The Times now has a more substantial report, in US Episcopal Church leaders pledge not to consecrate gay bishops by Ruth Gledhill.
Boston Globe Michael Paulson Episcopal leaders act to avert a schism
Los Angeles Times Rebecca Trounson Episcopal bishops promise ‘restraint’
The video of the closing press conference is now available here at Episcopal News Service.
The rejections from Akinola, Iker, Duncan, and company are already predictable, and actually could have been predicted way ahead of the particular wording of the latest HoB document. They will claim very nasty things. As they have claimed in the past. By not condemning queer folks innately for their sexual orientation ahead of any other ethical or productive aspects of personality or behavior or relationships, the alternative believers have become apostate or unscriptural. The latest over at StandFirm, for example, has some believer posting the simple equation, Queer Folks=Bank Robbers. By not blocking all manner of prayer with same sex… Read more »
There is a very interesting comment by the Primus of Scotland posted on the Admiral of Morality’s website titled “++Scotland: Attempts to alter Communion “will fail” ” Hopefully this type of response will be common. Apparently ++Mexico is of a similar mind according to the Admiral’s posting.
drdanfee – no disappointment with TEC HOB strengthening BO33 in order to try and stay in the AC??
“TEC HOB strengthening BO33 in order to try and stay in the AC”
Keep it up, NP we all need a laugh. It’s not so much the carefully crafted myth of the rebels in TEC finally getting their just reward that is so funny, nor what the obvious need you have to believe that myth says about you, it’s how oblivious you are.
Basically, this means the Anglican Communion is the Confederacy and TEC is a “nice” plantation which tries to make its slaves comfortable and happy. Heck, they might even listen to us sing in the evening over the cotton fields.
But no one has officially asked for gays to be given their freedom.
” ….no disappointment with TEC HOB strengthening BO33 in order to try and stay in the AC??”
They’re GOING to stay in the AC, NP. Do you STILL not get it??
Apparently Ruth Gledhill is reading the statement regarding future consecration of bishops living in same-sex relationships in a different way than we are in the U.S. Exercising restraint is not seen here as not doing it at all, only doing it after sincere discernment, and if there is an election by the people of a diocese of a person similarly situated as Gene Robinson, there is a very good chance that the result will be the same re affirmation by a sufficient number of bishops to result in his/her consecration. The winds of the Holy Spirit blow where they will;… Read more »
Essentially, its no change from current policy and practice.
Seems as if the conservatives are none too happy.
Nope NP, not much. I read the resolution in immediate and other available, larger contexts – not least the GC which passed it. B033 seems clear for the moment, including its restraint on consenting to the diocesan election of any near future openly gay or lesbian TEC bishop (who in my view might have sufficient love in their hearts to be capable of being an honest, committed partner to their beloved, spilling over into our community life, all for the good). GC passed B033. It would have been odd for the HoB to say much of anything else in that… Read more »
Really, NP, I don’t know that B033 has been “strengthened.” It has been reaffirmed: bishops will “exercise restraint.” And, yes, bishops understand that GLBT folks in committee relationships are in “a manner of life” that would be disturbing in other provinces; but they knew that all along. Right now, I would be surprised if a bishop-elect who was in a committed non-marital relationship received sufficient consents to election from the bishops; but I think that would have been true (for good or ill) before this meeting. I think the bishops have “clarified” – both for us within the Episcopal Church,… Read more »
The most that this statement could could be interpreted as a change would be as a personal pledge on the part of the existing bishops. They seem to be saying that they won’t vote to approve to consecration of a gay/lesbian bishop and MAYBE saying that they won’t authorize blessings in their dioceses. Of course the resolution was voted by voice vote so nobody is actually on record as having voted for it or perhaps abstained with a cough. It would be really interesting to see what would happen if the matter is actually put to a test.
The only statement the “conservatives” would have accepted would have had to include the following points:
– the resignation of the Bishop of New Hampshire
– the resignation of the Presiding Bishop,
– the resignation of any bishop who had either voted to confirm the present Bishop of New Hampshire or voted for the present Presiding Bishop
– the appointment of either Iker or Duncan as (acting) Presiding Bishop
They might also have enjoyed some language about taking all those in points 1, 2 and 3 and lining them up against a wall . . .
Ford – you want to pretend nothing has changed? Have you not noticed that TEC HOB has paid a price to stay in Rowan’s club (no more VGRs and no ssbs authorised) I know they do not mean it and just want to come to Lambeth, Lapin, and so does everyone else…..but I am surprised, Ford, that you would want to defend the duplicity we have seen time and time again from some TEC bishops. You want to defend people who are quite happy to have ssbs in their diocese but also want to stand up and say “I don’t… Read more »
“You want to defend people who are quite happy to have ssbs in their diocese but also want to stand up and say “I don’t authorise them” just because they want to stay in Rowan’s club??” You seem to have no problem with a bishop who says “I see no reason why any old Joe off the street can’t get a slip of paper from me then go and pretend to celebrate the Eucharist where ever he like, but I won’t do it.”, then allows it to go on all over the place. You seem to have no problem with… Read more »
Ford – again, I am not against “lay presidency” because it is not prohibited in the bible…..this is the difference. I have not supported Akinola breaking anything in the bible….you show me anything he teaches which contradicts the bible and I will join you in opposing it. I have said to you many times that I think he is wrong in supporting the Nigerian government proposed legislation earlier in the year. AGAIN – you don’t want to deal with the hypocrisy of TEC bishops so you mention everyone else’s…………….why is it so hard for you to say you do not… Read more »
The promise of restraint is no more ” political”than the Sydney Synod resolution to pursue lay celebration after Lambeth 2008!
NP wrote: “1 Cor 5:12 – we are called to make judgments on teaching and behaviour in the church…”
setting ONE verse a g a i n s t the Gospel in its entirety…
(If it contradicts, it cannot be authentic, dear NP ;=)
NP, There are problems with your arguments, first, you assume that if a bishop does not publically admit to doing something, then he doesn’t so it! That’s just naive. Turning a blind eye to certain things out of pastoral necessity is something most bishops will be called to do. Why do you seem to think it is alright to deny doing what one does? The second is far more important, your credibility. You decry this as “dishonesty” and perhaps you are correct. The question is, do you have the right to do it? Now you have mined the Bible for… Read more »
“setting ONE verse a g a i n s t the Gospel in its entirety”
I guess it’s OK for Evangelicals to pick and choose which of the Articles they want to follow. It’s only when the “liberals” do it that it becomes “disobedience”.
NP: “I am not against “lay presidency” because it is not prohibited in the bible”
How very selective.
There is nothing in the bible prohibiting the election of bishops, yet you claim it is unbiblical.
What is interesting, Malcolm, is how some things, like lay presidency, or any other thing popular with Evangelicals, are permissible because they are NOT mentioned in the Bible, while other things, like invoking the saints or asking the Virgin to pray for us, which is to say anything that looks vaguely Roman, are not permissible for exactly the same reason. To me, this shows pretty clearly that this “Biblical faithfulness” is not that at all, but using the Bible to justify the things you like, but of course only EHBLs do that.
no Ford – the point is only priests “presiding” is not mentioned in the bible……. this restriction was a creation of the National Union of Priests – do not go to the stake for it!
Why not just cast lots for bishops? When replacing Judas with Matthias the apostles used Scripture (or rather Jesus’s teaching and instruction), common sense and prayer. The used lots as a means to entrust the decision to Jesus himself. But who appointed Paul, other than Christ himself? Paul presented himself to the twelve, he was examined and found to be called by God. In the 1st and 2nd C other churches appointed bishops in other ways – and some churches didn’t even have bishops. I’m not sure God ordained an org chart for the church. Look at Mark 10:35-44 to… Read more »
“the National Union of Priests”
The what? NP, the point was that if Scripture is silent on something you approve of, then you take this to mean you can do it. If, however, Scripture is silent about something you don’t approve of, you see this as meaning we shouldn’t do it. Whether Scriptural silence on a particular issue represents permission or prohibition seems for you to depend on whether or not you approve of it. And the stake?