Proclamation from the NY Bishops’ Summit

A copper kettle is a must. Not just because it has an old-fashion flair and because it’s really expensive–the thermal conduction and chemical composition do actually help.

Fresh cream is essential. Can’t start without a good base.

And don’t get lazy either, lobbing in big chunks of chocolate. Take the time to shave it with a serrated knife. That way the chocolate incorporates much faster and cleaner.

Worldwide Christianity sometimes wonders if we Anglican types have anything to contribute beyond the best two-office synthesis of the monastic hours and the retention of snooty vergers with pinching undergarments. They forget that we have a long, proud tradition of making really, really, good fudge.

I’m proud of the bishops for upholding this fine tradition…

Read it here from the daily episcopalian.

Update: …and the ABC demonstrates that the Old-World tradition is still alive and well, too.

7 thoughts on “Proclamation from the NY Bishops’ Summit

  1. Chris T.

    Shorter assembled bishops in NYC: We didn’t accomplish anything, and we don’t actually have the canonical authority to do anything by ourselves anyway, but we’d like you to congratulate us for sitting around a table together for three days. Mmm…that was good coffee.

    Shorter Rowan Williams: I’m continuing my policy of saying nothing substantive and providing no leadership to the Anglican Communion, not to speak of the wider Church for which I am a bishop. Hope that works for you.


    (Actually, that wasn’t even a “shorter” Rowan Williams, because his real statement was like three lines. What is up with him? Nice of him not to even show up to this meeting, too.)

  2. Marshall

    With respect, Chris, showing up was one thing he could not do. It would suggest that he in fact had authority to act, and not to simply support mediation within this province. Even in asking folks to meet, he only did so after consulting with the Presiding Bishop.

    In any case, this is the result I expected. Canterbury has said, “I have no authority to take on anything or anyone outside the Church of England. You need to work this out within the Episcopal Church.” Having said that, the Network community can only look for another primate elsewhere. They cannot expect to find a primate whose substituted authority the Episcopal Church could accept, much less be compelled to accept.

  3. Caelius

    Chocolate is not the only thing around here being that can be cut with a knife ;)

    I’m listening to BBC Choral Evensong this week (Latine in toto ex Oratorio Londinio). It helps…

  4. Chris T.

    “It would suggest that he in fact had authority to act,”

    Just what authority did the assembled TEC bishops have? They can’t do anything without the full House of Bishops and the House of Deputies anyhow, if understand Episcopalian polity.

    I fail to see how providing some kind of leadership is inappropriate for the various bishops involved, ++Rowan included. He’s the spiritual leader of the Anglican Communion. He can help with direction and possibilities for reconciliation without stepping on any toes canonically speaking (not to speak of providing leadership, as I mentioned, for the entire Church, for which he like all bishops was consecrated). Instead, he seems to want to sit in Canterbury and release vague statements with little content. Disappointing.

  5. Chris T.

    Marshall — I’m curious what authority you think the American bishops there had under the canons of the Episcopal Church. As far as I understand the denomination’s polity, as an outsider, they had no authority to make any real decisions for the whole denomination without the vote of the House of Bishops and the House of Deputies.

    It’s not a question of authority to do Official Church Things, but rather a question of all these bishops providing some genuine leadership in a serious ecclesial crisis. It is part of ++Rowan’s calling as Archbishop of Canterbury to provide leadership to the whole AC, and part of his calling as a bishop to provide leadership to the entire Christian church. It is sad to see him and so many others in purple abdicating that responsibility, choosing instead to issue vague statements with no content at all.

  6. Chris T.

    Oops — sorry for the double (now triple) post — I got an error the first time and the comment didn’t show up after several refreshes.

  7. Derek the Ænglican

    Leadership is (and always has been) a problem. A strong church has to be one with empowered laity because–guess what–the folks in purple shirts don’t have all the answers. Nor the people in black ones… Right now we’re playing the role of a flock of sheep but the bishops are playing the role of big sheep–not that of shepherds…

Comments are closed.