General Assembly: ECUSA Rejects Ban on Gay Bishops

[Episcopalian]

Episcopalians Reject Ban on Gay Bishops. (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PROTESTANTS_GAYS?SITE=MIHOL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)

[Liberal Crozier]

Please pray for the current Presiding Bishop as he faces a special session whose purpose for our opponents is the reversal of this decision, or at least some concession or equivocation.

[Episcopalian]

Thank you, LC, for this information. I will indeed keep the Bishop in my prayers.

ADDED:
This (http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_76292_ENG_HTM.htm) is the official release from the Episcopal News Service about the "special session" you spoke of.

[LGBT FLIGHT ATTENDANT]

.....AND the very next day - the non-binding resolution passed with both the present and future presiding bishops voting for it.

---- IT seems that Liberal Crozier had a clear perception.

[NathanATX]

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_76411_ENG_HTM.htm

It's true that the election of a practising gay person as a bishop in the US in 2003 was the trigger for much of the present conflict. It is doubtless also true that a lot of extra heat is generated in the conflict by ingrained and ignorant prejudice in some quarters; and that for many others, in and out of the Church, the issue seems to be a clear one about human rights and dignity. But the debate in the Anglican Communion is not essentially a debate about the human rights of homosexual people. It is possible – indeed, it is imperative – to give the strongest support to the defence of homosexual people against violence, bigotry and legal disadvantage, to appreciate the role played in the life of the church by people of homosexual orientation, and still to believe that this doesn't settle the question of whether the Christian Church has the freedom, on the basis of the Bible, and its historic teachings, to bless homosexual partnerships as a clear expression of God's will. That is disputed among Christians, and, as a bare matter of fact, only a small minority would answer yes to the question.


Conclusion:

The only reason for being an Anglican is that this balance seems to you to be healthy for the Church Catholic overall, and that it helps people grow in discernment and holiness. Being an Anglican in the way I have sketched involves certain concessions and unclarities but provides at least for ways of sharing responsibility and making decisions that will hold and that will be mutually intelligible. No-one can impose the canonical and structural changes that will be necessary. All that I have said above should make it clear that the idea of an Archbishop of Canterbury resolving any of this by decree is misplaced, however tempting for many. The Archbishop of Canterbury presides and convenes in the Communion, and may do what this document attempts to do, which is to outline the theological framework in which a problem should be addressed; but he must always act collegially, with the bishops of his own local Church and with the primates and the other instruments of communion.

That is why the process currently going forward of assessing our situation in the wake of the General Convention is a shared one. But it is nonetheless possible for the Churches of the Communion to decide that this is indeed the identity, the living tradition – and by God's grace, the gift - we want to share with the rest of the Christian world in the coming generation; more importantly still, that this is a valid and vital way of presenting the Good News of Jesus Christ to the world. My hope is that the period ahead - of detailed response to the work of General Convention, exploration of new structures, and further refinement of the covenant model - will renew our positive appreciation of the possibilities of our heritage so that we can pursue our mission with deeper confidence and harmony.

[Daniel]

this doesn't settle the question of whether the Christian Church has the freedom, on the basis of the Bible, and its historic teachings, to bless homosexual partnerships as a clear expression of God's will. That is disputed among Christians, and, as a bare matter of fact, only a small minority would answer yes to the question.

One will glean from the verbage above a clear statement which suggests that a majority of the faithful within the Anglican as being opposed to gay persons as far as recognition of their relationships are concerned. I personally object to the phrase "practicing gay person". (The only thing I practice is my scales at the piano and when I sing.) That says volumes in itself. It reveals the author's bias and ignorance. In essence, the statement says: " Gee. I don't like to think of anyone beating up on you, but, please, don't ask me to bless you."

Let's not forget: this is a leader who hasn't been well respected since he has been elected. He has been assailed from all sides regarding the issue of gay persons and the church. One might posit that he has much to gain in ramming through this proposal.

To the reader: While I am passionate about this issue, is must be noted that I am not a member of the Episcopal church. Rather, I have served them with my voice for many years.