tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29373297.post4857217461095295108..comments2024-03-23T18:50:32.902-04:00Comments on Telling Secrets: Talk about a 'Climate Changer'!Elizabeth Kaetonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06787552280232329081noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29373297.post-2723387365245807432008-10-22T22:42:00.000-04:002008-10-22T22:42:00.000-04:00Rev Elizabeth,Concedo at one level. Long and long...Rev Elizabeth,<BR/><BR/>Concedo at one level. Long and long ago before business school, I was a poli sci major. Surely a non-decision is a decision / response. Refusing to be stampeded is a good thing.<BR/><BR/>My problem is not with the response as it applies to those who will leave. "They have their reward" to borrow a phrase.<BR/><BR/>The issues, for me at least: <BR/><BR/> The institutionalism that will remain -- starting in Lambeth palace. <BR/><BR/> The attempt to stampede TEC and ACCanada.<BR/> <BR/>There is not, that I can see, a dime's worth of difference between ++RW's willingness to toss us under the bus for a mythic "Anglican Church" and the argument we just read on HoB/D that it does not matter if Jesus said "I am <B>THE</B> way..." because the church has taught it. Both are wrong because they place the institution above the truth or at least the search for it.<BR/><BR/>I a mere rejected postulant lay guy. I can say that the WWAC deserves a sharp response to the Archbishop's transparent attempt to steamroll us into his, "Anglican Church." And if we are misguided enough (I agree with Lindy) to actually consider a covenant, we really should spend both time and money to study and debate it. <BR/><BR/>I just happen to think we can do both. Move the line items that support the driver of the steamroller and his staff to the study and discussion / debate. Then the "We get it" message is clear and we have time and funding for study. Better yet, move half to that project and half to support seminarians who need the help. That way, they can join the conversation.<BR/><BR/>FWIW<BR/>jimBJimBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17312606954135884910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29373297.post-77879812276802335982008-10-22T20:32:00.000-04:002008-10-22T20:32:00.000-04:00I still think that a covenant -- ANY covenant -- i...I still think that a covenant -- ANY covenant -- is a bad idea. It's unAnglican and unnecessary.<BR/><BR/>Besides, we need not do anything to appease those who are going to leave anyway. I agree with you. Let's give all the leavers time to leave, light on and everything... THEN let's totally reject the idea of a covenant.<BR/><BR/>Regarding the ERD elections, Texas doesn't even support the budget of General Convention. Texans and their bishops should be barred from participaiton on committees until they start participating in our financial life.Lindyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04662429826507775390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29373297.post-29817845834661542162008-10-22T10:51:00.000-04:002008-10-22T10:51:00.000-04:00Well, Jim, I think saying, "We simply don't have t...Well, Jim, I think saying, "We simply don't have time to deal with this in a thoughtful way by General Convention IS a response."<BR/><BR/>I don't think we should be pushed or bullied into it - which is what the CDG has been doing. The real danger is the punative slant of it all. Let's let things cool down, let the hot heads leave, if they are going to leave, give us a chance to say goodbye and leave the porch light on and THEN deal with a Covenant.<BR/><BR/>This way, we set the pace for refusing the anxiety demand-feeding that is being promoted by Drexel Gomez - and, still making a response.Elizabeth Kaetonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06787552280232329081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29373297.post-51586134265218920022008-10-22T10:45:00.000-04:002008-10-22T10:45:00.000-04:00No surprise, I don't agree with the PB, although w...No surprise, I don't agree with the PB, although we are closer than usual.<BR/>Should the GC respond either by endorsing or dismissing the next set of bad ideas from ++Canterbury's pet constitutionalists? No. GC should, however, respond.<BR/><BR/>My suggestion is that it design a discussion process requiring a commission selected by the provicial synods (yes I remember the inability of some to see past the coasts)funded with the monies normally used for ACC contributions. All of that money, every dime should be diverted for three years. <BR/><BR/>If CoE are determined to become a confessional ideology, we should spend some time and treasure considering options. <BR/><BR/>I do agree that ++RW could learn from a study of the PB's leadership style. <BR/><BR/><BR/>FWIW<BR/>jimBJimBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17312606954135884910noreply@blogger.com