Regarding assorted resolutions on the place of gay and lesbian persons in the life of the Episcopal Church, the House of Bishops passed Resolution D025 with minor amendments. This resolution is the subject of much press attention. I supported this resolution as a full expression of where we stand as a Church. It acknowledges that gay and lesbian persons have, and may in the future, be ordained to all orders of the Church.
George Councell, my friend and colleague from New Jersey, remembered the joke, “Do you believe in infant baptism? Believe in it? I’ve seen it!”
Like George, I too have seen faithful and godly ministry of gay and lesbian persons in all ministries of our church. As a matter of integrity and authenticity, I look forward to celebrating the ministries of all God calls into the life of ordained ministry…
There are those who may be distressed about this as well as future acts of this convention. I pray that our mutual response to this unsettling will be more engagement not less, more conversation not less, more honoring of difference not less.
Orientation <> Behavior. Can someone get the memo to the good bishop?
What’s the point in talking when they are going to do what they are going to do regardless?
Talk is cheap. Talking hasn’t changed anything in the last 6 years in the Episcopal Church. It hasn’t changed anything in the last 40 years.
Meanwhile the PB writes another letter.
[url=http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=13638]To the House of Bishops[/url].
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
Quoth a dog in a manger:
[blockquote]Pragmatically, the latter means property settlements need to include a clause that forbids, for a period of at least five years, the presence of bishops on the property who are not members of this House, unless they are invited by the diocesan bishop for purposes which do not subvert mission and ministry in the name of this Church.[/blockquote]
Which effectively bars vibrant ACNA parishes from acquiring property, given that five years of lying in disuse will make bringing a recovered building that much more expensive.
As I’ve said many times, it’s another form of crop-torching, cattle-killing and well-poisoning…it denies the enemy use of the resource for the battle.
Her language would seem to preclude transfer of the property to the Roman Catholic Church, Orthodox Churches, Methodists and Lutherans — any church that had bishops. And it would also seem to preclude, let’s say, a Disciples church from inviting a non-TEC bishop to even visit the church.
Come to think of it, if, as in Colorado, the property was sold to a night club operator and some non-TEC bishop dropped in, the property could be forfeit.
Somehow I suspect the deed restriction would make it very unattractive for any potential buyer. But then, that may be what she is trying to accomplish.
Hmm, I believe a Roman Catholic bishop from Massachusetts tried to put such a restriction on a resale of a former RC church to a church of another denomination, and he lost in court.