Saturday, we had the presentation by the Theology Committee and their report “Same Sex Relationships in the Life of the Church.” I was a bit disappointed with the report itself, which was really simply two papers, one from the conservative viewpoint, and one from the progressive viewpoint. While they were good papers, the House of Bishops had asked for the committee to prepare “a” paper, not two. I am quite sure this will be published soon, if it is not available already out there somewhere. Still, it did provoke very good discussion, as did the report of the “Around One Table” results. This was a church wide study on the identity of the Episcopal Church. Saturday night were class dinners, and then our Sabbath began….
Sunday night after dinner we had a fireside chat with the Presiding Bishop. Many topics were covered, and much shared but perhaps the most moving was the talk by Bishop of Haiti, Zache’ Duracin….
Bishop Duracin shared with our group the day of the earthquake. It was so moving to hear his story. He had just left his car and was in his front yard, when the earthquake struck. He watched his house crumble before his eyes, with his wife and two girls still inside it. The girls came crawling out of the rubble just minutes after, basically unharmed, but his wife, although alive was trapped. Her leg was, and is, severely damaged. She is now under care in Tampa, Florida. He reported that his car, the one he had just left before the earthquake, was only unearthed this past Friday. He is a very grateful man, to be here, but also for all you have done, and many across this church….
More questions than answers here.
1. ‘I was a bit disappointed with the report itself, which was really simply two papers, one from the conservative viewpoint, and one from the progressive viewpoint” Was the real problem two papers or two viewpoints?
2. “Bishop Rivera sends you all her love! It was great to see her and hug her neck!” What does this mean?
[blockquote] was a bit disappointed with the report itself, which was really simply two papers, one from the conservative viewpoint, and one from the progressive viewpoint. While they were good papers, the House of Bishops had asked for the committee to prepare “a” paper, not two.[/blockquote]
Translation: I thought that we weeded out those bigoted conservatives, so there should only be “a” paper – the progressive viewpoint.
robroy (#2),
I suspect you’re right. Their mind is made up now and the HoB have committed themselves, why reopen a debate that’s now closed??
Sort of like, “Ready. [b]Shoot![/b] Aim.”
David Handy+
Now see, you guys have got it all wrong. The reason why there was supposed to be one paper is that all the dialogue and conversation and indabas was going to cause both sides to merge, proving that two irreconcilable, antithetical gospels are really basically the same.
; > )
There can’t be one paper. All the arguments on both sides were made long ago (I haven’t heard a new one in ages), and academics, clerics, and pewsitters have chosen sides. When the papers come out, we shall see whether the 2 groups identified any points of contact at all.
For me, the so-called “listening process” was over with the faux ordination-consecration of Mr Robinson, and the election of Miss Glasspool merely solidified that fact, affirming that the majority of the TEC leadership hold views that are in schism with the views of the majority of the Anglican Communion and the views of the majority of the world’s Christians.
The two papers will no doubt reflect the simple fact that there are 2 sides to the issue, and no middle ground. Simply a widening and deepening chasm. A wound, in the side of Jesus Christ, that is not healing.