The Archbishop's Panel of Reference report is in, and it has a strong endorsement of the Dallas Plan compromise as well as good recommendations for our future life in ECUSA. I would characterize it as a crackdown on intolerance in the General Convention. Unfortunately, it will likely be treated as but one more ignored plea in the Anglican circle of intervention. You can read it all here.
The local newspaper also covered the story in this article. Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori's comment on the pastoral compromise called the Dallas Plan was of special interest:
"My sense is that the Dallas Plan provides for women and seems to be adequate, and our understanding is that it does seem to be responsive to the canons," she said.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
It's more like a commendation in favor of the status quo against some on the liberal wing. I also suspect that Presiding Bishop Griswold, with whom the Panel talked, is correct to suggest that most of the GC is and has been willing to let things be.
Still, if what the diocese means by "open reception" is that it will ignore and avoid the issue, an avoidance the Dallas plan facilitates, then there will almost certainly come a time when the issue will have to be forced.
Jon
Good observations, though I would say the avoidance is not of the issue of WO, but rather of the practice.
Are TEC and the diocese of Fort Worth moving towards consensus on the theological possibility of ordaining women? I get the impression that they aren't and that there isn't much work being done to encourage the tension to be resolved either.
Jon
I don't have a great length of personal history with the situation (not before the mid 90s and after the FW Synod days), but my sense is that the situation was in the "agree to disagree" mode except for the 1997 canon change and accompanying task force which ratcheted up the tension and then turned into nothing.
I suppose its also true that the consecration of Bishop Robinson also diverted alot of attention from the issue of WO on both sides.
I thought "agree to disagree" might be the current mode of operation. What bothers me most about that is that it leaves the church disagreeing with itself. If the matter is adiaphora that sort of disagreement could be acceptable, but if it's adiaphora it becomes less clear to me why the diocese insists that only male priests can serve in the diocese for longer than whatever the grace period is.
Jon
Post a Comment