[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]

Without Consultation or Disagreeing with the Advice?



We not only consulted, we paid much of the bill.

We paid thousands upon thousands of dollars for the the airfare,
hotel, and meal costs of a long list of Anglican bishops hostile to
the action we were considering, and they, like any other objectors,
had the privilege of signing up to speak at the hearings.

Archbishop Fearon, who is far to the right of his primate Archbishop
Akinola, preached at the main Sunday Eucharist in the morning of the
day the House of Deputies voted to consent to the election of Bishop
Robinson.

Can you name any other province in the Anglican Communion that would
so earnestly attempt to hear from people opposed to the actions they
were considering?  Most of the rest of the Communion has made no
effort to live into the bishops' pledge at Lambeth to hear the stories
of lesbian and gay Christians.

L.
Member of Executive Council, L2 Nwk


Louie Crew, 377 S. Harrison St., 12D, E. Orange, NJ 07018 973-395-1068
http://www.andromeda.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/lutipew.html  From Lutibelle's Pew

[I include Eliot Moss's original note with his gracious permission.  -- LC]

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 18:09:46 -0500
> From: Eliot Moss <moss@cs.umass.edu>
> Reply-To: "forum@hobd.org" <forum@hobd.org>,
>      "moss@cs.umass.edu" <moss@cs.umass.edu>
> To: "bishopsdeputies@hobd.org" <bishopsdeputies@hobd.org>
> Subject: [forum] Re: [HoB/D] Colorado Bishop regrets His Vote
>
> Dear Mark (at el.): At the risk of being slightly repetitive of remarks
> made by others, I think there's a difference between acting "without due
> consultation" and acting "contrary to advice heard in consultation". It
> does appear true that, through the HoD and the Bishops' votes, TEC has
> acted contrary to the desires and preferences of a number of Primates,
> etc. To me, that is different from "without due consultation". I may
> consult someone, reflect on what they say, and _still_ feel the right
> course is contrary to their preference and advice. This does not mean I
> necessarily disrespect them, only that I disagree with them. If my decision
> turns out to be wrong, I was wrong, and perhaps will recognize that in
> hindsight I would have been better off taking their advice. But if I am
> reflective in my decision -- and I give the vast majority of the deputies
> and bishops credit for this -- it would be wrong to call the decision
> impulsive, etc. "Without due consultation" suggests that the input of
> others was not known, or was not taken into account, or was not given
> weight. I believe it _was_ known and taken into account and given weight by
> most deputies and bishops. Just because they decided contrary to the
> preference of many people does not mean that they did so lightly,
> unthinking of the consequences, etc. I see "without due consultation" as
> making a judgment rather than stating a fact, and the implicit judgment is
> one that people have not justified. It comes across as really saying "_I_
> wish other people had given certain opinions and preferences more weight",
> but framed as a "you" statement rather than an "I" statement.  May I
> suggest that folks use phrases more along the lines of "acting contrary to
> advice"? And stick to "I" statements? Good principles in any argument, I
> believe ....
>
> Peace and Advent greetings to all to whom this message comes ---
>
> Eliot Moss, lay kibitzer, Western Massachusetts
>
>
> --
> This is the House of Bishops and Deputies discussion forum. See
>  http://hobd.org/ for more information.
>
>




Please sign my guestbook and view it.


My site has been accessed times since February 14, 1996.

Statistics courtesy of WebCounter.