Comments: secret theology committee unmasked

What is indeed the point of all this exercise? What did the good bishop think of? Did he expect this to last?

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Thursday, 2 July 2009 at 6:35am BST

Before we all start lobbying these souls, I think we should pray for them. May they have the wisdom of Solomon and may the Holy Spirit give them a power of discernment.

Posted by Charles Walmsley at Thursday, 2 July 2009 at 1:11pm BST

Dare we hope that the 2 unnamed members of this secret committee are representative of the population most directly involved? While I certainly agree that we must pray for these people as we pray, I trust, for all Anglicans, I also think that is well past time that people who talk about GLBTQs finally make room to talking with the GLBTQs. The GLBTQ have been asking and aasking for this for years now. One of the most dysfunctional and abusive communication styles is to talk about people rather than to then. It's called triangulation and it has been going on for far far far too long in the Anglican Communion.

Posted by Sister Gloriamarie Amalfitano at Thursday, 2 July 2009 at 8:12pm BST

"Before we all start lobbying these souls, I think we should pray for them."

Can I suggest we all do the latter and refrain from the former? That's all of us, mind, not just the Evil Hell-Bound Liberals.

Posted by Ford Elms at Thursday, 2 July 2009 at 8:37pm BST

Charles Walmsley & Ford Elms, I heartily agree with you. I do not believe they should be "lobbied" or harrassed. I have not done so. Let them do the work set before them.

My objective was simply to get the names out there, despite Bishop Parsley's efforts at skullduggery. By the bye, to the best of my knowledge, there has NEVER before been a TEC committee/panel whose names were kept secret. In this, Bishop Parsley was truly a revisionist.

Sister Gloriamarie, Bishop Parsley has stated that the panel includes some LBGT members. I will take him at his word.

Posted by Lisa Fox at Friday, 3 July 2009 at 1:43am BST

I'm happy to have the membership of this oddly timed committee right out out, more in the open. Yet I confess I cannot quite get the jist of its mandate. Surely the time and effort (and money?) involved would be better spent having the bishops actually dig in a bit, personal reading, into a representative pros and cons reading list? Or, if the good bishes are already up on all that - a scholarly update on the ongoing science involved, corollary and tangential to the remaining key theological jousts? Or, some study-working subgroups, to prepare for General Convention, and what surely will be a hot time in the old town tonite, concerning many global Anglican hot button issues?

We studied our way forward in WO controversies for thought-provoking decades, then got to a stuck point wherein further study was stalling. Yes only forty years have passed since New York's Stonewall Inn Rebellion; yet the pace of study and empirical investigation has truly been thorough, fast, and furious, relative to geological time frames.

If the plethora of youth and young adult surveys can be believed, the younger folks have already moved far beyond the pros and cons phases. On key lingering LGBTQ issues, they are closer to, say, SF Mayor Gavin Newsome, than to, say, soon-to-be-ex-governor Sarah Palin?

No report possible is going to influence the Anglican right much, so that cannot be the audience intended. What a curiosity, this typical bishop's puzzle of a committee. Give the members plenty of space and time to do their service, I'm plenty confused about their positioning and their committee call, rooted in what audience(s)?

Posted by drdanfee at Saturday, 4 July 2009 at 6:23pm BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.