Read it all (an almost 40 page pdf).
No surprises here. The negative/even financial growth reflects the results of a progressive agenda not unlike the U. S. economy.
Interesting revision on Pg 15 to the Title IV, Canon 1 Ethical standards, completely eliminating the word ‘marriage’ and any coherent definition thereof.
[blockquote] The proposed change would replace the
current text of Title IV, Canon 1 Ethical Canon
Draft Revision for the Diocese of Georgiaâ€™s
Title IV, Canon 1 (â€œEthical Standardsâ€)
â€œMarriage between a man and a woman or
abstinence from sexual activity are the
only acceptable forms of sexual behavior
for a Deacon, Priest or Bishop in the
Diocese of Georgia.â€
The proposed substitute from the Committee
on Constitution & Canons is as follows:
Deacons, Priests, and Bishops in the
Diocese of Georgia are called to be
wholesome examples to the Church
exhibiting the teachings and virtues of the
Gospel of Jesus Christ. Their personal lives
must manifest faithfulness, monogamy, lifelong
commitment, mutual caring, and the
healthy care of themselves and their
families. Their public lives must show
financial honesty, confidentiality as
required, respect of interpersonal and
professional boundaries, and the avoidance
o f f r a u d , d e c e i t , o r d e l i b e r a t e
Yes, it looks like they are shooting for full inclusivity. I think they are going to live to regret including that part about “deliberate misrepresentations”, because the new language is a deliberate misrepresentation in its own right.
This change, once passed, signals the return of the qadesh to the Temple.
Why don’t they just say so?
I thought one of the teachings of Jesus was that in the beginning God made them male and female. Therefore, a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife and they shall become one flesh. So that they are no longer two but one flesh. Wonder where I got that from?
A collection of books called the Holy Bible……which TEC has chosen, at the behest of the LBGT lobby……to rewrite or ignore (take your pick).
We all know from their past actions that the TEC leadership and their legal team will try to take over various DioSC assets. That’s a given.
But, has there been a specific declaration of intent, from TEC, or the new TEC-SC group, to take property and other assets belonging to DioSC?
As far as I know the DioSC lawsuit was proactive – and TEC hasn’t yet answered, have they? Have TEC filed any suits?
Sorry. I will post again in the right place. Sigh…
As for DioGA, the language of the proposed canon is so ambiguous that they will never figure out what it means. Read it carefully. It says nothing at all about sexuality or sexual behavior, nor does it redefine marriage in any way contrary to the current TEC canons and 1979 BCP.
The Gospel teaches that porneia, sexual immorality, is defiling.
And in the context of “personal lives” the new canon calls for “faithfulness, monogamy, lifelong commitment, mutual caring, and the healthy care of themselves and their families.” That can only mean marriage.
But if a man can be a wife……..
I at least hope that they will take a careful look at the “must” words in the proposed canon, and realize not only how hard they would be to define, and apply – but also how they could be used against clergy by parishioners with malicious intent. A clergyperson who euthanizes a sick pet could be referred to the Title IV intake officer.
One word that isn’t difficult to define is “monogamy” which is the concept of one marriage per lifetime. (A definition of one sexual relationship at a time would be at best colloquial.) If the canon passes as proposed, clergy would not be able to remarry after death of a spouse, or after divorce.
The canon makes no mention of extramarital sex, so it does not explicitly make provision for clergy in extramarital sexual relationships (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or MXYZPTLK).