Yesterday (Tuesday July 14) the House of Deputies passed again a slightly revised version of resolution D025 given back to them by the House of Bishops. The sequence was this:
Sunday, HoD passed Do25
Monday, HoB passed D025 with amendments
Tuesday, HoD passed D025 with amendments
On Monday morning we arose to find this headline on our computers: Archbishop of Canterbury 'regrets' TEC move to gay ordination. Ruth Gledhill reported that the Archbishop of Canterbury said,
"As for General Convention it remains to be seen I think whether the vote of the House of Deputies will be endorsed by the House of Bishops. If the House of Bishops chooses to block then the moratorium remains. I regret the fact that there is not the will to observe the moratorium in such a significant part of the Church in North America but I can't say more about that as I have no details."
This was read here prior to the vote by the House of Bishops, where by a vote of 99 to 44 the House passed this resolution with two amendments. The Archbishop words seem not to have had much effect.
More interestingly, it had no effect on the voting in the House of Deputies the next day. When the HoD voted to pass D025 with amendments the votes held. There was little or no movement.
Here is how the voting went:
Sunday: Lay Yes 77, No or Divided 31 72% in favor
Clergy Yes 74, No or Divided 25 74% in favor
Tuesday: Lay Yes 78, No or Divided 30 72% in favor
Clergy Yes77, No or Divided 30, 72% in favor
Here again the Archbishop's words, now very much in the news at General Convention, had little effect. It was clear to those reading Gledhill's article, as well as her larger article in the Times, "Schism 'inevitable' after US bishops approve gay ordination", that the Archbishop had made his remarks without being brought up to speed on the doings in Anaheim. The Bishops and Deputies at General Convention decided that his uninformed opinions were not of much value in the workings of General Convention.
All of this is remarkably sad, given the extraordinary efforts by the Presiding Bishop and both Houses to reaffirm again and again the strong ties The Episcopal Church has to the rest of the Anglican Communion and to the work of mission. The carefully stated resolutions in D055 are meant to describe the realities of The Episcopal Church and our engagement in the Anglican Communion. But no word comes from Canterbury concerning these pledges. The resolution says nothing about B033 or moratoria although the clear implication of D025 is that bishops and standing committees are encouraged to follow the Constitution and Canons and engage the mystery of ordination and then vote for consent or not as they are given the light. And yes, this is not a moratorium. B033 was not one either, but it was more like a pledge to one. D025 returns us to the restrictions of canon, conscience and faithfulness to the mystery that is the gift of ordination and says that is enough.
But nothing of all this seems to be of great value to the Archbishop who otherwise is given to nuance.
7/15/2009
23 comments:
OK... Comments, gripes, etc welcomed, but with some cautions and one rule:
Cautions: Calling people fools, idiots, etc, will be reason to bounce your comment. Keeping in mind that in the struggles it is difficult enough to try to respect opponents, we should at least try.
Rule: PLEASE DO NOT SIGN OFF AS ANONYMOUS: BEGIN OR END THE MESSAGE WITH A NAME - ANY NAME. ANONYMOUS commentary will be cut.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You’re right, Mark: none of this is of value to Canterbury, nor should it be. What you call “reaffirm[ing] again and again the strong ties The Episcopal Church has to the rest of the Anglican Communion” is, and I’m sorry to be blunt, a lie on the part of ECUSA. You don’t tell your wife “I honor our vows, I honor our vows, I honor our vows” even while you carry on an affair and expect to be taken seriously.
ReplyDeleteECUSA has nothing but contempt for the views of its Communion partners, something it demonstrates every day, but never more so than during the mob rules days of General Convention, deciding what Christianity means this three years by 50%+1 vote.
It’s a disgrace. Sorry, don’t post this if it’s not polite enough. But that’s what it is. You know very well what D025 was intended to accomplish, as the floor debates made crystal clear. I’ll take that over after-the-fact spin.
I regret the fact that there is not the will to observe the moratorium in such a significant part of the Church in North America
ReplyDeleteThat is an odd way to phrase it. Is it a veiled threat. Will TEC soon have ACNA company in North Am? Inquiring Anglicans want to know.
BTW, Her Excelency, ++TEC, was quoted yesterday regarding D025, that the moratoria still stands, D025 does not effect B033, the bishops and standing committees are still to exercise restraint. She is starting to get on my last nerve on this subject.
----
Word verification sester
Hey sester, Ho sester, you gotta go sester!
Let's call the Archbishop of Canterbury's international policy a busted flush.
ReplyDeletehttp://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2009/07/relationship-faithfulness-ministry-and.html
You are gentle, angry people, and you are fighting, fighting for your lives.
ReplyDeleteThere is too much drinking of Kool-Aid by all sides of the argument.
ReplyDelete1. B033 never fufilled the Windsor, Dar, primates' requests for a moratorium on consecrations of gay/lesbian bishops. It urged restraint by Standing Committees and bishops called on to give consent but did not bar nominations or elections or even consecrations of such candidates.
2. As a Resolution, it was neither binding on anyone nor could it bind future Conventions. Without any action at all, B033 would have "died" by its own terms with the current Convention.
3. D025 really says no more than that access to all ordained ministies will be in accordane with the canons and constitution. How could it be anything else?
The real problem is that institutionalists engaged in wishful thinking and served Kool-Aid to the AC, suggesting that B033preserved a status quo that never really existed. I for one applaud the bishops and delegates for at least putting an end to the subterfuge. Conservatives who remain in TEC have to stop pretending that TEC cares a fig about the Communion, the Global South, Scripture or the rest of Christendom. No one is coming to their rescue. They need to acknowledge the facts. They are isolated, marginalized and ignored. The choice is to stay and wither on the vine as TEC does its new thing or find a new home.
George
I was just re-reading the headline of this post and I thought, "Am I seeing a pattern here? Didn't Mark have a similar headline ages ago about primate reactions during one of their primate meetings?" The operative words being "uninformed reaction" which seems to be rife.
ReplyDeleteIt occurred to me, amidst all the comments about +Rowan opening his mouth on D025 before engaging his brain, has anyone on either side of the pond said much of anything about the fact that the General Synod has basically taken +Rowan out behind the woodshed on the issue of "who gets to run this Church"? +Rowan really isn't doing very well lately, is he, the poor dear? No wonder he's cranky.
ReplyDeleteMark
ReplyDeleteI agree.
Strangely perhaps for me a gay man, but a part of me actually feels very sad for Rowan. Inspite of his education & intellect, he chose to perpetuate a paternalistic style of management. And like most things paternalistic it wasn't universaly consistent ie: overlooking the piracy of parishes and dioceses.
All the threats, the enforced moratoria and sacrifices didn't work and so he plays his last card- the inevitability of scism which is implicitly a refusal of the Episcopal Church's gracious invitation to continue in communion and conversation.
He can try projecting all the blame he wants on the Episcopal Church, but projection is inevitably a stunt of the impotent.
The bottom line would appear to be the American Church has stepped out of the vale of threats, discourtesy and injustice, and poor Rowan ( and I mean that) doesn't know what to do. The man needs our prayers.
David@Montreal
Phil,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:You don’t tell your wife “I honor our vows, I honor our vows, I honor our vows” even while you carry on an affair and expect to be taken seriously.
It's "interesting" that you should use this analogy to try to make the case against TEC. In what way is TEC's honest committment to all the sacraments for all the baptized (no 'half-assed baptized', as Bishop Harris so wisely stated) like a man being unfaithful to his wife?
One might run with this analogy and ask how you would view a man who constantly threatens to leave his wife ("and I'll take the kids and you'll never seem them again, because you're a horrible mother!") if she doesn't give him absolute obedience and conform to all of his expectations about her behavior: "And don't you dare think that queer nephew of yours can come to Christmas dinner!"
The real "disgrace" is the ongoing exclusion and denigration of God's LGBT children in so much of the Anglican Communion. I don't have "contempt" for the views of our "Communion partners" (who include the Canadians, who agree with us, and many others, such as Jenny Te Paa from New Zealand). It's simply that some of their views deeply trouble me... and, in conscience, I can't submit to them.
I'm proud of TEC for finally showing some backbone... just like an abused wife who finally refuses to take it anymore. Maybe this "marriage" can be saved. But its the abusive husband (Canterbury and Co.) who will have to change.
The Episcopal Church showed extraordinary humility 3 years ago in passing B033. It literally went the extra mile to reach out to conservatives. For its trouble, the Episcopal Church has endured hatred, childish name calling, and the theft of its property. The Episcopal Church has driven down a one way street long enough.
ReplyDeleteAlmost five decades ago when I became an Episcopalian, being in the Anglican Communion meant a voluntary relationship with the Church of England. The Archbishop of Canterbury was its "titular" head - certainly not a pope. And membership in the Anglican Communion absolutely did not mean giving veto power over the election of our diocesan bishops to other constituent members. This is simply something made up by conservatives out of whole cloth.
The General Convention is a tremendous gift to those of us marooned in the desert of network dioceses. Thank God for giving TEC the courage and dignity to do what is right, even in the face of such hatred.
After Williams' failed coup attempt this past week, I don't see how anyone can possibly believe he's actually concerned about the Anglican Communion.
ReplyDeleteThis has been, from beginning to nearing-end, a crass power-grab from a transparent puppeteer. I don't feel sorry for Williams; if anyone can make me feel sorry for Akinola and the GS Primates, it is Williams, because he's courting them as having more numbers and being the source of discontent - you are more likely to sway those whose rage makes them irrational, make them your friend with the words they want to hear.
Ecclesial Imperialism? Wait 'til Nigeria, Singapore, the Southern Cone and ACNA have to bow down before their new British Pope!
We've been had, folks! It wasn't Duncan, Akinola, Wright or any of the orthodites: they were played just like we were, to put one man in a position of absolute authority. Who has been pushing an unheard of amount of importance for the "instruments of communion?" Who is it that has made membership in the AC a de facto prerequisite of being "Anglican?" Who is it who's kept the wounds open with constant public statements about listening processes, Windsor Reports and Covenants? Who is it who has gone, unasked and unwanted by either side, to both sides' councils, playing one against the other to build himself up?
Did even Carey do all this?
I am proud of my church -- laity, deputies and bishops -- who have opted for honesty and transparency and not bending the knee to bullying and threats.
ReplyDeleteI find it sad that such intelligent and outstanding scholars such as the ABC and +Wright have so much trouble reading, hearing, seeing and understanding that TEC is not an enemy at the gates but lambs of the same fold as they, just seeing the green grass a little further on than perhaps they do. "I have many other things to say to you but you cannot bear them now" -- I think TEC is hearing some of those things now and is acting at the prodding of the Spirit.
Thank you, God, for the courage and earnest effort on the part of GC. May their decisions be only for your glory and the coming of your kingdom on earth, not merely assurance of a place in your kingdom of heaven.
@George- The idea that the resolution would expire at the end of GC was wrong. Resolutions stand until actively repealed. This was explained on Tuesday at the Morning Briefing and in writing at some time earlier.
ReplyDeleteAs to thing it's self, B033 is as good as it could get under our Cannons and was adopted in good faith. The good faith was spat upon repeatedly by the neo-Donatists with actions such as the installation of Mimms in a stolen parish church in Virginia, GAFCON and finally the creation of ACNA.
Lets not forget, b the way, that the AMiA was formally created in 2000 a full 3 years before Gene Robinson's election.
F. John
ReplyDeletePerhaps my phrasing was inartful but what I meant to say is that the 2006 GC urged Bishops and
standing committees to exercise restraint. It never bound anyone to do anything. That Resolution, as an expression of the urging of that GC will remain forever but so what? If Congress adopts a resolution today expressing its "sense" of regret or hope (if one can ever use the term "sense" about Congress), it is not the "sense" of the Country or of the next Congress whether or not it is ever addressed again.
George
drdanfee
ReplyDeleteAll the hoo-ha about B033 is rather besides the point. Nothing short of an utterly flat earth condemnation of queer folks was ever going to do for the loudest voices of the realignment crowd; and of course, given the higher levels of literacy and modern education which frame both TEC and Canada as social demographics, an olden-style categorical condemnation was hardly going to fly, even as a genuine idea. In USA, the hard right wing religionists have already got a good lock on all that. It would be a very silly contest, if TEC decided to wrestle with the Southern Baptists or independent megachurches for the Big Antigay Prize of the Year.
Top all that off with the real daily life facts. We know queer folks in our families and friend networks and work team and ... well fill in the blank as to social reference groups, in nearly any modern western democracy. The invitation is to put additional pressures on the queer folks we know, up close and personal in modern daily life, heavy pressures and calls to live down, down, down, down. A wicked and false invitation if ever such a thing existed.
Rowan Williams tried to be savvy; but he often comes across as if he is that nearly mythical, typical, high-placed leader, suffocating in a bubble at the top of some organization, held prisoner by his handlers.
RW has publicly said things at times that are quite heartening. Like, No Anglican believes in unintelligent readings of scripture. Or, No Anglican wishes harm to any queer person, anywhere on the planet. But then, he forgets, goes all wonky with some sideline scholarship, and as the saying goes, takes his eye off the prize.
These habits have been exploited by all the realignment figures who are more or less following the old game plans of the Institute for Religion and Democracy, a right wing (neocon) USA think tank. At times, RW seems to be hinting that he was bullied over the tentative change feelers he dared to publish about queer folks, once upon a time; and so far as that goes, he now sounds and acts like a victim with PTSD. He stands by while others are bullied by conservative realignmentists. He certainly stands by helpless when it comes to all the sexual minority folks being bullied or harrassed anywhere in the world. He seems downright feeble when it comes to their painful lot.
Strategically, anybody who thinks they can stabilize and maintain any organization or group, faced with significant change; by using authoritarian and hierarchical means of policing and punishment alone - well, check your heads, people, it never works for very long. The only way to deal with change is by facing and working through whatever the change is, and that surely changes everybody involved.
If RW were more skillful, he might use traditional Anglican leeway to steady and maintain the global communion - which is not a global Anglican Church yet, and indeed, never may become - so that as many as wished to live in peace could pass through the changes unhindered by accidentally finding out they had pledged membership in a global Anglican Fight Club.
DallasBob, I don't know which parish you attend, but mine has been blessed to be a truly "big tent" at which all are welcome.
ReplyDeleteI have very mixed feelings about D025 and its progenitors. I want to have the status as "The Gay Church" put to bed. I want the work of mission that my parish has embraced and growth that our bishop advocates moving forward.
I want Gene Robinson to concentrate on being the Bishop of New Hampshire, something I can't tell if he's done while he's busy being the Gay Bishop. I don't want to hear him or see him any more. He has, in my opinion, done tremendous damage to teh church. I have many friends who have left the Episcopal Church because of him, many who refuse to set foot or allow their children near an Episcopal Church because of him. He, through his election, has caused the destruction of my childhood diocese, the ruination of friendships and the implosion of a former parish. I can't be happy about those events, and I lay the blame at Bishop Gene's feet, and those of his advocates.
I don't buy the demonization of the conservatives that is fashionable among some. Have people really bent over backwards to accommodate "them"? Perhaps, but in the end neither side is willing to forego core beliefs. That's what's happened here. I have also seen a lot of anger from my conservative friends at what they see as the hijacking of their church and a refusal to honor their opinions, despite words to the contrary.
Nonetheless, I hope this will put an end to all of this rancor. I hope that the church focuses on its future and its youth, neither of which it has done very well. Its education and youth ministries are, for the most part, abysmal, and its focus on gay and lesbian issues and its ignoring the rest of the families for the last several years ahve put it in a hole. If TEC is to have much of a future, it must focus in that area.
Sorry for the ramble.
Paul in Dallas
Dear "Paul in Dallas,"
ReplyDeleteI want to try to respond firmly but fairly to your post with a few comments/questions....
You describe your parish one "at which all are welcome."
May I ask, would a gay couple be welcomed there? I ask this because of the "tone" of the rest of your post, particularly your comments about Bishop Robinson....
I want Gene Robinson to concentrate on being the Bishop of New Hampshire....
Gene Robinson has been very busy being the Bishop of New Hampshire, as the good people of that diocese would tell you. Being "the Gay Bishop" was thrust upon him by those who made his sexual orientation and his monogamous same-sex partnership a focus of their animosity. However, it is true that Bishop Robinson sees himself as having a special calling as a gay Christian, for other gay Christians, and for those who need to hear the voices of gay Christians.
Bishop Robinson has been an inspiration and blessing to many, gay and non-gay. He's a major reason why I joined the Episcopal Church: his consecration evangelized me... and I'm not alone.
I don't want to hear him or see him any more.
I would urge you to re-read this statement and ask yourself if your heart is right about this. Is it right to say that you never want to hear or see a brother in Christ any more?
He has, in my opinion, done tremendous damage to teh church.... I can't be happy about those events, and I lay the blame at Bishop Gene's feet, and those of his advocates.
I've called this in other posts, and I'll call it in this one. This is scapegoating. Bishop Robinson is not to blame for what people have done in reaction to his consecration as a bishop. The people who have reacted bear the responsibility. Was Martin Luther King Jr. responsible for the violence and hatred his civil rights activism provoked?
It truly saddens me when I hear people saying that they are leaving the church, etc. over the consecration of Bishop Robinson... because what these folks are saying is that they can't be part of a church that really includes gay folk as full and equal members. What's so aweful about us? What's so threatening that you need to keep your children away from the church to which we belong?
I don't buy the demonization of the conservatives.... Have people really bent over backwards to accommodate "them"?
Yes, they have.
I have also seen a lot of anger from my conservative friends at what they see as the hijacking of their church....
"Highjacking" implies malevolent outsiders taking over. Is this how YOU see your gay brothers and sisters? The "conservatives" must be reminded that it isn't "their church"; it's God's church, and we all belong to it.
...and a refusal to honor their opinions, despite words to the contrary.
Please have a look at the two relevant resolutions passed at General Convention and see how both honor the views of "conservatives." Read up about the efforts that were made, repeatedly, at GC to make sure "conservative" voices were heard. The problem is that many "conservatives" seem to think that the only way their views can be "honored" is if they are completely accepted and submitted to.
The fact is that NO ONE has been forced out of the church for holding conservative views, no one has been punished. But, had the conservatives had the power, they made it quite clear that they would have punished gay folk and their supporters and forced them out.
...and its focus on gay and lesbian issues and its ignoring the rest of the families for the last several years....
The "focus on gay and lesbian issues" was forced on the church by those who wanted to make these negative issues, split issues. I also must challenged the accuracy of your claim that "the rest of the families" have been ignored. This certainly hasn't been my experience in a parish with a large number of gay and lesbian members. Their families have certainly been attended to, but so have the non-gay families. In my parish, we treat all families equally.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you perceive your parish as a big tent. TEC is more than your parish.
You are doing the same thing that you accuse "our side" of doing: you've been told that we're angry, have been really, truly, actually harmed by the "conservatives" and their demands, and you are discounting that. We've had years of special dispensation for "conservative dioceses" that claimed all they needed was "more time," allowing them to pretty much define who was in or out by themselves - so, yes, we have bent over backwards for them - and you're discounting that, too.
Finally, it's not "their" church anymore than it's "our" church - it's God's church. I'm sorry, but I'm very frustrated with what I can only see as petulance and self-serving - no one has suggested forcing them to call gay priests, gay bishops, anything else - they simply yell it, and you believe it. Yet, you seem to be able to ignore us without any cost to you.
I'm not trying to attack you, Paul, and I really am hearing what you're saying, but I would ask if you are hearing anything other than soundbites, yourself. You say your parish is a "big tent" - is that really true? Do you know if everyone really feels welcome? I warn you, I've known gays and liberals who've attended churches they felt were hostile simply because it was the lesser of the various evils, so you can't take presence to signify.
I shudder at the rejoicing in orthodite circles, but not for the reasons they think.
ReplyDeleteAs I've said elsewhere:
"There is no longer an Anglican Communion. Once we can get Rowan out, maybe there will be again. I promise you, ACNAites, there will be no Anglican Communion if he chooses you over TEC. What there will be is Rowan Williams, the new director and head of a worldwide Anglican Church, telling you what you will do, how much you will pay, and what you will believe. For you in the US, it will be particularly bitter, because, having thrown off the tyranny of an English autocrat centuries before, you will have eagerly, willingly and wantonly given yourself right back to it. You won't control this new AC you imagine, as you expect, nor will your Global South friends - a group of old men in England will.
"A sad end. From imperial serf to free man to imperialist's slave."
Dear William and Mark, thank you both for your thoughtful replies to my admittedly rambling post of the other day.
ReplyDeleteMark, yes, my parish is indeed a "big tent" with members of all political, theological, and other stripes active and involved in virtually every area of ministry. It is a richer place for that, and I'm proud to be a part of it.
William, I am sure that Bishop Robinson is a fine bishop in his diocese. I'm not in New Hampshire, and I have no way of knowing what goes on there day to day. While you may find him an inspiration, I do not. What have have seen, as I clumsily described in my earlier post, is the destruction left in the wake of his election and consecration. Where you have been inspired, I have witnessed the destruction of friendships and parishes. I think that the collateral damage of his ascension to the episcopate must be acknowledged; the refusal of his supporters and advocates to do so is, in my view, a big part of why this issue has gone on so long.
I must also take issue with your use of the "scapegoating" term. That is a rhetorical device to trivialize and marginalize the sincere views and reactions of those who disagree with you. By putting those feelings in a box that you entitle with a dismissive label, you trivialize the people who hold those opinions. Bishop Robinson is the public face of a process that many of us viewed as an end run and a bludgeon. Hence the damage. Similarly, dismissing those who disagree with you with perjorative labels does not, in my opinion, provide a witness to Christ's love for all of us.
The question you don't ask in your "scapegoating" comment, is why he caused such a reaction. Is it simply "scapegoating" or "homophobia?" Perhaps in part, but I don't accept that it is the whole reason and I don't think that dismissing the negative reactions people have had and showing them the door is the proper response. I've had many friends who have left; simple homophobia doesn't explain all the departures. A perception that the Episcopal Church is unwilling to stand fast to what they see as bedrock moral principles explains more of them.
What I want to see of Bishop Robinson is the Bishop of New Hampshire. What I don't want is to see him simply in his role as the gay bishop. That's all I see of him now, and I don't think he's doing a very good job of it. Being first and foremost a good Bishop of New Hampshire would be much more effective to convince the doubters and skeptics.
Mark, I'm glad your parish is tending to its flock. Mine is as well. My concern, apart from D025, Bishop Robinson, and all the rest, is that the Episcopal Church, as an institution, has done an abysmal job of ministering to its youth. There are certainly bright spots, but on the whole, and in my area, the Episcopal churches lose many of its high school aged kids to the churches which do a far better job at attracting and keeping them than most Episcopal Churches do. YOu and I probably agree that we don't want to be Baptists, but we have to acknowledge that the youth ministries in many of their churches is very effective, and we would do well to study how they do it and learn to adapt what they do to our own church.
Peace to you both.
Paul in Dallas
People can say whatever they want, and they do, but my opinion of Rowan has changed over the years - for the better. I used to think he was a week leader who should have stayed in academia, but now I see him as a prime example of Anglicanism at its best. He is one of the few international Anglican leaders that continue to act in an Anglican way - calling all to continue together in discussion and fellowship and refusing to castoff anyone into utter darkness. He refused to act unilaterally! It seems to me that those who demand that Rowan take up their narrow positions (liberal or conservative) and a hammer against their opponents are the ones that continually call him a failed leader. Too bad.
ReplyDeleteI read a response to a Facebook post after the General Convention passed DO25 reporting that Davis Mac-Iyalla, Director of Changing Attitude Nigeria, said that GLBT Christians in Africa would be greatly harmed if the Communion disintegrates. I'm trying to find the reference. I’m also trying to find a reason to believe that our actions this past week will do anything to help the Communion to not disintegrate even more. As one gay priest, and with many I know, we are not feeling all that good about what we have done. That will be quite perplexing to some straight activist types, but give ear to our voice anyway.
Do we only care about Ubuntu among our own or honestly among all? It means that I do not always get my way. In not seriously considering the well being of "the least of these," our GLBT sisters and brothers on the ground in places where they face real violence and imprisonment every day of their existence, we do them a great disservice.
Fr. Bob,
ReplyDeleteHow many gay priests do you really think you represent? You certainly aren't speaking for the gay priest who is rector of my parish. My guess is that it isn't only "straight activists" who will find your negative evaluation of the GC results here "quite perplexing."
In my view, it seriously misrepresents the commitments of those who worked so very hard for the results of the GC now past to suggest that they don't seriously considering "the well being of 'the least of these,' our GLBT sisters and brothers on the ground in places where they face real violence and imprisonment every day of their existence". Are you really claiming that folks like Bishop Robinson, Susan Russell, and Louie Crew aren't concerned about our brothers and sisters in African, the Caribbean, and other places?
As a gay Episcopalian, I'll go on record that I feel quite good about what was accomplished at GC... and also sobered by it as I reflect on the challenges we face.
I do want to hear your concerns, and I'm prepared to take them seriously. But let's not misrepresent the commitments of those who are pleased with our recent GC results. I'd be VERY susprised if this didn't turn out to be a substantial majority of LGBT Episcopalians.
William - I don't question the dedication and sincerity or sacrifice of those, like Louie Crew, who have worked incredibly hard to bring us to this point. There are times, however, for the good of those who are most vulnerable and for the overall success of a cause when restraint is the best course.
ReplyDeleteI don't presume for a moment to represent gay priests (or priests, period), but I can tell you that there are a good number who would have preferred we waited a bit more. I would not have been harmed one bit to have waited three more years, but from what I hear and read from LGBT people in those countries where they truly and daily fear for their lives, our actions could leave them with one less lifeline.