Integrity sees Reality While A Number of Episcopal Church Bishops do Not

Note these two statements carefully:

The Reverend Susan Russell has been named as the only gay member of the Episcopal Church delegation charged with defending recent church actions (the election of an openly gay bishop and the recognition of same-sex unions by the Episcopal Church)

Integrity was instrumental in winning two controversial votes at the church’s 2003 General Convention: consenting to the election of Gene Robinson as the first openly gay partnered bishop in the Anglican Communion and formalizing the acceptance of liturgies blessing same-sex unions in the Episcopal Church.

Ummm”¦ Have we not been hearing over the last years and over the last two days from the TEC House of Bishops that they needn’t really enact any kind of moratorium on the blessing of same sex unions because General Convention had not really approved same-sex unions? Integrity of course recognizes the reality of what happened at GC03(hat tip: AM).

print
Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, Same-sex blessings, Sexuality Debate (in Anglican Communion)

4 comments on “Integrity sees Reality While A Number of Episcopal Church Bishops do Not

  1. Irenaeus says:

    Brilliant job of institutional memory!

  2. Nikolaus says:

    Perhaps we should begin to editorially modify references to Integrity based on the results of a survey that were posted last week over at Stand Firm. How about “Integrity, an organization with less than 400 members, …”

  3. jeff marx says:

    I can personally deal with disagreement.
    I am troubled by outright lies and fabrications. It is hard to show respect to people who deny what they are doing when everyone knows what they are doing. But thanks for this, I can print it off for our clericus meeting next week

  4. dwstroudmd+ says:

    Is this where the disclaimers about Integrity only having 1931 members and can’t be held to speak for the General Convention or House of Bishops or Executive Committee are going to start flying frrom each and every one of those entities? Should be. But I doubt it, since ECUSA/TEC doesn’t take note of “small disaffected minorities” of little to no importance.