From John Kirkley's meditato on Resolution A161
One 18 year-old deputy saw right through the duplicity of it all. He noted that the last resolve apologizes to gay men and lesbians for the actions of this resolution, and pointed out that if we need to apologize for it, why are we doing it in the first place? Indeed. Why, if we believe that the election and consecration of the Bishop of New Hampshire was of the Holy Spirit, are we apologizing for that? Bishop Doug Theuner was right in 2003. The issue here isn't homosexuality; its honesty.
Quite a contrast to Special Committee member Dan Martins (San Joaquin) whose advice to Convention was to "hold your nose and vote for this."
Surely the church deserves better.
This amended resolution reminds me of the times when I, as a seven or eight year old, would get into a fight with my younger brother. My parents would tell me to apologize.
I could say the right words, but in a way that let my brother know that it wasn't over yet.
Such forced apologies may be good training for young boys, but they ill become adults. Either GG 06 should apologize sincerely, or they should tell the Anglican Communion that such an apology is not a price they are willing to pay for the sake of the Communion.
At the Jistice Is Orthodoxy conference in one of our sessions, I described the "Molly apollogy." We seem to be doing one in A160, and maybe another in A161.
Molly was 5 when her brother age 3, without asking, played with and accidentally broke her favrite doll. In high moral fury (think ++Akinola) she shouted, "You're stupid Billy!" Predictably, Billy began to sob.
Mom, hearing the noise, came, and as moms do, unwound the situation. Shey told Billy that he had to appologize to Molly, and that if the doll could not be fixed, that he would see a fewer toys so that a new one could be purchased. Billy tearfully turned to his sister and said, "Sorry!"
Mom then told Molly that she was not justified in screaming at her brother or calling him stupid. Mom demanded an appology. Molly stamped her foot, still in high moral outrage, and refused. Mom said, "Do you want to talk to daddy about this when he gets home?"
Molly pouted for a moment, then turned to her still crying brother and said, "Billy, I am sorry you are stupid!"
Molly appologies do not work. This one wont move anyone to accept TEC. The idiocy of appologizing for a ressolution within the ressolution as A161 suggests, is beyound unreal.
I am praying for a flat no vote.
eternally lurking in Chicago
"Either GG 06 should apologize sincerely, or they should tell the Anglican Communion that such an apology is not a price they are willing to pay for the sake of the Communion. "
I could not agree more and we should tell the Communion that an apology we have no need to offer in the first place is not a price we are willing to pay so American Bishops can have tea in the Palace gardens once every year or so.
The PB-elected is quoted in today's L.A. Times as saying it's time for the Church to move beyond the gay issue. I can think of no better way to do just that than to reject apologies, moratoria, and backing-and-filling and just MOVE ON.
Jim, you've got the characters reversed.
The AP wire is reporting that the moratorium has been rejected by a majority of the House of Delegates.
Given the action of the House of Deputies here in Columbus today regarding resolution A161, they've made it clear to the Anglican Communion as a whole that they have no intention of expressing any regret, much less any apology. This is a tragic event for TEC, the Anglican Communion, and, indeed, the body of Christ as a whole.
John Gibson said:
"Just move on."
Great idea, and as you're leaving the Communion, please don't let the door hit you on the way out.
I know, but don't get all excited about our leaving. We're not going anywhere. And at the end of the day, I'll bet we don't get asked to leave anything either.
And if RW Episcopalians want to stay, they're welcome to. They simply have to accept that the Church has moved on.
"(Birmingham, Alabama) A Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) national assembly voted Tuesday to create some leeway for gay clergy and lay officers to serve local congregations, despite a denominational ban on partnered gay ministers.
A measure approved 298-221 by a Presbyterian national assembly keeps in place a church law that says clergy and lay elders and deacons must limit sexual relations to man-woman marriage. But the new legislation says local congregations and regional presbyteries can exercise some flexibility when choosing clergy and lay officers of local congregations if sexual orientation or other issues arise."
My, but the Holy Spirit has been busy today!
HONESTY is what the WR is asking for. If you are not honestly sorry, admit it, but know that along with that your are continuing to walk apart from the Anglican Communion. Who left whom is very easy to see historically. Have the courage of your convictions and form a separate church but don't pretend you abide by Tradition or even the mind of the Anglican Communion. You want to define all the terms to suit your aganda and then balk when called on it.
Honestly admit you are redesigning the Faith into the cultural mold of late 20th century homoagendized America and imperialistically attempting to force in into every corner as "Anglican" or "Christian". Then, you could assemble those drawn to that without charade or pretense. But then you lose something you want, approval.
You may say no. The Anglican Communion has the same opportunity. Just don't sulk if you get what you really want, your own church - but not Anglican or historic.
"don't pretend you abide by Tradition or even the mind of the Anglican Communion."
Since when has bigotry been part of Anglican tradition?
Please don't presuppose to speak for me or for my intentions.
You have completely mischaracterized what I "want" and what my intentions are.
My motivations are simply to do the will of Christ.
The fact that you and I disagree on them, that you and I have different views on tradition and history, and that you and I probably don't agree on much else, is, frankly a problem for you.
I am willing to work alongside with those with different views-- even those whose views by their very nature exclude my ability to do ministry.
It is those who want to exclude people from the church who have the burden of proving why we should invite people into this church. Those people who claim numbers are dropping but then claim we should not let more people in who need to step up and have the "burden of proof" to explain their actions.
I don't know where you are coming from, Inked, but you make me Irked.
It's been a great week, Susan -- thanks for all the updates from Columbus!
My 10 year old said, "why won't they follow Jesus?" does that one up the one from the 18 yr old? Come on, can we stick to the topic and not wander into 6 o'clock local news teasers?
anonymous ... Please reassure your 10-year old that we are ... following Jesus.
"My 10 year old said, "why won't they follow Jesus?" "
Perhaps you should listen to your 10-yr-old and join a parish that does.
Let's please focus our comments on the post, please, and not the posters...
Moderator, An Inch at a Time
Hats off to the Moderator for helping us keep the focus [tip of the sunglasses out here in Oregon];-)
It is more than apparent that we are all getting a bit exasperated with the issues at hand in one way or another [DOH!].
I suggest lots of centering prayer, time in the jacuzzi or sauna and exhausting walks so we will be so relaxed we will forget what we were talking about in the first place.
It is time to move on and decide just how we are going to personally, individually fufill the mission of reconciliation in the Church [notice how unspecific I am???], and how what we do each day affects and reduces poverty, homelessness, conflict, war, genocide, helps those recovering from natural disasters, and the like. Let's try to reconcile these needs with what we can do to prevent and remedy them.
I'm sorry, I have trouble responding to the substance of a post that has no substance and invites a response in the spirit in which the original post was offered.
This is the state of Christianity? Reduced to nasty squabbles via chat boards. No wonder we get such a bad rap.
I am heartbroken by the decision of the Convention today. The resolution adopted compromises the understanding of faith held by most Episcopalians, if not most Anglicans. Would Jesus have urged the disciples not to baptise the poor or infirm because it made the rabbis uncomfortable? No. Why would we urge our brethren not to FULLY INCLUDE their gay and lesbian members and clergy AS THE SPIRIT GUIDES THEM?
I feel abandoned and churchless.
Anonymous of 9:42, you are far from abandoned. This is exactly how the other side wants us--helpless and abandoned, hoping we who believe in the full inclusion of all the baptized will sculk off to our little closets and stay there.
Let me remind all who feel this way that we are to "hope for that which is unseen, not for that which is seen, because we already have that."
And it may be hard to fathom now, but "all things WILL work together for good, to those who are called according to His purpose." There is much to hope for, my brothers and sisters, much. The Holy Spirit inspired the hearts of the bishops to bring us ++Katharine. Sometimes we have to take one step back to take three forward. She must be invited, acknowledged and accepted at Lambeth in order to deliver a nice blow to the radical right and show the communion that she cannot and will not be contained or "put in her place" according to their skewed thinking.
The God they worship is not the God or Christ or Holy Spirit that I know personally and that Scripture has revealed.
So there is much hope, as long as we continue to do the work of Christ every day and remember that there is "NO TURNING BACK!" from the course that has been set by Rev Susan, Michael Hopkins, Bishop Chane, and many, many others, care deeply for all the baptized and will give no quarter until our work is accomplished and Christ's mandate for all the baptized is realized.
"Sometimes we have to take one step back to take three forward."
Unfortunately, the pattern seems to be to take two forward and at least one-and-a-half back. Nice dance, but it's not progress.
Post a Comment