Jefferts Schori, who was in San Francisco to help celebrate the Feast of St. Michael and All Angels, voiced her support for gays and lesbians several times during her visit. However, at a church forum Sunday morning, parishioner Christopher Hayes ”“ who’s in a long-term same-sex relationship ”“ told her, “I want to hear that we’re not satisfied with where we are right now.”
The Reverend Susan Russell, president of Integrity, a national organization of LGBT Episcopalians and their straight friends, told the Bay Area Reporter the bishops’ pledge treats gays and lesbians as “expendable.”
Tom Jackson is the president of Oasis, the LGBT ministry of the Episcopal Diocese of California. The diocese consists of San Francisco, San Mateo, Alameda, Contra Costa and Marin counties, and part of Santa Clara County. The diocese, which has 27,000 members, has seen many blessings for same-sex unions over the past 30 years.
The church’s next general convention is in July 2009. Jackson said the bishops’ controversial pledge has “energized a lot of people.” Russell said Integrity is working with other organizations to address same-sex unions at the convention. Many have expressed optimism that things will change after that meeting.
Well they’re right. A lot will change at that meeting, because there aren’t going to be any conservatives there. If the moderates don’t realize what the conservatives have been preventing all these years, they are in for a nasty suprise. Without the conservatives, TEC is going to go absolutely crazy.
Perhaps the theme for General Convention 2009 should be “Reaping What You Sow”? It will really resonate with the group formerly known as “Windsor Bishops,” I think.
What constitutes “voiced her support”? Followed closely by reporters, I am sure, it should be possible to muster a quote or two.
Doug Martin, you can find details of the PB’s remarks here:
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_90574_ENG_HTM.htm
A portion:
[i]Jefferts Schori told the standing-room-only forum audience that the House of Bishops reiterated the stances of the General Convention, “not going backward, but willing to pause” in its consideration of full inclusion of lesbian and gay persons in the life and ministries of the Episcopal Church. “We reiterated our understanding that all gay and lesbian persons” are deserving “of the fullest regard of the Church,” she said.
“We live in the hope that there will be full inclusion,” she told reporters in a news conference before the forum talk, calling anything less “not lamentable, but egregious.”[/i]
Speaking of reaping what you sow, I should have also mentioned the Primates’ Joint Standing Committee. Do you think they have ANY idea what they’re in for if they let the TEC slide?
I’m not sure why they think they can roll all this back in 2009. There was a considerable middle who voted for the original more-Windsor-compliant resolutions at GC2006. It was the left and right together that outvoted them. But if SSU’s come around in 2009, won’t the middle and what remains of the right still be able to outvote them, and keep SSU’s away?
Thanks, Elves:
Hardly a surprise there and certainly not “news”, nothing in violation of the HOB resolution.
Jennifer, no. The true conservative block will be gone by then. I doubt that the AAC will be there. The left has an agenda that they will organize and push. The present middle will not be prepared and they will want to go along to get along.
Jennifer, you have only to read or listen to what the “moderates” are writing and saying. Let’s take Bp. Leo Frade of SE FL, who very definitely was considered a moderate in 2003. He was a close friend of Bp. John Howe and other evangelicals in ECUSA who had partnered with him in missions efforts when +Frade was bishop of Honduras.
This “moderate” is now saying stuff like this:
[i]Frade, in particular, said that he fully expects GC ’09 to approve a same sex liturgy and lift any moratorium on consecrating homosexual bishops. In what I took to be a change from the generally “neutral” pronouncements he tends to make in public, Bishop Frade was quite clear that he intends to personally work for those outcomes at the next Convention.[/i]
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/6534/
Thanks, Br. Michael and Elvish Folk. I wish it were otherwise.
Just as a follow-up to my #8 in case anyone cares and wants to see the clear “movement” of Bp. Frade, here’s part of his Aug 12, 2003 pastoral letter re: his vote consenting to VGR:
[blockquote]Let me begin with facts: I did vote to consent to the consecration of Canon V. Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire, and I did support the resolution passed by General Convention that states: “We recognize that local faith communities are operating within the bounds of our common life as they explore and experience liturgies celebrating and blessing same-sex unionsâ€. [b]However, this resolution does not call for the church to develop such liturgies, and I have made it clear that I do not intend to authorize the blessing of same-sex unions in this diocese.[/b][/blockquote]
http://diosef.org/gc03_final.html
sigh.
[blockquote]
“I don’t see the raucous conflict that the headlines report.” [/blockquote]
That explains it all! She needs new glasses.
On the same-sex issue in California, the Governor has repeatedly said that he will veto every bill coming before him. Remember: Governor Schwartzenegger is a devout Roman Catholic, and he is not about to desert his Church’s teachings.
Cennydd: Uh, I will not pretend to plumb his soul, but let’s also remember that Arnold is a devout POLITICIAN — and same-sex marriage is not popular with the vast majority of Californians. He is aiming for the US Senate in a year or two, when he is termed out of the Gov’s Office. It would be a MAJOR mistake for him to endorse same-sex marriage — at least for the time being. In the same vein: he has not crusaded against the pro-choice policies in place in the Golden State.
The Governator has made clear that issue is to be decided by popular vote (already done – “No!”); so he will veto any legislation of the issue.
It is almost as if this “change” has become something of a god that must be bowed down to…
My guess is that Susan Russell and Integrity – that name is beginning to make my blood boil – have become very confident of themselves and the tenor of American attitudes toward homosexuality and same sex marriage. My guess – and it’s only a guess – is that she is right about the attitude toward homosexuality and dead wrong about SSM.
Once again, if the homosexual sub culture wanted to make a new set of real enemies, they could not have chosen a better way to go about it.
The sheer in-your-faceness does not fly well in America, even in otherwise liberal America.