The Botching of the Panel of Reference (continued)

Some may think I was being alarmist about the appointment of ++Peter Carnley to lead the Panel of Reference. Heck, even I was wondering if I was being alarmist. Then I read this article (written by a friend of mine, btw).

Carnley apparently sees the Panel as little more than another mode for “conversation,” not as a means to issue any judgements to guard the faithful. Yes, more holy conversation and dialogue. We’ve seen how much good that does in the Episcopal Church.

Participation will be voluntary. And as for those hoping for real relief from apostate bishops . . . are you kidding?

In cases when an alternative bishop has been requested, Archbishop Carnley prefers to think of it as “alternative episcopal ministry” rather than “alternative episcopal oversight.” The diocesan bishop still has jurisdiction, but another bishop will provide ministry to the parish, diocese, or province in question.

Voluntary . . . no alternative episcopal oversight . . . . Can anyone tell me the difference between that and DEPO, which is already an utter failure in the Episcopal Church? I didn’t think so.

I’m wondering if ++Rowan Williams and ++Carnley are willfully subverting the will of the Primates. The Primates’ Communique was quite clear (even after Carnley got his hands on it) in calling for real relief of distressed orthodox Anglicans and for the Panel of Reference to be a part of that. And they stated that the matter was urgent. Instead, we’ve gotten delays and a Panel that will do little more than facilitate “conversation” and string along the orthodox . . . again.

Don’t be placing any hope in the Panel of Reference. I don’t anymore. I now think the best thing that could come out of the Panel is a walk-out after it proves itself to be a sham.

More comments here.