In a nutshell, it seems to me that what D025 and C056 mean is that The Episcopal Church has told the truth about who and where it is on the controversial issue of fully including gay Christians living in nuptial unions into all orders within the priesthood of all believers. It also tells the truth about where the Episcopal Church is as regards our desire to remain in full communion with the other churches of the Anglican Communion.
The truth on both questions is this: we are not exactly sure yet.
We are not exactly sure what the future will bring for us on both things. We recognize that within our own body is a degree of opinion that varies from staunch support/opposition to staunch ambivalence. As such, D025 essentially upholds a degree of local option on the question of ordaining Christians in same-sex marriage-like unions. It does not in any way guarantee that all or any dioceses will be open to calling and ordaining such persons. (Yes, God calls through the Church.) It does say, however, that the discernment for such is entirely entrusted to dioceses provided they conform with those national canons which are pertinent. In other words, the resolution affirms the status quo ante (before 2006) of how discernment for clerical orders is done.
Does D025 have the effect of 'over-turning' B033? Hard to say in actual fact. B033 was not a 'rule' or a canon, it was a form of urging. Likewise, D025 is not a law either -- it simply reaffirms the sufficiency of the canons vis a vis discernment processes. When it comes right down to it, if a priest were elected to the episcopate whose 'manner of life' was likely to cause difficulty globally, D025 would not have any necessary effect on whether or not said person was consented to by the Standing Committees/House of Bishops and/or General Convention.
Does D025 have the effect of 'looking like' a repudiation of the so-called 'moratorium' sought by Windsor? Of course it does. And likely, in a way, so does C056, which has to do with marriage equality -- which similarly brings us back to a kind of status quo ante 2006 [*see Christopher's important critique of this point in comments below]. Again, it is a resolution which suggests that we support local pastoral options, and are continuing to examine what if any liturgical/canonical revisions would be made at the General Convention level down the road a stretch.
Both of these resolutions, however much they basically reset the clock to somewhere around GC 2000 (with its D039 resolution that triggered the AMiA formation), will be perceived globally as some kind of repudiation of the Windor moratoria. The real question though is, "Does this matter?"
If D025 and C056 represent an effort for the Episcopal Church to tell the truth about where we are (as messy as that is) then truth-telling is called for as to the state of the Anglican Communion.
Facts on the Ground
The fact is that those who most demanded the Windsor moratoria did not accept that we had abided by them -- and they have never made any sincere attempt even to look like they were abiding by the moratorium that applied to them. Indeed, when it comes to facts on the ground, the move
ment that has never done a single thing to abide by Windsor, has many more of them. If The Episcopal Church has one openly partnered gay bishop, and an ongoing practice of local option regarding blessing same-gender couples' unions, the GAFCON movement has created dozens of separatist/schismatic bishops, and have created a continent-size
d new province which is actively soliciting recognition by the Church of England synod to be fully recognized as a province in full communion with the See of Canterbury.Moreover, if we are telling the truth, whereas The Episcopal Church has essentially gone not forward but "back to where we once were" -- with D025/C056 largely looking like a return to the kinds of resolutions which passed in 1991-2000 General Conventions -- the GAFCON movement has gone way off into an anachronistic future whereby the faith is expressed according to the epistemological, theological, cosmological mindset of late 17th century Britain. Notably, we have seen the full-fledged launch of what will likely be an alternative Anglican communion devoid of those developments in Anglicanism which have arisen since the Oxford Movement.
To be sure, The Episcopal Church is not an exemplary model of the Gospel and the catholic church either. I still hold that we are now, perhaps more than ever, a church convinced of the priority of our autonomy - and I find that troubling at times.
On The Other Hand
Then again, on the other hand, I also recognize that while neither salvation nor discernment of God's will are individualistic endeavors -- there is a part of the process which requires the individual (person or church) to perceive God's vocation even against the opposition of other perso's who likewise are seeking to be faithful.
I do believe that the witness to Christ given by many gay Christians (in various orders of ministry) is a fact in our midst. Their witness to so many of us in the Episcopal Church is also available to many around the Anglican Communion -- and I do believe that people will increasingly come to see that they are proclaiming Christ -- born, crucified, risen and ascended. By being a place where such witness is fostered, the Episcopal Church is, I believe, doing the hard thing (in fact) by standing for a discernment of God's will which does not yet meet easy and widespread approval.
In this, of course, it will remain to be seen whether we are doing something prophetic, or not. If we have decided to stake our selves, our souls, and our bodies on this sense that God is indeed calling for a new thing, (thereby we are perceiving ourselves to have a prophetic vocation), then of course we must do what we believe God is calling us to do. We may of course know that it won't be well or widely received by all. We must of course know that there will come pain and reaction. We must know that -- unlike the people whom Jonah spoke to -- the whole place will not immediate change their ways. We must be willing to receive the reaction against what we perceive to be true -- and to do so graciously and humbly.
Indeed, if we are acting in any way prophetically by passing D025 and C056, we must be prepared to turn the other cheek when the slaps come, and continue to maintain the posture of faithful witnesses to Jesus Christ, Lord and Savior, who was born, died, rose, ascended and will come again as part of the fulfillment of God's plan before the worlds began, to make all things well.
30 comments:
Thanks for offering your balanced reflections, Greg. I particularly find it helpful at this time to be reminded of the ways in which the most vocal critics of the Episcopal Church have failed - sometimes openly and brazenly - to live up their side of what things like Windsor was asking everyone to do.
BTW, Bishop N. T. Wright is not mincing any words about the implications of D025. If what he's saying is a widely held perception among those opposed to D025, then the intentions expressed in that resolution to remain in full communion with others in the Anglican Communion may mean very little. Indeed, Wright goes so far as to call this resolution "cynical double-think." Not exactly a promising basis for maintaining full communion.
Yes, it's quite true that in one sense the Episcopal Church has returned to the status quo ante bellum.
But you never erase the past. The last six years have given us (some of us, anyway) a greater appreciation than we had of the depth of the disagreements within our national and international communion. Some said, when GC 2003 confirmed Gene Robinson as bishop, that many who voted for him did not appreciate the firestorm of opposition that their action would set off. Those who voted for D025 surely did understand what they were doing.
Are we doing something prophetic? That seems such a weighty word for what seems to me to be simple justice. And I can't remember a prophet who made it a point to say that those who disagreed with him are "Christians of good conscience." If it's prophesy, it's pretty moderate prophesy -- dare I say, "Anglican centrist" prophesy?
Anyway, whether it's prophetic or not, I think it was the right thing to do, and it was right to wait the six years before doing it.
Well said!
What a joy it is to read a balanced view of such a hot topic. Although there may be some truth to the statement that D025 just takes us back to the old status quo, I think it does far more than that. First, by overturning B033, it takes back American control of the selection of our Bishops, a historical reality since the end of the Revolutionary War. Secondly, it abandons the hypocrisy of pretending that we don't already have gay and lesbian lay leaders, priests, and bishops. Most importantl, it welcomes our LGBT members in committed relationships to openly answer God' call to all levels of leadership in our Church. Make no mistake. Our delegates have shown great courage and wisdom in passing this resolution. Dr. B., FL
I too appreciate this piece. I would add that the history of Lambeth 1998 (and its very bad handling by Archbishop Carey) as well as pre-2003 bordercrossings need mentioning as they played a part in all of this and are often "disappeared" in the blame game.
I will have something up soon of my own sense of this.
I will say this to Fr Jones and to Marie. This does NOT take us status quo ante. We cannot undo the last three years in which a lot has happened that I think led us to consider how we were with one another at 2006 and how others have been with us since even as we did our best to honor restraint and relationship. B033 remains in place coupled with D025. And I think the tension of that is a good thing.
Again, as I've said before, I'm really not interested in who gets to be bishop at this point. I am interested in how we are with one another and how we do with one another, and the tone and language of B033 hurt not because I won't get to be bishop (God, no!) but because of the way of its passage as well as its tone and language toward lgbt persons and the rhetoric that followed thereafter communicated we were expendable, not communion partners, not needed, not siblings in Christ. We were in all but outright language told we were the acceptable sacrifice.
D025 backs up and says, hold on, we were hurtful and unpastoral unnecessarily, so let's try to reframe our relationships together internally as well as with the wider Communion.
So, now, in my interpretation, contra Bp Wright and his vitriol as well as unexamined attitudes, we live with a tension between B033and D025 for the time being.
Personally, for the sake of continuing conversations and strengthening relationships across the Communion, I encourage that we refrain from consecrating a bishop in a same-sex relationship at this time. We won't do the many lgbt persons elsewhere any good by being in no relationship with their Churches at all. But I also think that we have reinstantiated a sense of who we are, of our own hospitality, as D025 makes clear. This makes possible real interdependence, communion rather than what has in systems theory increasingly looked like fusion, codependence, and the dynamics of alcoholic families.
I thought not to comment, as these are matters that are fleshly to me, not mere issues and I so often feel like I become the outsider whenever we go from other matters to these. But D025 gives me some sense that "We are not us without you."
Christopher, thank you for your thoughts (as always.) I stand corrected by your remarks vis a vis 'status quo ante'. If I were going to write another draft (probably not) I would amend it to reflect your changes.
I also point to the ascerbic comment of Bishop Wright (whom like many I respect deeply for his biblical scholarship in general) as an expression of the kind of 'slaps' we will be receiving from folks over all of this.
I again encourage folks to respond with the turned cheek to such slaps, and to continue 'keeping the main thing the main thing' which is the proclamation of Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior -- and how we see these resolutions to speak to our understanding of that kerygma.
I again encourage folks to respond with the turned cheek to such slaps, and to continue 'keeping the main thing the main thing' which is the proclamation of Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior -- and how we see these resolutions to speak to our understanding of that kerygma.
This registers the fundamental difference of where we are today as say three years ago. The taking of slaps is something others are willing to take upon themselves alongside one another. It's a fundamentally different understanding of sacrifice.
My initial reflection is up. In light of wild interpretations at even Covenant-Communion (which those at Integrity aren't helping I add), I think it especially important to emphasize the facts as it were. B033 as Fr Knisely points out is likely de facto, rather than de jure, and thus, still in place coupled with D025. We're in a holding pattern, but its tone, language, and spirit is something quite different from before. C056 does not authorize or develop new rites, but begins the wise process of ingathering materials already developed as well as theology resources. I for one will be submitting the union ceremony we developed and used along with the historical, theological, and liturgical resources that went into it.
Regardless of what the truth may be, D-025 is widely perceived as overturning B-033. It's not just conservatives who have this perception. I note that the Integrity website says D-025 "moves beyond the de facto moratorium on LGBT bishops in the Episcopal Church" enacted by B-033. See also here and perhaps also here, where the folks at Integrity seem to be seeing C-056 as authorization for action now.
All the more reason to make another point of view available, to offer another perception. And to do so without sense of condescension will be key to that. I think there are many communion-minded lgbt persons in this Church but garnering their sense requires a different set of words and language than has to-date been used. bls and I have been some of the few arguing from a lgbt lay stance and pointing toward those larger ties.
I sincerely hope, Christopher, that folks like you and bls will prevail in the war of perception around all of this. My concern is that at this point, it may no longer matter.
A friend of mine has said the following in response to Wright's vitriolic diatribe and I repeat it here as I think it is spot-on:
I hoped [Bp Wright] would simply be making an argument for prudence in maintaining the community. Such an argument would be feckless, but much more defensible than the same old Christian hate-speech for homosexuals. The leap from homosexual sex to "active expression of any and every sexual desire," which most homophobic Christians seem able to make effortlessly, is huge and implicative of a deep-rooted view of homosexuals as sexual zombies, incapable of controlling any of their sexual desires. It's the same argument that's used against gays in education, saying they will surely be tempted to abuse children despite the vast body of research demonstrating that sexual abuse has no correlation to sexual orientation whatsoever. It is deeply hateful and deeply misguided.
His treatment of the justice question is strange as well as it on the one hand demands that justice requires treating all people appropriately and at the same time argues that ordination is "always a gift of sheer and unmerited grace." Are homosexuals somehow beyond the reach of grace in this instance? Are they beyond it in the instance of atonement? I'd like to know at exactly which point Wright believes Christ stops offering grace to homosexuals. Furthermore he uses the (unsupported) assertion that identity has only recently been associated with sexual orientation as a means of denying this is an issue of justice, but such a move requires accepting that only formulations of personal identity that have existed for centuries are legitimate. That is not the way dialectic works, as Wright well knows. Just as in science our understanding grows with time and study, so with the philosophy of justice and identity. I don't suppose Bishop Wright would accept 10th century views of the identity of women or Africans. What then can his justification possibly be for accepting it regarding homosexuals.
This hateful screed is deeply troubling and disappointing coming from someone like Wright. It could just as easily have been written by Paige Patterson. How is it that otherwise intelligent and compassionate people have no problems abandoning both faculties in consideration of this issue?
Thank you, Greg+, for this very helpful analysis. I have vacillated between being very proud of our Church's honesty in the crafting of D025 which includes the recognition that we are not all of one mind, and despairing of the almost willful mis-reading of the resolutions' intention. Your encouragement that we will have to take our lumps living clearly in this ambiguous place of following the new thing that God is doing (and has been doing for quite some time, IMHO) while still wanting to be in relationship with those who don't see it that way at all, has been a real tonic. Perhaps God is also doing something new with the Anglican Communion which we cannot now see and which is now painful to live through, but will ultimately be more faithful and of more use to Christ's mission in the world. Either way, I still affirm what I said six years ago when a parishioner confronted me and said that I had to choose between the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion: I choose Jesus, and I beleive he has called me to live out that commitment in the Episcopal Church, as a part of the Anglican Communion.
Maybe this is unkind, but has it occurred to anyone else that all of Bishop Wright's haranging (and I, like many, have greatly appreciated his Biblical scholarship) is a positioning to be the next ABC? Certainly there has been a history of alternating broadly between an Evangelical and a Catholic in that position. If it's the Evangelicals' turn next, +NTW may well (at least subconsciously)be ramping himself up to be the clear next choice. Just a thought.
Vicki McGrath+
It should also be noted that Bishop Wright is also involved in his own battle in the CoE to not only engineer his own GAFCON oriented group's ascendancy with the FCA. His unconscionable hyperbole is intended to fan the fires at home and to start the big lie in the councils of the radical Evangelicals rolling again. He could care less about the Communion per se, but rather being in Communion with those he likes and agrees with.
Even within the FCA, the Evangelicals have marginalized the Anglo-Catholics in order to continue their march forward.
Such mean spirited and narrow minded language and repeated reductionist, snide, and untrue statements make me wonder as to the credibility of his scholarship since such a partisan relationship to Truth makes me question wether he is committed to it, or to winning.
Hi, folks. So, a few things:
--Re: the Windsor Report, this has basically been like a kids' squabble for years now. "Stop it." "No, you stop it." "You started it." "I'm not going to stop until you do." I really don't get what good it does for us to point fingers at each other over this. If they're hypocrites, then so are we.
--Should we be so surprised that people like +NTW are expressing frustration with us? I myself don't have much patience for the way we keep on speaking out of both corners of our mouths. Look, we pretty clearly just said at GenCon that we're going to discern whether or not people in same-sex partnerships should be made bishops just like anyone else, because we believe that their relationships are holy and worthy of emulation in the church. And we also just gave explicit permission (which we hadn't actually done before) for bishops across the church to develop and use rites of same-sex blessings. Obviously this represents a movement from where we were before. Why do we keep trying to say that we haven't done anything new? IMHO, it would be much, much better for the health of the Communion if we were clear and honest.
That is: We elected a gay bishop, we're not apologizing for it, we'll likely do it again soon, and we believe God is for it. And, we're in favor of same-sex blessings, we're giving them a trial run right now so that we figure out which ones work the best, and we're probably going to print 'em in a book stamped Church Publishing come 2012.
Yes, we know full well that this is what the Communion has asked us not to do. All of the Instruments have said so for years; we know it and we've heard. But we think that God and justice demand that we act, and so we did. Yes, we know that this is going to cost us our spot at the Communion table. We knew what the terms were, and we counted the cost. It's worth it. It pains us, but it pained us more to go back on our beliefs on sexual ethics and gay rights.
--For my part, I would far, far rather have an honest, open parting of the ways. "Let your yes be yes, and your no be no," as someone once said. The more we try to say that these actions don't really change our Communion status, the more we invite frustration and distrust. Look, Anglicans around the Communion haven't been sure that they could trust what we say for years. Far better would be to say what we mean and mean what we say.
--In the end, I think it's pretty clear that we just have a different idea of Communion than most Windsor Anglicans do. We don't think that it involves walking together in matters of doctrine and morals, except in a very broad sense. We cherish our comprehensiveness, and the independence of the provinces. That is, God's a mystery, we're a big tent, and we're a church that pretty much lets you make up your own mind on your spiritual walk. We do want to walk together in shared mission (in things like feeding the hungry, caring for the sick and the outcast, and other justice issues), and we do want to keep talking with each other and sharing table fellowship. We accept everyone; we strive to be a church without outcasts. But we're not going to tell you how to think about God or how to be a disciple. This is why we have a church that includes Bishop Stanton and Bishop Spong under the same big tent. We really believe in that.
You Windsor Anglicans think that we need to walk together on far, far more issues of faith and morals than we're comfortable with. You think that's what it means to be a Communion. Ok, fine-- there's integrity in that. Go with our blessing. And we'll go our way, and ask for your prayers and friendship. No hard feelings, no obfuscation, no property battles or blame games-- this is an issue of conscience for us all before God.
I dunno. I think that'd be a better way of going about things. Doesn't seem like it's what we've chosen, though.
Augustine
Apologies in advance for my post appearing to be an attack--I certainly don't intend for it to be. I take issue with your statement, "But we're not going to tell you how to think about God or how to be a disciple". What, then, is the norm or intention of our communion?
If all TEC is or intends to be is a mere gathering place of like-minded, agreeing individuals, then you're exactly correct; there is no need for any "communion" (big "C" or little "c"). But for "communion" also to imply and reflect "community", we're very surely about telling folks "how to think about God [and] how to be a disciple." This seems to me to be the very epicenter of the Great Commission, no?
How do we tell people how to think about God or be a disciple, you might ask? By how we live our lives. This also includes how we deal with those with whom we disagree (and those who disagree with us).
If we're not here to show or tell people how to think about God, then pray tell, what are we here for? To reaffirm our mutual beliefs? To build each other up in our holy, little circles? I certainly hope that is part of it, but not the whole enchilada. No, we're here to be the hands and feet of God (hopefully as we can see from the best example in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus), which certainly includes an exemplerary way of living with and amongst our friends and strangers alike. It also should provide a means of transforming each one of us away from our tiny, little acorns into something resembling the oak tree. This is the mystery of grace.
If all we're concerned about is our own well-being and self-preservation (read: the protection of only our ideology, whatever that might be at any given time in history), then we've missed the image of God completely.
If we're truly interested in being citizens of our own nation (as you seem to imply by stating that we're not here to remind people about how or what to think of God or how to be a disciple), then how do you explain the exclusion of Forrester from the bishopric? I certainly hope his exclusion (in as redemptive a manner as possible, mind you) is a clear indicator that we actually do intend to show people the "right" path to God, but that such path can and does have certain limitations and boundaries, as well as many a footprint and many a mountain (or valley) found upon it.
As an aside, another issue at play here is our less than well-veiled admission that if TEC doesn't address gay marriage, then we as an institution risk our status as a denomination in the US (recall the federal statute otherwise known as the "Defense of Marriage Act", as well as the several States in which same-sex unions are now legal, with which compliance should now become mandatory lest TEC lose its legal status). I would love to hear the Godfather's take on this subject from a legal perspective.
What D025 does is to make clear that any season of restraint is temporary and voluntary and will not be imposed by any requirement in addition to those in the canons. Insofar as B033 can be understood as a moratorium, it is utterly repealed. I'm not at all sure that it ever was such a thing. A resolution doesn't supersede canon law. But the resolution itself was an act of spiritual violence against our lgbt members, as was the rhetoric used to justify it.
Those who thought it was ever a possibility that TEC would comply with ultimatums from on high in the new curialized Anglicanism were sorely mistaken. What we have said is: we care about you, we will include you in our conversations, but this is the process by which we discern who is called to the episcopate.
Fr Bill,
But even Scott Gunn is not interpreting it this way. B033 was never de jure, that I grant, because it didn't change our canons. But, if as Bp Kirk, says it was de facto, things are actually more complex and subtle. There is no direct language that rescinds B033, and resolutions that would do this were rejected. That means canons take precedence, being de jure, but I'm not sure B033 just goes away. So, I think the situation more nuanced. Certainly what is clarified is that we will follow our canons in the process. But there is quite a lot of ambiguity, given our expression for care for communion, whether when another bishop-elect in a same-sex relationship come for consents, he or she would get them.
As an aside, another issue at play here is our less than well-veiled admission that if TEC doesn't address gay marriage, then we as an institution risk our status as a denomination in the US (recall the federal statute otherwise known as the "Defense of Marriage Act", as well as the several States in which same-sex unions are now legal, with which compliance should now become mandatory lest TEC lose its legal status).
This is utter baloney. Every state that has made same-sex marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships legal has made provision for religious exemption. No Church or clergypersons is legally required to marry anyone. They can send the couple to the court house or county seat.
Christopher
I truly hope you're right. I also hope that the Supreme Court, when this issue hits their marbled steps, agrees with you, too.
"Every state that has made same-sex marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships legal has made provision for religious exemption. "
Though I haven't looked since law school 16 years ago, I am unaware of any religious exemption which would allow any institution to discriminate/deprive one of his/her otherwise statutory rights (whether at the State level or federal level) to whatever just because said religious institution is the party discriminating/depriving.
This has deeper federal implications, as well, because the tax-exempt status of any religious organization could be at risk.
These are just a few of my thoughts on the subject and I certainly do not profess any competency on this topic in specificity.
Again, a church or clergyperson is not required to marry anyone gay or straight in any state. They can send people on to state officials. This is a red herring that has been used repeatedly. It's nonsense, and before speaking about it, I recommend boning up on what has actually happened and the laws surrounding the matter rather than spreading rumor that has the undertone of meaning to villify.
We can worry about churches being forced to perform gay marriages when the government forces Roman Catholic churches to re-marry divorced people or Orthodox Jewish rabbis to preside mixed Jew-Gentile weddings.
Would you like tartar suace with that red herring?
A personal comment: The last several comments discuss some interesting and important issues. The discussion would be improved by avoiding terms like "mean spirited", "narrow minded", "baloney", "vilification", "red herring", and the like.
One of the problems we have to deal with in discussing sexual orientation and the church is how to engage those who disagree with us (or who we think disagree with us) without demonizing them.
I get mad, too, but it's usually not helpful.
When a claim is brought foward without checking legal facts and that claim is used as a way to suggest that TEC is simply caving to the culture, it becomes deeply problematic.
These sorts of claims are being thrown around as a means to deny persons like myself legal access, and were used in the state in which I live to quite effectively overturn same-sex marriage even though experts in law pointed out that the claims were not factual. Such claims carry connotations of villifying persons like myself in this culture, and I will not simply dismiss that that is how they operate because the term "villify" upsets. They are meant to make gay people out as those who will tear down religious institutions.
I expect someone who uses such claims and makes a legal analysis to have actually looked at the legal facts, otherwise the claim is being used for another purpose. The claim has in fact been used precisely as a legal red herring (not originally my term, btw, but that of those who have argued these matters in the legal sphere) in several instances, and needs to be named as such because religious institutions have quite a lot of protection in this country, much more than gay people do.
And I might add, the tone in which the original claim was made isn't exactly conducive to a nice response, but is a sideswipe.
Which is to say, if the contextual realities of certain terms and arguments and the contextual effects they have on certain populations are not understood, what seems an innocent paragraph to one person does not to another. This is not an innocent paragraph for many lgbt persons, containing a number of "hot button" jabs:
As an aside, another issue at play here is our less than well-veiled admission that if TEC doesn't address gay marriage, then we as an institution risk our status as a denomination in the US (recall the federal statute otherwise known as the "Defense of Marriage Act", as well as the several States in which same-sex unions are now legal, with which compliance should now become mandatory lest TEC lose its legal status). I would love to hear the Godfather's take on this subject from a legal perspective.
This conversation was going well, let's do as the Godfather asks and not let it get mean. This is a safe place, isn't it?
Christopher
First and foremost, I sincerely regret that my bringing up the topic of tax-exempt status, the federal judiciary and TEC's stance on gay marriage has offended you--I apologize for any confusion, sensitivity or negative affect this topic has had on you or any LGBT person. Please accept my hat-in-hand sorrow and remorse. Those who know me (at least one in this group that I know of) will attest to my love, respect and appreciation for the entire LGBT community (many of whom were in attendance at my son's recent baptism and at my house for our baptism celebration later that weekend).
I have thoughtfully-reflected upon my prior post and I can certainly see how my use of the words, "our less than well-veiled admission" can be misconstrued and seen as an attempt to villify the actors--I meant no such meaning by these words and beg your forgiveness for any consternation I may have caused you.
In closing (this will be my last posting on this subject), I do ask, however, that you re-examine your analysis of my statements: I was intending (perhaps rather poorly, I suppose) to protect the very LGBT community that you have accused me of villifying. You immediately jumped to an incorrect conclusion about what I wrote thinking that I was going after you and the LGBT community. I wasn't; I never have and with God as my witness, never would/will.
I am quite taken aback by your response and am ashamed that what I wrote has touched off such a storm in your responses. I submit that my statements have had the exact opposite affect of that which was intended and for that, I am truly sorry and beg your forgiveness.
Frair John,
It would probably be a good idea for you to read more of what Bishop Wright has written. You may not agree with his take on events in TEC, but he is not a GAFCON or FCA person, and has in fact, along with the other open evangelicals of Fulcrum, been some of their severest critics.
I think the PB and PHOD got it right in their letter. It remains to be seen how B033 will be interpreted in light of D025. They deny that D025 is a repeal. I think it is a repeal to the extent that a certain interpretation of B033 (a binding moratorium) is now ruled out. We've more or less undone what was done in Columbus and the subsequent HOB meeting. The risk of a de facto moratorium remaining in place is there. This was a risk inherent to the legislative strategy of not making a direct repeal. I do believe that the majority of deputies and bishops intended to move beyond B033. Others, such as my former bishop (Dorsey Henderson of Upper SC), voted for D025 and C056 and then promptly signed on to the Anaheim statement.
Post a Comment