Whenever we cover big events such as GenCon, the HoB, or Lambeth, our readership spikes during the actual event (to as much as 50% more than normal), and usually settles into a plateau around 10%-15% higher than it was before. I expect the same to be true of the period following Lambeth, and given our average monthly unique readers of about 40,000, that means we can expect somewhere between 4,000 and 6,000 new readers. Some veterans will wonder why I bother linking to and commenting on certain revisionist blog entries (indeed, some of my own fellow bloggers wonder the same thing). The reason is that they often serve as opportunities to show new readers why we take the positions we do, and how to refute similar arguments they will inevitably be faced with in vestry meetings, diocesan conventions, and so forth.
Lisa Fox digs up an old post of hers to the House of Bishops and Deputies listserv:
To me, the decisions of GC03 were Spirit-filled and courageous as Jesus was courageous. I want our church to choose leaders, clergy, and bishops based on the fruits of the Spirit—not on the gender of their mate. It pains me deeply to think my church might refuse to ordain/consecrate Spirit-filled, “fruitful” people who happen to be gay or lesbian. But … I might be willing to accept that “conservative” stance if “the other side” would agree to be equally literal on other parts of Scripture, such as these:
§ We will ordain no one who has divorced and remarried, as they are adulterers.
§ We will ordain no one who gossips or commits slander. We will consecrate no man whose wife commits these sins, either, in keeping with I Timothy
What Lisa Fox doesn’t get - and it’s not just her, but seemingly hordes of her compatriots too - is that the question is not “Is this person a sinner?” but “Is this person an unrepentant sinner?” Is the person in question committing a sin as proscribed by Scripture, and claiming it is not sin?
I know of no one on the orthodox side of this debate who has ever suggested that we shouldn’t ordain sinners; we would have no priests, since we are all sinners. That has never been the question.
Besides, it’s not orthodox Episcopalians who want to make a sacrament of divorce, but revisionists (see page 352 at this link).
All this points directly to the core problem in our church. It’s not about homosexuality; it’s about whether or not we are going to be a church under the authority of Holy Scripture. If we are, then we are bound to call homosexual behavior what it is - a sin. It does not mean we are to shun them or not welcome them into the church; quite the opposite - this is what the church is here for: To help us live as Christians in our fallen state, with our own particular sins, and to help others do the same.
But if we are not to be a church bound by the authority of Holy Scripture, then anything goes, and we are wasting time bickering about whether divorcees or gluttons should be priests and bishops, because at the point we jettison Scripture as our authority on matters of sin and our relation to it, anything goes.