From the Walking with Integrity Blog:
[Bishop] Ingham also discussed the pending General Synod He said that that resolutions regarding the blessing of same-gender relationships are likely to consume a majority of the synod’s time””as it did during the Episcopal Church’s 2006 General Convention in Columbus””causing other important resolutions to be tabled. Earlier in the day, during a report to the Standing Committee for International Concerns, Ingham expressed his belief that the majority of lay and clergy delegates to General Synod are in favor of same-gender blessings but that the majority of bishop are not””meaning that same-gender blessings are unlikely to be authorized.
The fox is in the foxhouse.
That will probably be edited out, but it is meant as a substantive play on the old saying. Having the Canadian bishop who is at the center of their half of the Communion’s deep distress address our Executive Council when they are on the verge of telling the Primates to shove their Communique is almost (almost) funny–as in dark cartoon.
Aaaaa! A boundary crossing! Canadian imperialism! . . .
Oh. He’s a revisionist crossing boundaries. That’s totally different, of course. Never mind.
Are there any reasserters addressing the Executive Council?
Interesting.
The Executive Council is listening to a Nigerian gay rights activist and a Canadian bishop who is also a gay rights activist.
But is the Council listen to the whole spectrum of Episcopalians within ECUSA?
I think not.
How utterly tiresome; a group claiming to represent the whole Church is given to the most partisan, ideological, and lop-sided testimony. My experience looking in on EC proceedings suggests that they are an almost completely isolated batch of folks…more akin to Cold Warriors than leaders equipped for the task at hand.
“The Executive Council is listening to a Nigerian gay rights activist and a Canadian bishop who is also a gay rights activist.”
Ah, yes…truly a “conversation”.
We should stop being so critical, lest some reappraiser starts posting on this thread and calls us all “bigots”!
Well, I suppose that when it comes to evaluating rank political maneuvering and hypocritical statements and conclusions my conclusions are not so warm and fuzzy.
If the EC purports to represent the entirety of TEC during the off years, then they have to do just that. If they do not, if they only represent one side of an issue, then I reject their actions utterly ab initio as rubbish and so I suppose, will be classed as a bigot.