Stand Firm has published a draft resolution which is described by SF thus:
This is a statement crafted during the last meeting of “Windsor Bishops,” and we’re told forms the basis of the resolution Bishop Jenkins is going to propose. However, we’ve also been told that he’s been “consulting” with bishops Bruno and Chane to make it more palatable to them. The document has been circulating among the bishops at the meeting here in New Orleans.
The draft is here.
Totally unacceptable from my perspective.
I hope that all will proceed on the basis of good faith and that the dissenters will see the door that is open to them – my fear is that their hearts have hardened and they will resist pastoral offers by TEC
Receiving the proposed resolutions in the best spirit, and appreciating that this is not necessarily how any resolutions might be phrased in the end, I do have a few comments. First, since we’ve not as a Communion gone through the work of clarifying how we will balance autonomy and accountability so as to understand interdependence, the phrases “standard of teaching across the Communion” and “until a new concensus is reached across the Communion” will be unacceptable. The sense of accepting a position indefinitely “unless the Kingdom comes first” has in the past been more than most bishops think is in… Read more »
“Claiming the “deep and abiding honesty with one another in the context of living relationships,” we call upon the Executive Council, the General Convention, the House of Bishops and the Presiding Bishop to consider anew a pastoral scheme for spiritual oversight for those who believe such to be necessary.”
Will this scheme include “spiritual oversight” for those individuals and parishes of a more liberal persuasion who are trapped in the conservative dioceses like Pittsburgh, Dallas, and Texas? Or is it only to be afforded to those in the minority in New York, Pennsylvania, etc.?
I suspect the latter.
” We reject the notion that those without power are best accommodated or cared for in a manner deemed appropriate by the majority. We claim our baptismal dignity.
At last! Something that glbt people as well as these folks can agree about!
I thought it sounded pretty conciliatory. Perhaps I am being petty, but I couldn’t help thinking that, in respone to this:
“We reject the notion that those without power are best accommodated or cared for in a manner deemed appropriate by the majority. We claim our baptismal dignity.”
most gay Anglicans would say
“Welcome to my world!”
I think its a sell-out and should be rejected, along with the Anglican ‘Communion’
“Totally unacceptable from my perspective.”– Merseymike
You said it, Mike! Totally unacceptable—period, full stop.
Ford,
We don’t always agree. But this time, indeed.
Thanks for the smiles Ford and Cynthia. I think some conservatives might comment that there is no such thing as a “glbt” Anglican. They can’t really be Anglican because they are GLBT. They desire a communion where to say that you are a member of that communion means you are not GLBT, do not acknowledge GLBTs within your family, and evict GLBT lovers and friends from their midst. No sensible loving soul would marry a person or church who subscribes to such theology. It means that you have to deal with the possibility that you will have to cut off… Read more »
‘Further, we request this Church not to refer to some of its members as a “small, dissident, minority.” Such may seem an appropriate description of reality unless you are part of that minority…’ (Jenkins, Howe et al)
Those of us who are ourselves gay certainly understand this ! It might not harm these anti-gay bishops to stand in this palce and experience it for a time themselves. Will they allow it to inform their discourse ?
My understanding is that the signatories (apart, perhaps, from Schofield of San Joaquin) have heretofore conducted themselves in a manner which is both above board and motivated by a desire to retain as full a communion as possible with the rest of TEC.
In that light, it should be given a fair hearing.
And their assertion that this is not a demand (meaning it is therefore a starting point for discussion) should be taken at face value.
fgutp humgrcdi gocqpk ucltygri rjps ertmcn eohq