In our statement””A Response to Questions and Concerns Raised by our Anglican Communion Partners””we were able to accommodate concerns of our more conservative members by reconfirming the charge of the 2006 General Convention (Resolution B033) for bishops and standing committees to “exercise restraint” in giving consent to episcopal elections in which the candidate’s lifestyle would pose a challenge to the wider church, and by acknowledging this charge applies to non-celibate gay and lesbian persons.In addition, we pledged not to authorize public rites of blessing for same-sex unions until a broader consensus emerges in the Communion.
Both of these declarations conflict with my understanding of an open and inclusive Church, a conviction that informed my vote against B033 in 2006 and one I reconfirmed in my message to our diocese following the Primates communiqué last February. However, from what I witnessed this past week in New Orleans, I realize these compromises are necessary at this point in our Communion’s discernment to ensure the fullest participation in our ongoing conversation. It is important to note that while our General Convention has acknowledged that blessings of same-sex unions have occurred in response to local pastoral needs, the Convention has never authorized the development of such rites. Our Church is likely to revisit both these matters at our next General Convention in 2009.
The full text is here
Now put this text next to Robinson’s, about which we are not permitted to speak. Here, there is backing and filling, some qualifying, which we are all used to from the HOB. BUt Robinson’s entry casts a very different light on the above.
Are any of you in doubt that there is a war on and that it is to the bitter end? Robiinson’s essay makes it very clear that he is feeling confident that momentum is with him, and the bishop’s letter above, for all its fine words, confirms the case. Both the bishop here and Robinsoon make it clear that they want it all and intend to have it all, their way or no way. So, what is it going to be? Larry
Yes, Larry, to them it is “our conversation.”
We now have all these statements from all those of the HoB, basically saying that no matter what was said in their recent statement, it is merely a time filler pending GC’09.
I do not believe that anyone, anywhere in the world, is fooled by these mendacious verbal gymnastics of TEC’s HoB. I do not think that even +Cantaur is fooled. He is just playing political word games in what is IMO, an ever more clearly seen, vain hope of keeping the house of cards upright.
However, in the face of the clarity of purpose coming from the homosexualists in the HoB, even +Cantaur is not going to be able to hide from reality of their open rejection of the HoB statement. Nor will he be able to sweep this current unpleasantness under the rug. He is going to forced into making a decision.
The question is this. Will +Cantaur vote for the broader AC, thus keping the AC clearly ranked among orthodox Christian churches? Or, will +Cantaur vote to support TEC and the narrow, liberal west and thus be seen to supporting the new, arguably apostate thing?