Our system in the Episcopal Church is not perfect and, most certainly, includes politics and jockeying for position, and, no doubt, includes unofficial secret meetings, but, compared to the process in the Church of England, ours appears a model of transparency. As the persons involved in the Church of England strive for secrecy in their procedures, their method begs for leaks. Just my two cents, and it would be none of my business if the leader of the Church of England did not appear to be attempting to grab for himself the title of Anglican pope.
However, a secret meeting of senior Church figures has decided to overlook Dr John amid fears that his consecration would have provoked a split in the Church.
....
…It is understood that discussions at the two-day meeting, held at a secret location in Stepney, were heated with members of the Commission arguing over whether they should select Dr John.
Dr Williams is said to have been furious at the pressure placed on him and the other members by a leak to The Sunday Telegraph, which revealed the dean was on the shortlist. He asked the rest of the Commission to swear an oath of secrecy about the talks.
For nothing is hidden that will not be disclosed, nor is anything secret that will not become known and come to light.
Luke 8:17
UPDATE:
Check out Church Mouse's post and the comments at his blog.
UPDATE 2: And there's Anglican Minimalist's essay contest.
Essay Contest: Anglican Covenant Values
Essay Question: Compare and contrast the two scenarios for how well they represent the Anglican Covenant values of interdependence and subsidiarity and the larger community issues of transparency, directness and candor.
Read the descriptions of the scenarios at AM's blog.
H/T to Peter Carey at The Lead.
If any of that's true, then Rowan still does not look very good.
ReplyDeleteAnd from Nick Baines's Blog:
ReplyDelete"In today's update (again, speculative) the language has shifted interestingly from Sunday’s edition. On Sunday the Crown Nominations Commission is a ‘confidential meeting’; now, apparently, it is a ‘secret meeting’ which took place at a ‘secret location’. How sinister. Confidentiality is something we respect (allegedly), but secrecy implies something to hide. Yet this is purely in the mind of the writer."
As to the way the CoE appoints Bishops he comments:
"I was on the Perry Commission which reported on the appointment of diocesan bishops back in 2002 (‘Working with the Spirit’). We examined the ways other churches elect their bishops and rejected them for sound reasons – not least the politicking that goes with such systems and the fact that the very people who probably should be eligible are the sort of people who will not put themselves forward in such a system. What is interesting to me is how commentators on the one hand condemn our current system while, on the other, say they don’t understand it. Now, that’s weird."
Again, he may be wrong, but we may just all be shooting off too quickly because it confirms our prejudice.
I wonder how often Jonathan Wynne-Jones embroiders the truth just to get credit for the story. I'm not saying that what he reported didn't happen in some form or other, but it appears to me that his paint brush is often over loaded, causing smears outside the lines. I was skeptical of the leak in the first place, but it would give the "senior church officials" the perfect out. Not saying it is justified, just observing.
ReplyDeleteCounterlight, there's no way that Rowan comes out of this situation looking good. How much of the mess is due to systemic problems in the CofE, I can't say.
ReplyDeleteErika, thanks for your link. It would take some doing to convince me that the English way is better. With all its faults, I'll take our method over theirs without thinking twice.
Susan, who is closer to speaking the truth, I have no way of knowing, but I'll take transparency over secrecy any day.
Have you been reading pluralist lately?
ReplyDeletehttp://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2010/07/rowanov-treetri-hello-john-its-rowanov.html
Susan, Pluralist is wonderful. I linked to his first satire, and I just finished reading his latest post.
ReplyDeleteThis was precisely my thought. Why is any of the process secret? We trot our bishop candidates around in dog and pony shows, then a bunch of elected clergy and lay people vote for them. Our gay bishops were both approved by elected clergy and lay delegates across the church. To hear some commentators from England, there's some cabal of liberal bishops foisting these queer folks on the poor innocent rank and file of TEC, who apparently would rather have none of that. Then it occurs to me that they think that because it's exactly what they're used to. Look what the ABC is about to do to women bishops.
ReplyDeleteBishop Alan has a post worth reading, put up before yesterday's news. Erika has read it, I know.
ReplyDeleteWynne-Jones is beginning to look as sanctimonious a prig as anyone in Holy Orders.
Posting earlier today at Church Mouse Blog, where Pete Broadbent, the evangelical Bishop of Willesden has been giving his take on the situation, Poppy Tupper said "My experience of meetings? Well, plenty. Let's for instance mention that the CNC apparatchiks turned up to a rural diocese, listened to the evidence and said 'Anthony Priddis is just the man you need'. They were turned down. They then appeared in an urban diocese, for the same process and said 'Anthony Priddis is just the man you need'. Turned down again. It was his turn, you see, and they would try to fit him in anywhere. I don't know how many times this happened before Hereford fell for it. That's the way it's done. And I can't tell you how many times I've seen a bishop or archbishop have a hissy fit in a meeting because he wasn't getting his own way. I've lost count." One explanation of how the Holy Spirit operates in the Church of England.
ps I have only recently noticed Church Mouse, but it is an excellent blog. Check Print and weep Synodical Bingo, its hilarious contribution to relieving the boredom of General Synod. All can play.
ReplyDeleteWilfried, exactly.
ReplyDeleteLapin, I read Bishop Alan's post. He always writes beautifully and thoughtfully.
Working out just what is going on over there is beyond me, however,
I'll link to Church Mouse's post in an update. It is to laugh, except that it is to cry, also.
I have to admit that I'm not too enamoured of the way we choose our bishops here in the US given the one we recently ended up with in my diocese. Somehow the process broke down. I think this diocese was seduced into electing him because of his appearance (he's very tall and looks impressive, imposing and powerful) and the fact that his doctorate is in something called "church growth". I think the diocese elected him in the hopes that he would bring in the numbers.
ReplyDeleteHe has been egregiously unjust to a number of people here; I'm by no means the only one.
I have learned that people who knew him from another diocese tried to warn our chancellor of the kind of man he really is and the chancellor dismissed the information claiming that it wasn't credible.
Ellie, with our method, we make bad choices sometimes, but would you want to switch to the CofE's process?
ReplyDeleteFor me, Ellie, your bishop's official portrait (this is your bishop, isn't it?) says it all.
ReplyDeleteI don't know, Mimi. Maybe not. However I believe our process is deeply flawed (and I believed that long before Oklahoma's current bishop was elected). The problem is not election as such but the profiling/search process.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, Lapin, that's the very one. Cold, steely eyes, aren't they? He's a former undercover cop, by the way.
What were they thinking?!
ReplyDeleteI don't know. What can I say? This is Oklahoma.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how often Jonathan Wynne-Jones embroiders the truth just to get credit for the story. I'm not saying that what he reported didn't happen in some form or other, but it appears to me that his paint brush is often over loaded, causing smears outside the lines.
ReplyDeleteI think most reporters do this, especially if it is an exclusive. Responsible reporters will try to do it within the boundaries that seem to them to represent honesty, but all reporters try to squeeze as much drama out of a story as they can. It is a kind of storytelling instinct, and also a sense of importance in being involved in the drama, and also the result of pressure from the news team who decide what does and does not go in the paper that day - reporters all compete with each other, and reporters like JWJ whose job focuses on a particular field write a lot of stuff that does not get in, because the news team just are not interested in it. Also, you have to take into account that JWJ is probably entirely dependent on his source, and who knows what the source's agenda is? The source will have one, that's for sure - there is something that will have made the source very angry, otherwise why leak information?
Anyway, everyone who reads Wounded Bird has got a large brain, so I'm sure you all know this stuff already. It's just interesting, I think.
Just up at the Guardian - Stephen Bates on Williams and the John affair.
ReplyDeleteOne senior cleric said: "The time of reckoning has come for Rowan. The events of seven years ago have bitten him hard in the very week women bishops comes to the crunch. He should realise there are greater considerations, like truth, justice, openness, fidelity to the rules and all those things the church proclaims. Many are dismayed by his constant capitulation to the fringe noisemakers".
He's a former undercover cop, by the way.
ReplyDeleteI took one look at your bishop, Ellie, and gave a loud cry of dismay. Then I read the undercover cop bit!!! You must be kidding!!! I'm sorry, he looks like one mean son of a bitch. Pardon my language.
Ellie, I see what you mean, luv. The eyes....
ReplyDeleteCathy, I understand what reporters do quite well. As a southern storyteller, I sometimes use a little embellishment or emphasize a certain point in the story to make it more interesting, so long as I'm only exaggerating a little and not making stuff up out of whole cloth.
Mimi, you would have made a fabulous reporter. You do have a real instinct.
ReplyDeleteSo does the redoubtable Mad Priest, as I've told him.
Well, in fact, Mimi, blogging does confer on you the status of reporter, I should have added.
ReplyDelete"You must be kidding!!! I'm sorry, he looks like one mean son of a bitch."
ReplyDeleteTrust me, Cathy. "Son of a bitch" is putting it mildly.
You know, as horrible as it was to lose my position and as difficult as it is for me now financially, I am so, so glad I don't work for him any more.
And, on the other topic here:
"As a southern storyteller, I sometimes use a little embellishment..."
Oh, don't I get it, Mimi. My mother (of blessed memory) was truly an expert in this regard! It's very much a revered part of the culture of the Deep South.
Poor Stephen Bates, who lost his faith and became agnostic after covering religious affairs for a number of years for the Guardian. Can you blame him? His is a good article.
ReplyDeleteCathy, I don't have to deal with editors, but I take my readers seriously. Perhaps, I'd be better off with a filter.
Ah, Ellie. You know and understand the embellishment.
You know, the bishop of Los Angeles is also a former cop. Not sure about the undercover part. It's amazing how different he is from Ellie's bishop.
ReplyDeleteI'm wondering if maybe the "undercover" part is key here, Susan. I would imagine doing undercover work would require a person to become comfortable with the idea of using deception and duplicity as a legitimate way of realizing one's objectives.
ReplyDeleteYes, Mimi, I grieved for Stephen Bates as well and truly sympathized with him when that news about his loss of faith broke.
You know, as horrible as it was to lose my position and as difficult as it is for me now financially, I am so, so glad I don't work for him any more.
ReplyDeleteI so totally understand this. I have also worked for bosses I have been utterly relieved to get away from. So I am glad you don't work for this MSOFB* any more too.
* MSOFB now being understood as the polite version.
As for the Essay Contest on Anglican Covenant Values, I think I'll pass.
ReplyDeleteThe only Anglican Covenant "Values" I can see are punishing dissenters and non-conformists, bending to the will of an authoritarian hierarchy, or worst of all, majorities bullying minorities.
No thanks.