or so.

By now I would hope you all are familiar with the 2003 Chapman memo. If not, you need to stop right now and go read it. Here's just a few lines worth noting: transfer of Parish oversight across geographic diocesan boundaries...
...We will creatively redirect finances...
...disobedience of canon law on a widespread basis may be necessary...
...we do have non-geographical oversight available from “offshore” Bishops, and retired Bishops...
Links to similar statements by members of the Network can be found here. An example of what you will find there is this 2003 document, which includes the following statements from some of the Network Bishops:

We, as Bishops in North America...
We intend to cross the US/Canada boundaries.
We will no longer be at table with those who consecrated Gene Robinson.
We commit to the guerrilla warfare of the next year...
Gentlemen, it seems to me that you have a lot of damn gall to make any accusations about others not following Canon law.

Folks, you need to get one thing very clear in your minds. Nothing the Episcopal Church does or does not do will appease these people. If they are Network, or if they have aligned themselves with some marauding foreign Primate, their goal is to destroy and conquer.

Right now, all this wailing about the Canons is coming from this same group. And if it wasn't this, it would be some other trumped up issue. That is their ploy; keep us on the defensive so they can further their nefarious plans while we are distracted by their outrage.

So, if you have something to say about the Canons, I'm going to ask you one question first. Are you Network? If you are, (as every one of those "outraged" have proven to be so far) then we have nothing to talk about. Go play your "outraged" role somewhere that will appreciate your dramatic flair.


UPDATE: 4/10/2008 - I've edited the above. My frustration should have been carefully directed towards the leadership of the Network. I know that there are members of the Network who have little knowledge of what their leaders are doing, and sincerely believe that they are supporting a worthy cause. We need to keep talking to those folks.

1 comment:

  1. Perhaps a lot of the current unpleasantness would have been averted if a certain Sewanee chaplain had encouraged a certain impressionable undergraduate that the Nicene Creed is worthy of belief. Instead, the chaplain did not just encourage unbelief but also advocated it and the rest is now history.