Executive Council Resolution on the New Orleans House of Bishops Meeting

Via email:

Resolved, the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church, meeting in Dearborn, Michigan, expresses its appreciation to the House of Bishops for undertaking the monumental task of trying to clarify the conflict between the canons of the Episcopal Church and the demands raised by the Dar E [sic] Salaam communiqué, and be it further

Resolved, the Executive Council affirms with the House of Bishops the essential and renewed study of human sexuality as noted in the “listening process” of the Lambeth Conference of 1998, and be it further

Resolved, that the House of Bishops’ statement exacerbated feelings of exclusion felt by many of the lesbian and gay members of our church by defining Resolution B033 from the 75th General Convention to include lesbian and gay people, and be it further

Resolved, that by calling particular attention to the application of B033 to lesbian and gay person [sic], it may inappropriately suggest that an additional qualification for the episcopacy has been imposed beyond those contained in the constitutions and canons of the church, and be it further

Resolved, that while B033 focuses on the consent process for bishops, the broader impact is to discourage the full participation by lesbians and gay persons in the life of the church and enshrine discrimination in the policies of the Episcopal Church, and be it further

Resolved, that the Executive Council acknowledge with regret the additional pain and estrangement inflicted on lesbian and gay members of the church, and we pledge to work toward a time when our church will fully respect the dignity of every human being in all aspects of the life of our church.

Update: Ralph Webb has some comments on this here.


Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, Episcopal Church (TEC), Sept07 HoB Meeting, TEC Bishops

18 comments on “Executive Council Resolution on the New Orleans House of Bishops Meeting

  1. AnglicanFirst says:

    There was a great deal of focus on ‘sexuality’ by the Executive Council.

    I almost felt when reading the article that I was being told that the the sun rises and sets and that the earth has seasons. Simplistic, is a kind mword to use to describe their meeting.

    Sexuality is man obvious ‘given.’ Without it we would not be here to disuss the issue and without it the human race would soon ‘die out.’

    What is an issue is that the progressive-revisionists within ECUSA seem to think that sexuality is something to be ‘held Holy’ in contexts outside of marraige between a man and a women, sexuality that does not physically and symbolically, relate to the propagation of human life and the nurture and instruction of those procreated young humans.

    The GLBT crusade within ECUSA is a sexual crusade that is driven by a secular need for acceptance of GLBT lifestyle that is outside of the historic ken of human exisitance and survival.

    It is a life style of me and myself, me and my sex partner and me and my social grouping that is not contributing to the familial propagation of “the Faith once given.”

  2. Brien says:

    They managed to say all that without using the word polity once.

  3. Stephen Noll says:

    Fence-sitters take note: Resolves #4 and #6 presume that inclusion of practicing homosexuals is [i]mandated[/i], not just permitted, by the Canons and Prayer Book of TEC.

  4. BabyBlue says:

    They might have saved themselves time if they just got together for a rendition of [url=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WD5KvgIwEAg”]this[/url] and called it a night.


  5. Hursley says:

    Gag me with an aspergilium. What a tiresome piece of poor writing and obsessive focus on a narrow dimension of being human. This is the tail-end of a theology gone amok.

  6. Jeffersonian says:

    I think we see the priorities here, no?

  7. dwstroudmd+ says:

    This is the same Executive Committee that can authorize formal participation in abortion without HOB or GC. But it cannot do this for GLBT?s ? Even with 5 of 40 members openly homosexual? Has the EC had a power failure or a nerve failure? Because there is clearly no intention to alter course on the part of the EC. It will become mandatory at the next GC. At least if the prophets at “Integrity” have their wicked way with ECUSA/TEC.

  8. Jody+ says:

    [blockquote]”…an additional qualification for the episcopacy has been imposed beyond…”[/blockquote]
    As someone recently said about people on extremes–they tend to loose all sense of proportion and the absurd. Absurd pretty much sums of the Executive Council. Of course, I fail to see how expecting celibacy outside of heterosexual marriage is imposing an additional qualification. Dr. Noll’s point is well taken.

  9. Jody+ says:

    excuse me, that should be “pretty much sums up…”

  10. Br. Michael says:

    And of course the ABC and the AC will continue to ignore this. Indeed, they are past ignoring and into active enabling.

  11. Larry Morse says:

    This is, of course, more of the same. We have read reams of this pablum and there will be more coming.
    Is the intent, do you think, simply to inundate the religious media with repetition so that the uncommitted conclude that the fat lady has sung and the show is over? Is this a strategy, planned and committed? LM

  12. RoyIII says:

    Well, at least they did not use the terms “shared life” or “common life.”

  13. w.w. says:

    The Executive Council is the governing body of TEC between conventions. Its pronouncements count for SOMETHING. Did all EC members who were present vote on this resolution? Did it get unanimous approval?

    I hope every member of the Anglican Consultative Council and every primate receives and reads a copy (if not done so already).

    Want to know what all the winks and feints among the bishops and members of the joint commission at the New Orleans meeting meant?
    This resolution is it.

    p.s. to +++Rowan: They said it in plain English.


  14. Susan Russell says:

    In a word: BRAVO!!!!!!!!!

  15. Sarah1 says:

    I agree with Susan Russell.

  16. Saturnius says:

    for the Executive Council. . .

    [i] Ye are they which justify yourselves before men. But God knoweth your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God. [/i]

  17. Mike Bertaut says:

    14. To Susan Russell’s sentiment, I can sadly add my own, i.e. at least now the direction the out of control train is heading is plain to see, and the dissimilation much more difficult to pull off.

    Better the devil revealed, than concealed, I always say.


  18. Irenaeus says:

    “The monumental task of trying to clarify the conflict between the canons of the Episcopal Church and the demands raised by the Dar es Salaam communiqué” —Executive Council resolution

    Clarifying the conflict is easy. Papering it over is difficult. Getting Lambeth Palace to whitewash ECUSA’s noncompliance—that was monumental!