Delegates to the 136th Convention of the Diocese of Bethlehem unanimously approved this resolution on the Participation of all Baptized Members in the Life of the Church
Be it resolved, that in support of the House of Bishops as stated in New Orleans, Louisiana, September 25, 2007, “”¦ we [c]all for unequivocal and active commitment to the civil rights, safety and dignity of gay and lesbian persons.” and be it further
Resolved, that as all baptize Christians are ministers of Christ, they are invited to fully participate in the life of the church. and be it further
Resolved, that we continue the “Listening Process” throughout the Diocese.
Explanation:
The House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana, September 25, 2007, stated the following in “A Response to Questions and Concerns Raised by our Anglican Communion Partners.” In the summary of their statement, the eighth point reads: “We call for unequivocal and active commitment to the civil rights, safety, and dignity of gay and lesbian persons.”
The Book of Common prayer, in the catechism, states the following: “The Church is described as the Body of which Jesus Christ is the Head and of which all baptized persons are members.” (p. 854) ”¦ and “The ministers of the church are lay persons, bishops, priests and deacons.” (p. 855).
Submitted by
Mr. Robert Barker
The Rev. T. Scott Allen
The Rev. Canon Jane B. Teter
I think they meant baptized rather than baptize Christians. This is good news for all adulterers, murderers, child molesters, etc., as long as they’re baptized. Whatever happened to a wholesome lifestyle as a part of the requirements for ordained ministries of the church?
“Resolved, that as all baptize Christians are ministers of Christ, they are invited to fully participate in the life of the church.”
And in the explanation they stress that they mean ALL ORDERS of ministry, bishop included. So this is about rejecting Resolution B-033, among other things. They are denying that there is any “manner of life” which would ever be of such a concern as to exclude anyone from ANY ministry.
Just wondering: Can anyone remember or check how this diocese voted on consent to Mark Lawrence?
[url=http://andrewplus.blogspot.com/2006/12/bethlehem-our-decision-not-to-consent.html]There was no room at the inn for Father Lawrence[/url]
The stats are here. Stagnant giving (declining in adjusted for inflation) and steadily declining membership and ASA. Thus, spoke Gamaliel…
RobRoy, we posted some data re: Bethlehem ASA and Membership decline on the previous Dio. Bethlehem thread.
http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/6633/#128890
I would hope the Primates are made aware of this. Time to tell TEC it is no longer Christian, much less Anglican.
Regarding “Baptized Christians” and Fr. Lawrence – it is obvious that in the DioBethlehem some are more “Baptized” than others.
I’d love to hear the revisionists — the Salty Vicars, the BfT19s, etc. try to spin this.
It would be better to just hang your head in shame and admit that this is a black mark on the revisionist cause.
When even the reappraissers put “Listening Process” in scare quotes, I think everyone knows it’s just a joke.
See, here’s the deal. There can be no question whatsoever that this resolution contradicts the Dar request not to consecrate bishops who engage in homosexual conduct. Plainly their bishop encouraged this resolution. The Dar request did not directly target Diocesan Conventions, but it did speak to all TEC bishops. So we have one bishop who is directly defying the primates. However, the silence from the rest of the HOB regarding this snub of the Anglican Communion (not just the primates, but Windsor, Lambeth 1998, the entire history of sexual teachings in the Anglican Church, and so forth) will be deafening. If the rest of the bishops (and certainly the Presiding Bishop) saw this as a bond-breaching event or that this diocese was acting against the sentiments expressed by the HOB last month, they would certainly address the matter.
The lack of such consiliar efforts by the bishops is highly telling. They think they can mimick some key phrases from the various communiques and that is enough to get them tickets to Lambeth and keep on going on. That is not the kind of attitude that should be tolerated in the Anglican Communion.
9, the ABC seems happy with it.
#10. How do you know? As far as I can find out, he has said nothing to the purpose. This brouhaha continues, and he has said nothing… I think. HAS he spoken recentlyto the issues? LM
So Fr. Lawrence is even worse than a child molester or murderer. Something so evil that he can’t be allowed to be a bishop, when *anyone* else can be. He’s an orthodox Christian. The shame.
And invited to fully split infinitives unnecessarily.
(Sorry. That was petty. But such unimportant carelessness seems to walk hand in hand with more significant carelessness.)
Larry, I was referring to his actions and words at New Orleans.
“As all baptized Christians are ministers of Christ, they are invited to fully participate in the life of the church”
So where’s my purple robe and pointy hat?
Irenaeus,
I want one, too! and one of those fancy sticks with the curly-q on top.