Thinking Anglicans

New Orleans: yet more reactions

Church Society had this to say:

In some respects this is a positive move since it does show a willingness to try to satisfy the conditions laid down by the Primates. However, the problem is that at heart it changes nothing. Most of these Bishops are still committed to teach things that are contrary to Scripture (a fact which the Primates did not address) and they are determined to press ahead with their revisionist agenda. Although they have said they will not authorise services for same-sex unions, yet such services are happening in their Dioceses and nothing they have said will alter that. Their plan for episcopal visitors seems to fall a long way short of the sort of oversight the Primates envisaged and even further short of what many conservatives require. They clearly recognise nothing wrong in the fact that Gene Robinson is a Bishop and are merely biding their time.

All this is likely to mean that the whole unseemly mess continues without resolution. Moreover The Archbishop of Canterbury and the majority of the Primates’ Standing Committee are in agreement with the US revisionists, so they are going to play along with the charade and interpret the words as favourably as possible.

David Phillips

Anglican Mainstream appears to be more focused on the meeting in Pittsburgh and the comments of Bishop Duncan, which are reported in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in Bishop skeptical of Episcopal stance on gays by Steve Levin.

Fulcrum had fairly detailed comment from Graham Kings which starts out:

Initial Comment on the House of Bishops Statement from New Orleans

On a first reading, this statement is very significant and seems to go further and be more encouraging than many conservatives thought to be likely. The Presiding Bishop, and others who have worked hard with her from various traditions, deserve thanks for gathering support for an almost unanimous statement.

Moratorium on Consecration of people living in same sex unions. It clarifies the surprising last minute resolution B033 of General Convention 2006 by saying:

The House acknowledges that non-celibate gay and lesbian persons are included among those to whom B033 pertains.

This seems to make The Episcopal Church compliant with The Windsor Report concerning a moratorium on the consecrations of people living in same-sex unions.

Blessing of Same-Sex Unions. The pledge on ‘not authorising any public rites of blessing of same-sex unions until a broader consensus emerges in the Communion, or until General Convention takes further action’ is important and welcome. However it still seems to allow space for private, unofficial pastoral services of blessing, in a minority of dioceses – this is implied in the statement that the majority of bishops ‘do not make allowance for the blessing of same-sex unions’. It also interestingly adds ‘…or until General Convention takes further action’, which stresses the autonomy of TEC polity…

5
Leave a Reply

avatar
3000
5 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
5 Comment authors
Ford ElmsdrdanfeeMerseymikeMalcolm+Peter O Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
Peter O
Guest
Malcolm+
Guest
Malcolm+

As predicted, the “conservatives” cannot live with a statement which real conservatives (Howe, Henderson) were prepared to accept. This is because the “conservatives” are not conservatives. They are schismatics. As the Chapman memo outlined, their strategy depends upon rejecting everything from TEC as insufficient, regardless of what’s there.

Merseymike
Guest
Merseymike

Given that the ex-gay movement has precisely no credibility in the UK (and clearly doesn’t have the sympathy of the AofC) I would rather welcome conservatives association of themselves with it. I can’t think of many more things which would make them look even more ridiculous!

drdanfee
Guest
drdanfee

Maybe it depends, Mr. O. The inferences from scripture, spelled out so clearly, so categorically by your views – (anything but strict celibacy or a most traditionalistic straight marriage is innately broken?) – (I believe the current Vatican prefers the phrase, intrinsically disordered?) – are just as much of an innovative stretch, as is our modern view that empirical data and common sense social life together disconfirm our received negative ideas (and feelings) about the competent caring and generous relationships of people who are not necessarily straight. Even celibacy, hallowed as it has been in so many world religious traditions… Read more »

Ford Elms
Guest
Ford Elms

Peter O., On your blog, I note the following: “Sometimes speaking God’s truth feels like banging your head against a wall. The people who should be listening aren’t. They don’t care.” This applies to the “other side” too. Speaking God’s truth of justice certainly DOES feel like banging one’s head against a wall. “God is good enough to either support a life of faithful chastity or even powerful enough to heal the wounds of the past.” And for some of us He does neither. As to healing, well, I’m glad you found it in “ex-gay” places. I found it elsewhere,… Read more »