tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1941566034196038608.post4347997883078657607..comments2024-01-22T00:22:46.724-08:00Comments on Bishop Dan's Blog: BISHOPS BEHAVING BADLY: A CANDID ACCOUNTBishop Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00677552161067636954noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1941566034196038608.post-17023164056583474402016-12-21T18:12:39.644-08:002016-12-21T18:12:39.644-08:00Suspicion of vestries puzzles me. I know it happen...Suspicion of vestries puzzles me. I know it happens, but they are the regular folks in the pews elected by their friends and neighbors. Yet, you are right, Tammy. People suspect them of all sorts of chicanery. <br /><br /><br />Bishop Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00677552161067636954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1941566034196038608.post-27039891107361838392016-12-21T18:12:38.123-08:002016-12-21T18:12:38.123-08:00Suspicion of vestries puzzles me. I know it happen...Suspicion of vestries puzzles me. I know it happens, but they are the regular folks in the pews elected by their friends and neighbors. Yet, you are right, Tammy. People suspect them of all sorts of chicanery. <br /><br /><br />Bishop Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00677552161067636954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1941566034196038608.post-84607233536347299802016-12-21T18:12:21.496-08:002016-12-21T18:12:21.496-08:00Suspicion of vestries puzzles me. I know it happen...Suspicion of vestries puzzles me. I know it happens, but they are the regular folks in the pews elected by their friends and neighbors. Yet, you are right, Tammy. People suspect them of all sorts of chicanery. <br /><br /><br />Bishop Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00677552161067636954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1941566034196038608.post-80198391171698330302016-12-17T22:14:10.371-08:002016-12-17T22:14:10.371-08:00I would say the suspicion you describe about Bisho...I would say the suspicion you describe about Bishops is the same suspicion that creeps up about vestrys. "They are..._____“ I always wonder who the" they" are? Aren't the members of your vestry the same people you have known, loved, and trusted for years? I suspect the same is true for Bishops. Perhaps it is our propensity to see everything as "us vs them"??? Or, perhaps we just love a good conspiracy, even if it doesn't seem grounded in truth. <br />Tammy Pallothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16498911254587786206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1941566034196038608.post-26469363490112678512016-12-17T21:21:28.534-08:002016-12-17T21:21:28.534-08:00Oh just to refine the history a bit: Gene Robinson...Oh just to refine the history a bit: Gene Robinson's election was 03. I was not there at the time but i know it was a tough vote. There was no formal request from the Anglican Communion bishops not to consent to Gene's election. There wasn't really time for such a thing. The NH election precipitated a crisis. Our standard is that if a Diocese has gone through the proper process to elect a bishop, we consent. It was canonically challenging to find grounds to vote no. Still, I know one bishop who went to Gen Con prepared to vote "no" for the sake of international unity, but hearing the arguments presented at Gen Con felt morally compelled to vote yes. I really don't think that was hubris but integrity at least on his part. <br /><br />The year you mention 06, the Anglican Communion through the Windsor Report asked TEC to exercise restraint on ordaining gay bishops. The House of Bishops voted to comply -- a vote I assume you would approve. The House of Deputies voted down the restraint resolution defying the Anglican Communion. The outgoing and incoming Presiding Bishops implored the Deputies to change their vote, which they did, but have been angry at the Bishops ever since. <br /><br />But you are saying that based on the votes of the bishops in 03 and 06, people are justified in accusing us of sexual profligacy and financial sculduggery today? <br />Bishop Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00677552161067636954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1941566034196038608.post-3740807472531121202016-12-17T18:43:43.905-08:002016-12-17T18:43:43.905-08:00A real question. Thank you for your input. That is...A real question. Thank you for your input. That is a different reason for disrespecting us. Not that we ae ourselves immoral as the FB post suggest but that we are arrogant liberals. Of course, the Deputies regard us as conservative. But those are both perspectives worth of respect.<br /><br />Bishop Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00677552161067636954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1941566034196038608.post-18334690968499122342016-12-17T14:06:13.231-08:002016-12-17T14:06:13.231-08:00Was your question rhetorical or do you want people...Was your question rhetorical or do you want people to answer? I lost all respect for the house of bishops in 2006 when they voted to elevate Gene Robinson. I personally did not opposed gay bishops but I opposed the way it was done. Our Anglican brothers and sisters pleaded with us to delay. Some of those Anglican bishops were from countries where homosexuality is a crime punishable by death. But the hob could not delay and in their hubris cast a vote that would not only damage the Episcopal/Anglican relationship but would damage the relationship between church hierarchy and parishioner. My opinion of the hob is that they are arrogant and stubborn and out-of-touch. What real harm would it have been to delay the vote and engage a dialogue with the AC? Both bodies may have grown and gained from the exchange. <br />I guess there could be a loose parallel here to the DNC- they too thought they knew best and things ended badly for them - Hubris again! <br />Once a person or group is viewed as arrogant it is easy to always see the worst in them. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07725018198537832131noreply@blogger.com