Better link — but still uncorrected
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/6334/
Better link — but still uncorrected
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/6334/
Well, I can summarize: it will not be acceptable to the Primates.
It is a slippery and vague document.
I read it. It basicly says “‘No” and it is not substantively any different from the draft.
It stresses the Bruno defense. That SSB’s are OK if done under the table etc.
What also struck me about the document is its sterility. It is the product of social workers and political activists, not theologians.
On first read at Stand Firm: I see some movement in recognition that another gay bishop ain’t gonna happen.
The (obvious) avoidance of the clandestine SSB issue is unfortunate. It does no one justice, anywhere, of any opinion. And my feeling is that the press is going to hit that issue very, very hard.
For the record, I favored the Radner/Harmon/Howe position. We have to get our own house in order over here, and I hope someone in authority, no need to mention names, will say so.
Randall
No repentance….only justification of how right they are and indignation of “invading” bishops. That should really go over with the godly Primates and Bishops who are offering orthodox sanctuary!
More TEC fudge and arrogance. Hopefully the Common Cause partners will now take bold steps to become an authentic Anglican Provence in the USA.
I’ve got the bullet points and the most important part of the “discussion” (on BO33) at Reformed Pastor. I have dubbed the statement on same sex blessings “the Bruno Shuffle.”
I should have mentioned that they’re in a more readable form than StandFirm, though I’m sure Matt Kennedy will be editing things soon.
Dr. Harmon,
Please tell us that +Salmon will not be signing this load so …manure.
RSB
ENS also has the properly formatted document here.
I think we should stop using the word fudge.
This looks more like, and again, let the dust settle, bureaucratic and institutional incompetence.
BCP28 [#11] writes: “I think we should stop using the word fudge.”
Amen, amen, and again amen.
[b] 11. BCP28 wrote:I think we should stop using the word fudge. [/b]
Well then I nominate the word dreck.
RSB
Cpn Yips is noting there is NO mention of Covenant. If true, interesting. Maybe because that was not a specific Dar question?
Huh.
I liked the draft from yesterday or the day before, which came right out and said that we did not all agree on what B033 means or how it should be applied. That, I think few would dispute, is plain truth.
At a first glance, it looks like the concessions in this document over previous statements are (1) the acknowledgment that “non-celibate gay and lesbian persons are included among those to whom B033 pertains”; and (2) the observation that “in addition to not having authorized liturgies the majority of bishops do not make allowance for the blessing of same-sex unions.”
Seems like not a lot of sausage to come out of all that grinding.
I advocated for a firm and bold statement that TEC is divided on these issues and cannot, as a united body, take a clear stand one way or the other. That has the virtue of being true, and telling the rest of the Communion what it has to deal with. This… is not that.
Ah, well. Following Kendall’s advice, I should read it through a few more times and sit with it before rendering final judgment.
I can think of a number of words more descriptive than “fudge” but I don’t think the elves would allow them to be printed.
I have always loved real honest to goodness chocolate fudge. But at times it would upset me and really roll my stomach. The “fudge” being dished out by the TEC if fully consumed would probably do the same.