There has been considerable chatter over the fate of The Episcopal Church (TEC) throughout September, especially now with only six days left until Bishop Kate must respond to the February Dar es Salaam Communique. Par the course, a number of orthodox bishops have recently reiterated their promise to leave TEC, complete with diocese, should the church not accept the terms of the Communique.
Noticeably, the Rt. Rev. Jeffrey Steenson, bishop of the Rio Grande, has been a part of this contingent. Until now. On Friday, Bishop Steenson wrote his clergy, announcing that he will relinquish his see at the end of the year. Further, the Bishop hints (and Stand Firm confirms) that he will be entering into full communion with the Church of Rome. The “church of the last straw” has left many of her faithful hanging by a thread after Rowan Williams hinted that TEC might delay its response to the Communique at the recent House of Bishops meeting in New Orleans. Is it possible to continue TEC’s “listening process” from across the Tiber?
Maybe your diction is purposeful, but I thought Anglicans used the term bishopric rather than diocese or see.
And as for +Steenson’s conversion, as in most of these cases, I have to wonder which was stronger: the push or the pull.
It remains to be seen whether Steenson will look to the heterodox faction of TEC or the claims of Rome and say “because of you….” As he stated in his rather cursory letter of Friday, he has long been sympathetic to Catholic theology, and especially those churches in Texas that are “Anglican use” Catholic parishes – in full communion with Rome but use the 1928 BCP and retain an Anglican liturgy. I think that it might be a mixture of the two – he was by no means as snug as a bug in a rug, but had the House of Bishops taken a different path over the past 4 years, he might have remained in TEC.
In Defense of Jeffrey Steenson:
http://cantuar.blogspot.com/2007/09/in-defense-of-bishop-jeffrey-steenson.html