tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post114383149309468707..comments2024-02-15T03:32:25.686-05:00Comments on Preludium, Anglican and Episcopal futures: The Progressive Pilgrim's Progress:Mark Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06871096746243771489noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1144112411590712182006-04-03T21:00:00.000-04:002006-04-03T21:00:00.000-04:00Let us not forget use of rites written by conscien...Let us not forget use of rites written by conscientious, theologically grounded laity, who absent adequate and concrete pastoral care, will go about doing the work their pastors fail to do. Irrespective of whether these rites are discouraged, encouraged, or denied permission by bishops or performed or not by presbyters, laity in same sex relationships will honour their call to holiness in various rites. These rites too will more and more be shared and come to have their own authorization in practice. Where our pastors cannot lead, let them follow.Closedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04752595488795781895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1144013109521620652006-04-02T17:25:00.000-04:002006-04-02T17:25:00.000-04:00It seems to me that one of the things we need to s...It seems to me that one of the things we need to say rather clearly at point 12 that we are talking about people (among others) who, absent the church's formal blessing or civil approval, are living in relationships that meet the criteria laid out in the GC 2000.D039 resolution referred to at point 5. Some people keep holding up 1979.A053 as if it were not only the "law" of the land, but a binding restriction. (It is neither.) This gets annoying. It might also help to satisfy some, such as Ralph Spence, who feel we got things out of sequence by approving Gene absent a specific "authorization" of his household status.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1143931137553549502006-04-01T17:38:00.000-05:002006-04-01T17:38:00.000-05:00I'm not sure I understand #13. It seems to say th...I'm not sure I understand #13. It seems to say that Episcopalians should not gather together here in Texas, which just passed a constitutional admendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. As a child of the 60's, I decided long ago to fight the system from within; so, pending clarification, I agree with j.c. fisher. Don't drop out, stay involved!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1143920611904070572006-04-01T14:43:00.000-05:002006-04-01T14:43:00.000-05:00On the whole, I like it very much (it's just the G...On the whole, I like it very much (it's just the Gospel---duh! ;-p).<BR/><BR/>But I have some reservations re #13<BR/><BR/><I>13· Establish as church policy the commitment not to meet in those places where justice and liberation for all God’s children, including LGBT people, are absent in state law or local ordinance.</I><BR/><BR/>I would recommend a more nuance, flexible and <B>actively prophetic</B> stance (think "Gandhi's Salt March". Think "Rosa Parks keeping her seat in the front of the bus").<BR/><BR/>Sometime, TEC might want to go right into the Belly of the Beast, to press for change (w/ the understanding that we all go, figuratively if not literally, "wearing Pink Triangles"). It is TEC's progressive, <B>egalitarian</B> presence in such a locale, which could prove inspiring for the LGBTs (and/or other religious progressives) already there.<BR/><BR/>At other times, the power of our boycott may be what most benefits the local LGBTs.<BR/><BR/>"Wise as serpents, yet gentle as doves"<BR/><BR/>[Note: as TEC is already a multi-national church---as I was reminded by folks telling me "Don't say ECUSA, say TEC!"---I am conscious of those <I>non-U.S. locales</I> where TEC bodies might meet, as well. Again, we must be flexible---always putting the expressed interests of local LGBTs <I>first</I>]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com