Read it all.
This is less honest than the PB’s letter.
I think this claim that D025 did not overturn D033 actual tells us what we knew at the time D033 was passed. It was no moratorium and therefore D025 does not remove the moratorium because we never had one.
It has always been the case that it is not a question of if we will have another lesi-gay bishop it is only a question of when.
I hope the ABC and the rest of the primates learn a clear lesson from this duplicity on the part of our HOB.
I am reminded of the Governor in “The Best Little Whore House in Texas.”
“OH! I love to do a little soft shoe, now you see me, now you don’t I’ve come and gone…I Love to lead the people on…”Matt 5:43-45 notwithstanding…
Well, as I noted on another thread, the PB and Bonnie and this chappie should have flunked their lying classes. This guy needs to learn from PT Barnum: Some…most…but NOT all…all the time. Fill in the blanks.
That is truly a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it too.
[blockquote]The House of Bishops did not direct that liturgies be developed…[/blockquote]
[blockquote]Resolved, That the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music, in consulation with the House of Bishops, collect and develop theological, and liturgical resources[/blockquote]
If he honestly believes that the Resolution did not authorize liturgies to be developed, I think the good bishop must have been taking a nap during the session.
Call me crazy, but does not the Standing Commission on [b]Liturgy[/b], you know, create liturgies? What exactly would a [b]”liturgical resource”[/b] be other than a liturgy?
Call me crazy, but I am not buying it. I do not see how on earth the wording of that resolution could be interpreted any other way.