Standard Liquid Refreshment Warning Applies.
We are writing to you as the Presiding Officers of the two Houses of The General Convention of The Episcopal Church. As your friends in Christ, we remain deeply grateful to you for your gracious presence among us recently during our 76th General Convention in Anaheim.
As you know, The General Convention voted this week to adopt Resolution D025, “Commitment and Witness to the Anglican Communion”—a multilayered resolution that addresses a range of important issues in the life of The Episcopal Church that clearly have implications for our relationships within the Anglican Communion.
Because this action is already being variously interpreted by different individuals and groups, we want to offer our perspective to you with the hope that some background, context, and information will be helpful in understanding this action of our General Convention. If you have not already had an opportunity to read it, a copy of the resolution is attached.
We understand Resolution D025 to be more descriptive than prescriptive in nature—a statement that reaffirms commitments already made by The Episcopal Church and that acknowledges certain realities of our common life. Nothing in the Resolution goes beyond what has already been provided under our Constitution and Canons for many years. In reading the resolution, you will note its key points, that:
Our Church is deeply and genuinely committed to our relationships in the Anglican Communion;
We recognize the contributions gay and lesbian Christians, members of our Church both lay and ordained, have made and continue to make to our common life and ministry;
Our Church can and does bear witness to the fact that many of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters live in faithful, monogamous, lifelong and life-giving committed relationships;
While ordination is not a “right” guaranteed to any individual, access to our Church’s discernment and ordination process is open to all baptized members according to our
Constitution and Canons; and
Members of The Episcopal Church do, in fact, disagree faithfully and conscientiously about issues of human sexuality. It is important to understand the process through which this Resolution came into being.In 2006, the 75th General Convention adopted Resolution B033 which “called upon Standing Committees and Bishops with jurisdiction to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider Church and will lead to further strains on communion.” While adoption of that resolution was offered with a genuine desire “to embrace The Windsor Report’s invitation to engage in a process of healing and reconciliation” within the Anglican Communion, it has also been a source of strain within the life of our own Church.
This year at least sixteen resolutions were submitted asking the 76th General Convention to take further action regarding B033. These resolutions fell into three categories—those calling for the repeal of B033; those restating or seeking to strengthen our Church’s nondiscrimination Canons; and those stating where The Episcopal Church is today. From these options, our General Convention chose the third—along with reaffirming our commitments to the Anglican Communion—with the hope that such
authenticity would contribute to deeper conversation in these matters.The complex and deliberative nature of our legislative process involving bishops, lay deputies, and clerical deputies prevents the General Convention from acting rashly. However, it does lead eventually to a profound consensus. Sometimes this consensus takes years to achieve. As Resolution D025 itself states, we are still not all of one mind. Passage of this Resolution represents another step in a conversation that began with the 65th General Convention in 1976 which stated that homosexual persons
are “children of God and have a full and equal claim with all other persons upon the love, acceptance, and pastoral concern and care of the Church.” The discussion of these issues has continued consistently through every General Convention for the past thirty-three years, and we understand it to be an important contribution to the listening process invited by the successive Lambeth Conferences of 1978, 1988, and 1998.Some are concerned that the adoption of Resolution D025 has effectively repealed Resolution B033. That is not the case. This General Convention has not repealed Resolution B033. It remains to be seen how Resolution B033 will be understood and interpreted in light of Resolution D025. Some within our Church may understand Resolution D025 to give Standing Committees (made up of elected clergy and laity) and Bishops with jurisdiction more latitude in consenting to episcopal
elections. Others, in light of Resolution B033, will not. In either case, we trust that the Bishops and Standing Committees of The Episcopal Church will continue to exercise prayerful discernment in making such decisions, mindful and appreciative of our relationships in the Anglican Communion.In adopting this Resolution, it is not our desire to give offense. We remain keenly aware of the concerns and sensibilities of our brothers and sisters in other Churches across the Communion. We believe also that the honesty reflected in this resolution is essential if indeed we are to live into the deep communion that we all profess and earnestly desire.
Please know that we continue to hold you in our prayers even as we invite yours for us.
We remain,
Faithfully,
Your sisters in Christ,
Bonnie Anderson, D.D. The Most Reverend Katharine Jefferts Schori
President of The House of Deputies Presiding Bishop and Primate
While ordination is not a “right” guaranteed to any individual, access to our Church’s discernment and ordination process is open to all baptized members according to our Constitution and Canons;
How this is different from repeal of any moratorium that B033 might have established is beyond me.
this is the important paragraph:
“It remains to be seen how Resolution B033 will be understood and interpreted in light of Resolution D025. Some within our Church may understand Resolution D025 to give Standing Committees (made up of elected clergy and laity) and Bishops with jurisdiction more latitude in consenting to episcopal
elections. Others, in light of Resolution B033, will not. In either case, we trust that the Bishops and Standing Committees of The Episcopal Church will continue to exercise prayerful discernment in making such decisions, mindful and appreciative of our relationships in the Anglican Communion.”
It is a damning paragraph because it acknowledges that in the aftermath of D025, the “restraint” called for in B033 is no longer requisite or even expected…
Spin, spinning, spun, has spun, will be spun . . . .
That’s some mighty fine tap dancing. I mean, mighty shameless tap dancing.
sophist |ˈsäfist|
noun
a paid teacher of philosophy and rhetoric in ancient Greece, associated in popular thought with moral skepticism and specious reasoning.
• a person who reasons with clever but fallacious arguments.
Is spin a sin?
Dear Rowan,
Who are you going to believe, us or your lying eyes?
Sincerely,
The Wool Sisters
But will it give Archbishop Williams the cover he needs to remain inert? Only he can decide that….
It remains to be seen how Resolution B033 will be understood and interpreted in light of Resolution D025.
We may be giving you the finger, and we may not.
I wonder if they also included a copy of the following announcement from ENS: “Marcus Borg, internationally known biblical scholar, was installed on May 31 as the first canon theologian at Trinity Episcopal Cathedral in Portland, Oregon. Borg will present public lectures, teach adult courses within the parish, preach occasionally, and serve as a consultant for parish education programs. “
If Marcus Borg can be a canon theologian in a Christian “church,” I could be a prima ballerina with the Bolshoi Ballet.
He will be like God. Silent is suffering, but assuringly ever present. Don’t expect the clouds to open up on this one.
Dr. N, if it’s outside of the washing machine and not sitting on a child’s toy or carnaval ride, I believe it is.
Proverbs 19:5 (NIV)
A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who pours out lies will not go free.”
Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one. Matt.5:37
Lots of neither “yes” nor “no” in this statement - therefore, consider the source.
You mean this ISN’T a spoof???? I thought it had to be. I can’t imagine that even the Bobsey Twins here would have that amount of cheek and gall.
D025 simply says that it is no longer a question of if TEC will ordained another openly partnered gay bishop; it is now only a question of when. If there ever was a moratorium on such in TEC it is clearly over.
I beleive the ABC and the rest of the AC will have no trouble seeing past any effort at spin by our PB and president of the HOD.
Dear Mrs. Schori and Bonnie Anderson, D.D.,
Nobody cares about your $%*#@ process.
Best Regards -
Masculine bovine excrement
Barn floor covering
Doo doo
Horse apples
I assume the ABC, whatever his faults, is able to READ for himself what TEC has done!!!!
Seriously, KatBon…really??? They are sooooooo amazingly patronizing to us. Like some of us serfs won’t figure it out. Wink wink…nudge nudge. “Please define what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”
From the letter to the primates:
For this reason, I am sending you a copy of a letter addressed to the Archbishop of Canterbury and co-signed by myself and the President of our House of Deputies. It outlines in some detail Resolution D025, which was adopted at this Convention, explaining both what this resolution means and what it does not mean. With so much misinformation circulating through the press and other sources, it is crucial to me that I provide the Archbishop and all of you with accurate information. To this end, I am also attaching a copy of Resolution D025, so that you may read it in its entirety for yourself.
How does KJS suggest she can say definitively what D025 means or doesn’t mean when she has had a line going straight from DES on that “only the GC can speak for the GC”? What happened to the blessed clarity mentioned throughout the deliberations?
BTW this is the fastest and most furious spin I have seen since Dorothy Hamill.
I forgot one:
Bat guano
Deception or omission makes the lie? All reporting, then, must be gossip, since it cannot contain the truth.
Rocks, I agree, but Dorothy had much nicer hair.
Now we know what they were doing last night. I wonder if they pulled an all-nighter to write that thing?
Sadly, I bet he pretends that they are right.
What is not dealt with are the promises made, based on and clarifying B033, by Mrs Schori and the bishops of the Episcopal Church, in response to the request made of them at DAR. D025 flies in the face of this - see Graham Kings’ comment here:
B033, as I wrote in both ‘Between the Primates’ Meeting and the ACC’ and in ‘Glacial Gravity or Opportunist Autonomy’, was the key resolution in 2006 and General Convention’s attitude to it was crucial in 2009 concerning its standing in the Anglican Communion.
Resolved, That this Convention therefore call upon Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.
The House of Bishops of TEC, in September 2007 in New Orleans, clarified that resolution: ‘The House acknowledges that non-celibate gay and lesbian persons are included among those to whom B033 pertains.’
With the House of Bishops passing D025 (and the likely passing in the House of Deputies), TEC has clearly signalled, against the specific plea of the Archbishop of Canterbury on this very issue, its choice of autonomy over interdependence in the Anglican Communion. Questions will now have to be asked about the full continued participation of TEC representatives in Anglican Communion meetings.
The way forward is not by mirroring such autonomy, but through the strengthening of the interdependent Covenant process, including section 4 - which is likely to be clarified but substantially unchanged.
http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/forum/thread.cfm?page=4&thread=12019&sort=creatdesc
This letter does not address the issue.
Caca Toro!
The distinction between pro-pre-scriptive and descriptive is lost when what you “describe” is a church that has transgressed the boundaries that have been set.
it is 9pm in London
“The complex and deliberative nature of our legislative process involving bishops, lay deputies, and clerical deputies prevents the General Convention from acting rashly”.
Translation: We know it all, and you don’t.
Also, we act UnScripturally, but not ‘rashly’.
Cow chips with icing on them are still cow chips.
This reads sort of like a letter from a cheating spouse, explaining the “context” for the infidelity.
Rich. Duplicitous. Dishonest.
Darin+
#25,
Absolutamente!
Darin+
[The White Queen is talking to Alice…] ‘Now I’ll give YOU something to believe. I’m just one hundred and one, five months and a day.’
`I can’t believe THAT!’ said Alice.
`Can’t you?’ the Queen said in a pitying tone. `Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes.’
Alice laughed. `There’s no use trying,’ she said: `one CAN’T believe impossible things.’
`I daresay you haven’t had much practice,’ said the Queen. `When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.
===============================
I have said it before here at T19 and StandFirm, and I’ll say it again: our beloved Lewis Carroll (a very prescient Anglican) is indispensable as a guide to understanding any General Convention or utterence from TEC leadership.
D025 and C056 also violate traditional Anglican teaching…maybe one of the lawyers will weigh in on this(jamesw, anyone else?. Doesn’t said violation now put TEC in clear violation of its own charter?
It was a foggy morning in London…Lambeth Palace was silently waiting for instructions from it’s mistresses…ring ring…ring ring…“Your Grace, your bailout letter from KatBon has arrived.”
Here is what Greg Rickle of Olympia says (he voted for both resolutions):
Oops, he just called Ms Schori and Ms Anderson liars.
Turkish Delight anyone???
Dear Bonnie and Katharine,
Thank you for sending me the letter I asked you to write when I was in Anaheim. You have expressed my thoughts perfectly! Your superb leadership in championing our mutual cause is greatly appreciated.
Best Regards,
Rowan
“*waves hand ambiguously* This is not the resolution you think it is. There is no mention of B033 here. The canons and prayerbook remain intact. Nothing has happened. Nothing. Has. Happened. We are in full Communion with you. Yours eyes are getting heavy. You feel a blissful peace stealing over you through inclusiveness. You want to rest. To relax. There is no Schism, only the Spirit. We have used your indaba. We has embraced your Ubuntu. All is Well.”
No, they made themselves liars by writing this.
Perhaps a glossary of terms and phrases would be helpful in truly understanding this missive from TEC’s misleaders. Hope this helps.
descriptive = in Episcopal speak, this means “a fact on the ground”
That is not the case (effectively repealed) = It is the case that it has been de facto repealed by our convention’s actions.
those stating where The Episcopal Church is today = this location, “where”, has been called LaLAland, Leftistville, out beyond the field where right and wrong have met, a “new thing”...
mindful and appreciative of our relationships in the Anglican Communion = we appreciate them dis much!!! smack!!! [up side the head]
it is not our desire to give offense = but we did so anyway because it felt so good; we gave the orthodox a whupping; it IS our desire to give offense, because Sun Tzu says it’s a good idea.
We remain keenly aware = but really don’t give a fig.
Some are concerned that the adoption of Resolution D025 has effectively repealed Resolution B033. That is not the case.
This is simply dishonest. In her own words:
“It is the Episcopal Church’s response at the current moment. I don’t think it represents a final response… it opens the door to the next stage of conversation… I think it is a pause. I do not see it as slamming the door. I think it is an unfortunate way of inviting us into the next chapter of the conversation.”
“And those policies are routinely reversed and revised every three years. I think it is a pause,...”
NPR June 29, 2006
D025 addressed the same subject matter as B033 and omitted any obligation for restraint. There is no longer any “pause.” Mainstream understanding of D025 as a repudiation of B033 is correct.
Must be raining I feel something running down my leg.
But wait, there’s even more:
In a separate letter, Jefferts Schori wrote to the primates of the Anglican Communion—including a copy of the letter to Williams—acknowledging that “with so much misinformation circulating through the press and other sources, it is crucial to me that I provide the Archbishop and all of you with accurate information.” Thirteen primates were present in Anaheim, the largest number ever to attend a General Convention.
Jefferts Schori told the primates that her “heart was filled with joy at seeing so many of you” at General Convention. “It is important to me that we continue to find ways to communicate with one another directly about our different cultural and ecclesial contexts, and thereby prevent any misunderstandings,” she said. The full text of the letter to the primates is available here.
Read the whole thing & download the “other” letter http://ecusa.anglican.org/79901_112694_ENG_HTM.htm
I see here some real fear. Why else the preemptive strike?
Truthfully,
They should be writing letters to all the churches who are more likely going to lose members. Which in turn will mean less cash for TEC and less cash for funding the AC projects.
It says it was hand delivered. I wonder who got the job for that?
Please know that we continue to hold you in our prayers even as we invite yours for us.
Does “invite” there strike anyone else as odd?
I can see “ask” “beseech” “request” “plead” and the like… but “invite” ???
Strikes me as too much like “permit”
Dear ++Rowan,
Dr. Wright is speaking the truth about D025. KJS and Ms. Anderson are not. It really is that simple.
Heh. While she’s chirping about “different cultural contexts,” did she happen to notice how the non-U.S. segments of TEC voted on “the issues”???
From the discussions on D025 in the HOB:
Gulick, KY and Ft Worth: I have a question. Will passing this resolution really end the moratorium? Won’t we be ending the moratorium at the time of the consecration of a gay partnered person, not by passing this resolution? Presiding Bishop: The moratorium ends with this passage. We were asked to exercise restraint and we have done that.
From the letter:
Some are concerned that the adoption of Resolution D025 has effectively repealed Resolution B033. That is not the case. This General Convention has not repealed Resolution B033. It remains to be seen how Resolution B033 will be understood and interpreted in light of Resolution D025.
How are these 2 statements from KJS remotely reconcilable?
[39] It’s the tingle that is running up your leg, when you read their writing.
And lets just wallpaper over the fact that Lambeth 1.10 prohibits the ordination, not just the consecration, of partnered gays. What a crock this is.
Since Rowan Williams has shown himself on more than one occasion incapable of seeing what was clearly in front of him, he may be very impressed by the transparency of the vigorous efforts pursued by GenCon 09 to strengthen the bonds of affection between TEC and the Anglican Communion while being equally impressed by the pastoral response of GenCon09 to various sexual minorities. Rowan likes strengthening bonds of affection and pastoral responses. One wonders why the conservatives remaining in TEC believe that he will do nothing. Oh right. Doing nothing is what he always does while anguishing and wringing his hands.
Mmmmm
Nothing in the letter about C056, but then (wink, wink) it hasn’t officially been passed.
P.S. Dearest Rowan, did we mention we are without clothes as well?
Yeah, GL+, interesting this is posted BEFORE the official announcement of the C056 vote. So transparent - yet it doesn’t seem to register with them how ridiculous and self-serving it is.
Pathetic…
Darin+
The duplicitous strategy all along was to not decide any of the resolutions that expressly repealed B033 and to promote one that had the exact same effect by obvious implication. This was done precisley so that KJS could talk out of either side of her mouth depending on the audience. It’s sickening that this passes for supposedly Christian leadership.
I wonder if the would write the same letter to Integrity. Or perhaps another form of truth would be forthcoming.
Gee, Archbishop Williams, we’re very upset;
We never had the love that ev’ry child oughta get.
We ain’t no delinquents,
We’re misunderstood.
Deep down inside us there is good!
(With apologies to Officer Krupsky and Leonard Bernstein)
Let your “Yes” be “Yes,” and your “No,” “No.”
There is more integrity in Integrity’s stance on these issues than in the leadership of TEC. Just say it. Mean it. And be done.
They are hiding behind a ‘descriptive vs. prescriptive’ distinction which just does not hold up. When a legislative body states something, even in a descriptive mode, it is a ratifying that reality if it affirms it (or does not repudiate it). So when a congressional finding uses the word “genocide” in speaking about Darfur, it is not merely descriptive but prescriptive, in the sense that such language carries genuine moral force. In like manner, this statement affirms matters of principle, espoused by progressive Episcopalians—the blessed of same gender relations, God’s calling of such persons into ordination, etc. They are theological proposition, one and all. In that way, the majority at GC09 is definitely saying, this is our principled stance, too.
He who has ears, let him here.
#54. Pb.
I wonder if the[y] would write the same letter to Integrity. Or perhaps another form of truth would be forthcoming.
There may be a ghost writer involved in crafting this letter.
Give the Ladies their due: this is actually a pretty open, spin-free letter. They’re saying that they want to stay in communion but not at the cost of TEC’s commitment to the Homosexual Movement. B033 was sincerely entered into as an attempt to stay in but it caused too much upset with the people TEC leadership cares about. Convention didn’t explicitly dump B033 and the Ladies hope Archbishop sees it that way, but it looks to these eyes as if they’ll take their lumps if he doesn’t.
All in all a pretty honest letter. Now will the Archbishop and other Primates give TEC another pass or will they reject the Homosexual Movement, recognizing that doing so means that TEC is out, however “out” comes to be defined? I’m actually guessing most Primates, including Archbishop Williams, will take the latter course. It remains to be seen what this will look like.
It just make Old Rafe wanna break out in song:
My Bonnie lies over the ocean,
My Katie lies over the sea,
My Bonnie lies over the ocean,
At least they’re not lying to me.
Horse manure. The nerve of these women! The arrogance! They’re not afraid. They’ve won, and they know it. They’re pretty confident that Rowan will do nothing. Now the situation for the stayers will be even worse than it was pre-convention. Now KJS can beat up on them with impunity. She knows they’re not going anywhere. They must worship at the altar of the great god Unity, the god that is more worthy of worship than the God who sent His Son to die for us.
why does “STUCK ON STUPID” come to mind?? Perhaps the truth will prevail and the non christian (Episcopal church USA) church will fade into oblivion
Daniel-
the “other Primates” did not give TEC a pass in the first place. Read the Dar Communique- that being the last Primates meeting (it might be the last one ever, depending on what ++Rowan does in the next few days). The pass was given to TEC by the JSC, an organization that TEC controls and to which ++Rowan abdicated his office.
If they were honest, they would tell ++Rowan the same thing they told the bishops and delegates in the various meetings. Read the live blogs. Either they are lying to ++Rowan, or they lied to the bishops and deputies.
I don’t think they had to pull an all-nighter to write this one. I think this is the way the authors of the letter naturally express themselves. The first draft of this letter could have been written before the ABC departed Anaheim.
Some within our Church may understand Resolution D025 to give Standing Committees (made up of elected clergy and laity) and Bishops with jurisdiction more latitude in consenting to episcopal elections
Some? May? The truth is that many will understand that D025 has given them such latitude. And it has. B033 not repealed? Who do they think they are kidding? I hope they do better with their letter regarding C056, but I doubt they will even attempt that one…
#62 -
Either they are lying to ++Rowan, or they lied to the bishops and deputies.
One more alternative. They are lying to everyone.
Excellent catch, Rocks in #46.
The only way to square that circle is to conclude what many here did at the time, i.e. that B033 didn’t impose a moratorium on the consecration of non-celibate homosexuals. Therefore, D025 can leave B033 standing in all its woozy, wooly glory as gays and lesbians are waved through the ordination gate.
I noticed that they chose not use the scented complimentary rainbow stationery from Integrity…
Look, if TEC’s song and dance was that B033 remains in effect, they need to say so. That would mean saying that C025 merely expressed the mind of the communion that the church *should* be allowed to consider gay candidates for appointments as bishops.
This statement gives away the game when it says “It remains to be seen how Resolution B033 will be understood and interpreted in light of Resolution D025.” At best this leaves everything up in the air and only leads to the obvious question: What will TEC do next? They needed to say “As much as it grieves us to deny our gay brothers and sisters their opportunities to minister, Resolution B033 remains in effect.”
Even as spin, this fails.
Wolverine
I noticed that they chose not use the scented complimentary rainbow stationery from Integrity…
That’s ok, +Tom Wright can share some of the hate mail he has received written on that stationary. Of course, depending what he says tomorrow, ++Rowan may get plenty of his own.
You know, this may be the first thing I’ve seen from Bonnie Anderson that does not include several perky “!“s
tjmcmahon - I’m well aware of what happened at Dar and that most of the more important Primates were not impressed with what happened in New Orleans - there’s a reason that so many didn’t come to Lambeth - which was a pretty strong witness. I think - mind, I say I think (none of us knows for sure what the man will do) - that Archbishop Williams, having been up to this point generous to a fault - and beyond as witness all too many comments in this space - will finally acknowledge the honesty of the resolutions and the openness of this communication and recognize that TEC has exhausted all options and chosen a path away from the Anglican Communion.
Again, I think this is an open and honest letter stating what the authors would like to see as the response communion-wide, but nevertheless clear that the Homosexual Movement comes first for TEC and they’ll live or die with it. A Communion not open to the Homosexual Movement is a Communion TEC will not be a part of. I won’t blame these two Ladies for trying to stay in nevertheless.
Rocks in #46 what source are you quoting from there
Just now reading, #46, Rocks: These two statements deserve to be emblazoned across every reasserting blog on the Internet. +KJS is caught contradicting herself, plain and simple. There is no way, no how to make those two statements consistent with one another.
Lord, have mercy upon her.
#46—can you tell us where you got this? I have a different version. Can you point to the original?
I thought the “holy spirit” decision had already been made in “To Set our Hope on Christ” in 2003? Nothing new to see - move along.
#22 - I bet Matt can procure the original with wine stain and all from the PB’s limo.
Kendall+, Seitz+, et al., #46/Rocks’ quote from +KJS can be found in Matt+ Kennedy’s liveblog of the HOB debate of D025:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/24162
Just do an in-page search for Gulick and you can find the Q&A exchange Rocks quoted.
Though +KJS may claim she was misquoted by Matt+, looks like otherwise pretty damning evidence, I’d say.
Dr. Seitz, following is one source for the above; can you quote and reference the alternative you have?:
http://standfirminfaith.com/index.php/sf/print_w_comments/24199/
“Gulick, KY and Ft Worth: I have a question. Will passing this resolution really end the moratorium? Won’t we be ending the moratorium at the time of the consecration of a gay partnered person, not by passing this resolution? Presiding Bishop: The moratorium ends with this passage. We were asked to exercise restraint and we have done that.”
The problem is that B033 was a sham from the beginning. The Anglican Communion asked for a moratorium. B033 was not a moratorium . . . it was a request for “restraint.” While it may be that no more practicing homosexual bishops were consecrated during the last three years, that does not mean that it couldn’t have happened. A moratorium would have meant that it couldn’t have happened.
Now, since B033 was never what the Communion asked for in the beginning, but was spun and accepted as such, it is now perfectly reasonable to expect the spin masters to spin D025. They are correct. D025 does not overturn B033, since B033 really wasn’t clearly anything specific in the first place. Now, bishops and standing committees who may never have wanted to exercise restraint in the first place are free to cite D025 as their reason for confirming “challenging” bishops.
Worse, there never was the moratorium on same-sex unions that was requested, as those have been increasing in frequency and in geography.
While anyone with any sense can see that there never was a moratorium in place at all, the ABC still has cover until TEC actually elects, confirms and consecrates a practicing homosexual bishop. At that point, the ABC will likely find some way to ignore the fact just like he is ignoring all the same-sex union blessings going on all over the place.
People will see what they want to see if they do not have their eyes on Christ, and that is exactly why the ABC can’t see the truth as it slaps him upside the head.
Note, too, there is also this albeit incomplete from Baby Blue’s liveblog:
Bishop of Kentucky (and Ft Worth he said) needs help with his discernment - the assumption that the passing will end the moritorium.
She does not indicate where “the assumption” came from, does not quote +KJS on this point.
Here is what I find, sorry:
Gulick: I have heard that this passing of this resolution would end the moratorium. The moratorium would end at the next consecration. And I would think that bishops and Standing Committees would be able to take the response of the world communion into the consent process. Would you agree PB that the moratorium would only end with the consecration of bishop
Chair: That is certainly how I understand this. We have been asked to exercise restraint and we have.
Missed this speaker
#77—this is from Rocks, not from Matt.
The text Seitz-ACI quotes is from my live-blog and is consistent with what I remember of the testimony as well. I do not recognize the variant quoted in 77
Thanks, Matt, the Rocks quote is golden but it may not be useable…but there is plenty to use otherwise.
As I responded to the PB letter to the Primates post:
I think they forgot to consult Bishop Robinson before posting their letter.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/us/17bishop.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp; 
How these people sleep at night is a wonder. Only Satan could create such group of liars.
Matt’s version is also corroborated by George Conger:
But Bishop Edwin Gulick of Kentucky disagreed, telling the house that the “passing of the resolution will not end the moratorium.” Distinguishing between intentions and actions, Bishop Gulick said the moratorium would be broken when the Episcopal Church consecrated a new gay bishop. He then turned to Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and asked if this was not so. Bishop Jefferts Schori said that was “my understanding of it. We have been asked to exercise restraint, and we have done so.”
At the risk of sounding foolish (and being late to post), I don’t quite get the “discernment and ordination open to all baptized persons” point. Call me wrong if you wish, but it seems that in all Anglican churches these processes are open to all baptized (communicants, ignoring that minor nitpick for now).
Everyone is open for consideration as an aspirant (except where women’s ordination is not approved), and to move through the process. As a part of that process, they will be called to confront and wrestle with their sin, as is proper. Only those whom the Commission on Holy Orders and the Standing Committee discern are called and suited will advance.
The real difference is the refusal to confront sin. C’est tout.
Clemmitt
#86 Chancellor,
(Paraphrase:) Bishop Gulick disagreed, distinguishing between intentions and actions.
Very happy someone brought this up. This man is a bishop? Doesn’t he know that the road to hell is paved with good intentions? That unrighteous and evil means are not justified by any ends?
Clemmitt
It’s real sad, all these votes at the GC. I’ve known for years this was coming, and I had years to get psychologically prepared to deal with this, but I’m still all sad. But the really important thing is to keep going right now. All this is such a shame. Maybe Rowan will come through for us after all. But I think that the statement those dissenting bishops signed was really courageous, even though some of them voted for D025 and C056. And maybe they didn’t really rescind B033.
2 Cor. 6:14.
Some within our Church may understand Resolution D025 to give Standing Committees (made up of elected clergy and laity) and Bishops with jurisdiction more latitude in consenting to episcopal elections. Others, in light of Resolution B033, will not.
Translation: Local option . . . for now.
Cocerning post #77: The quote I used was from Virtue here which is “supplied by Cheryl Wetzel of Anglican Mainstream”.
It seems the exact quote is unreliable either way. But it doesn’t matter much. If you say (a) that we will NOT do something, and then later say (b) that we might do that same thing, then I think it’s plain that your earlier pledge is no longer in force.
They may argue all they like about what they did or did not do, what they really meant, etc. But the obvious effect is that B033 is no longer to be observed as a resolution of TEC as a body. It has been nullified. Of course, individual bishops may choose to withhold consent in certain cases, which is no different from how it’s always been, regardless of B033.
As an aside, if you have to work so hard to restate what you were trying to say, then you did a very poor job of saying it in the first place. If honesty and clarity were their objectives, GC manifestly failed… or their trying to fudge it over.
I was not in any way, shape or form suggesting Matt+ was incorrect. The report from Cheryl Wetzel purports to be a transcript which is why I used it. Perhaps she recorded it?
Bonnie Anderson’s name is first on the letter. Maybe the HOD has more power than the HOB after all.
I think you should change the heading “Bonnie Anderson and Presiding Bishop write a letter to +Rowan.”
+David Anderson got it right yesterday in his AAC Weekly Update: “The spirit of Jezebel - unfaithfulness and persecution - has come forward from the past to embrace the top leadership of TEC, and although many have fled to other groups, many Episcopalians who want to be faithful inside TEC are in ever-increasing danger.” Amen!