This is good news. While the media is likely to position this story in such a way to be sensational, the resolution includes some compelling components that are important to note:
1. In accordance with the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church, the resolution recognizes that discrimination of individuals based on race, age, gender or sexual orientation does not have a place in the discernment process of our ministry.
2. The resolution recognizes that God’s call to the ordained ministry in the church is a mystery.
3. The resolution recognizes that we are not all of one mind on the issue of sexuality.
4. The resolution was written in a way that would allow dioceses to consider anyone as a candidate to the episcopacy regardless of sexual orientation, but does not mandate that all dioceses do so.
5. The resolution does not rescind Resolution B033 (General Convention 2006) “to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on the communion.”
It does not suggest that the Episcopal Church will close its moratorium on the consecration of gay bishops.
Resolution DO25 passed in the HOD clergy order by a 2 to 1 margin, in the HOD lay order by a 2 to 1 margin, and in the HOB by a 2 to 1 margin. This demonstrates some consistency among lay and clergy that is important to respect.
So, black is white and white is black. I’ve read both resolutions. The D025 supersedes B033. It doesn’t do it by name, but it does in every important respect.
Just who is the bishop kidding? His flock or himself?
didn’t +KJS say at the time that it ends B033???
I am saddened by this. Holly was, as I have mentioned before, my high school theology teacher and someone I have respected. I respected even when I have found him wrong on the major issues of the Episcopal Church because he was honest in his position. This statement is not honest. This is sophestry not worthy of a bishop of the church.
RSB
No, +KJS said shortly before its passage that D025 does NOT supersede B033’s call for restraint.
I think Bishop Hollerith’s statement is both honest and straightforward.
B025 clearly authorizes the election and consecration of a gay bishop the first time that comes up. B033, called for restraint. B025 eliminates that restraint. The fact that it does not require a diocese to elect and consecration of a gay bishop is beside the point. It also frees the Bishops and Standing Committees to consent to such an election.
To suggest otherwise is typical of the dishonesty that TEC has become known for, but it is pointless to argue with those people.
Reminds me of the MP Argument sketch:
😉
At any rate, a more balanced understanding of the purely symbolic B033 is that B025 is a symbolic repudiation. I concur with 5, especially in the context of the following actions of GC2009. The acceptance of SSBs sorta puts such spin to rest.
Tired@#6
The MP sketch is an almost perfect analogy.
RSB