[Magdalen] Bishop Cook: Another unfortunate piece of the story

[Lynn Ronkainen]

Earlier this week on the HoB/D list in a post not related to the MD Cook issue the TEC national policy of TEC was posted. Anyone read that? I can only think that many of our churches are not in compliance.
Lynn

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 4, 2015, at 8:28 AM, Grace Cangialosi <gracecan at gmail.com> wrote:

Yes, Ann, there is no doubt that the church is embedded in a culture in which alcohol consumption and even alcoholism are widely tolerated.

But we are also called to be "in the world, but not of it." Other denominations seem to manage that in this area; I don't see any reason why we couldn't, except that we lack the will.
I am NOT suggesting that everyone needs to stop drinking, just that the church shouldn't be a place that encourages and participates in it and refuses to deal with its abuse.

> On Feb 4, 2015, at 8:58 AM, Ann Markle <ann.markle at aya.yale.edu> wrote:
> 
> I agree with Ginga, except to say that in this instance, the church is a
> reflection of the larger culture as a whole.  The church doesn't get off
> scot-free, of course, but it is embedded in a culture of denial and the
> narcissistic wish to see what one wants to see.  I understand about being
> in the last stages of a search process, thinking you've found your
> "perfect" candidate, and managing "not to hear" some inconvenient bit of
> information that might have put the kibosh on the whole thing.  I've seen
> it on both ends - the "searcher" and the "searchee."  I understand about
> wanting to believe someone you regard highly is really, thoroughly in
> recovery, when they're actually not, but are keeping secrets.  I also
> understand the shame and the secret-keeping.  I don't excuse any of this
> sick behavior, but I get it.  Someone gave me an article from the Buffalo
> News on "The Theology of Addiction" (pretty superficial, as you can
> imagine, but touching on sin, forgiveness, redemption).  I think a LOT more
> work needs to be done on this, including denial as lying to (sinning,
> bearing false witness against) self, neighbor, and God, etc.  I think there
> are sermons and sermons in this, especially for my 12-step service on
> Thursdays.
> 
> Ann
> 
> The Rev. Ann Markle
> Buffalo, NY
> ann.markle at aya.yale.edu
> blog:  www.onewildandpreciouslife.typepad.com
> 
>> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 6:52 AM, Ginga Wilder <gingawilder at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Sally,
>> I was speaking of The Episcopal Church.  Having grown up an Episcopalian in
>> SC, and having my best friend's father removed as our parish priest for
>> galloping alcoholism, and having grown up with two alcoholic parents, I do
>> see a problem.  Here and in MD and now with PB's allowing the consecration
>> of a drunk candidate to proceed, in TEC.  (My best friend's father passed
>> out at the altar while celebrating an 8 AM Sunday service.  He was sent to
>> another parish.  Eventually he was defrocked.)
>> 
>> I know nothing of the drinking habits in South Africa.  I don't think I
>> commented on any entity besides TEC when I wrote my other post.  I believe
>> what I said.  TEC has an alcohol problem.
>> 
>> Ginga
>> 
>> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 2:57 AM, Sally Davies <sally.davies at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> If you drive under the influence, you don't get to blame others for
>>> accidents. It alters the probabilities completely.
>>> 
>>> I'm puzzled by the "we as a church have a problem with drink" idea. Is
>> that
>>> only in the USA, or elsewhere in the Communion? I'm sure not here.
>>> Anglicans are less likely to be abstinent than other protestant church
>>> members but as a group not more likely to abuse, I'm sure of that.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps because of the strong evangelical influence in this part of the
>>> world? And also that ideas of social responsibility attach to alcohol
>> abuse
>>> in particular. The entire society has severe problems with alcohol
>>> abuse/dependency, so if Christians are involved with social ministry in a
>>> spirit of love and empowerment (as most churches are), you have to be
>>> sensitive to that.
>>> 
>>> What I'm not hearing in all this, is more about the qualities that Bp
>> Cook
>>> possessed which influenced others to overlook such an obvious disaster
>>> waiting to happen, despite presumably having at least SOME objectivity.
>>> Other than the speculation about wanting to make her someone else's
>> problem
>>> which sounds exceptionally bleak.
>>> 
>>> Sally D
>>> 
>>>> On Wednesday, 4 February 2015, Jim Handsfield <jhandsfield at att.net>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> In addition, she apparently was texting at the time.
>>>> 
>>>> Jim Handsfield
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>> 
>>>>>> On Feb 3, 2015, at 10:31 PM, Jay Weigel <jay.weigel at gmail.com
>>>>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Furthermore, she left the scene for some period of time, variously
>>>>> described as from twenty to forty-five minutes. That's inexcusable.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Tuesday, February 3, 2015, Grace Cangialosi <gracecan at gmail.com
>>>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> According to the police report--which, I believe was based on
>>> eyewitness
>>>>>> accounts--she swerved into the bike lane and hit him from behind. I
>>>> haven't
>>>>>> seen anything to refute that claim. And if she was texting, that
>> would
>>>> be a
>>>>>> very likely consequence.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On February 3, 2015, at 10:16 PM, "Mahoney, W. Michael" <
>>>>>> wmmah at stoneledge.net <javascript:;> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 6:10 PM, Ginga Wilder <gingawilder at gmail.com
>>>> <javascript:;>
>>>>>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> and a young man is dead because she drove while drunk.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Do we really know this to be true beyond any doubt?  Could it be
>> that
>>> it
>>>>>> was the cyclist's fault, in part or entirely?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> One ought not drink and drive.  That's not the issue.  And by the
>>>> available
>>>>>> evidence, Bishop Cook ought not drink at all.  But that does not
>> mean
>>>> that
>>>>>> she necessarily caused the accident.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> One reason not to drink and drive is that you will almost
>>> automatically
>>>> be
>>>>>> presumed to be the cause of any accident in which you are involved.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It may be that the evidence is clear but I haven't seen it.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Mike M.
>>