A Memorandum to the House of Bishops from Peter James Lee

The General Convention speaks for the Episcopal Church and we bishops understand that resolution as providing an assurance to the wider communion that meets the requests of the Primates’ Communique from the Primates’ meeting in Tanzania.

Fascinating. The GC resolution came before the Primates’ Communiqué but somehow managed to pre-empt its requirements.

All the more fascinating since the Communiqué itself said that the GC response

does not in fact give the assurances requested in the Windsor Report

So Lee has basically accused the Primates of not being able to read.

Honestly…was there liquor served at the meetings?
Is everyone just supposed to read these resolutions, have a V8 moment, smack there heads and go “Wow! TEC has been compliant all along!”?????
Does anyone there think that metaphorically flipping the primates the bird is a good idea?

“The General Convention of the Episcopal Church has never authorized the blessing of intimate unions between same sex partners”—-Bp. Lee

But GC 2003 declared that “local faith communities are operating within the bounds of our common life as they explore and experience liturgies celebrating and blessing same-sex unions.”
http://www.episcopalarchives.org/cgi-bin/acts/acts_resolution-complete.pl?resolution=2003-C051

“Within the bounds of our common life” means—- and was intended to mean—- that such blessings are permissible.

Bp. Lee’s memo begs credulity.

Note the cleverness of ECUSA:

Step #1: You overthrow established Christian doctrine by purporting to recognize that a practice is “within the bounds of our common life.”

Step #2: You deny that you’ve done anything. You insist that (1) the revolution had already happened before you noticed it, or (2) your words were just friendly, life-affirming chatter and have no official significance.

Mr. Lee’s duplicity is one reason why he is no longer my bishop.  What he says is akin to saying that since murder is illegal in the District of Columbia, no murders occur there.

Hogwash.

Wouldn’t it be great if we could get the truth out of these bishops who go under the name of Christian?  This is just so dishonest.

Please read Kendall Harmon’s wonderful piece “Honesty or Obfuscation in New Orleans” pleading that we not see just the sort of thing Peter Lee has done here.

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/6061/

The General Convention of the Episcopal Church has never authorized the blessing of intimate unions between same sex partners

True enough, and it TEC were know for living the plain meaning of it’s words no more would be required.  The fact is that bishops of TEC have authorized rites, and the they have authorized priests in their charge to bless such relationships.

Some less open and honest bishops give the old “wink, wink, nudge, say no more” routine.

RSB

I wonder how +Lee et al. would square their “we don’t have SSB’s around here” comment with the fact that just yesterday, my diocese announced that yet another parish (St. Thomas, Lyndhurst) has called a partnered lesbian to be their rector.

At least Lee’s statement was short…

In Newark,

Let me see, +Peter would say that he did not see what one thing had to do with the other.  Calling a partnered lesbian to be a rector, or even a bishop, has absolutly nothing to do with whether or not the church has made or authorized a public rite for SSB’s.  He simply would not admit any connection between the two.

RSB

Actually, In Newark, +Lee would say soemthing like, ” To my knowledge I don’t have any occurences of that in the Diocese of Virginia.”

And of course, this memo from +Lee sounds just like him. And in fairness, the claims he makes are hardly any different from the basic ECUSATEC, inc. claims. Sound like, “Get on board folks, we are compliant and the GC has been compliant and we are waiting for the rest of the world to catch up with our compliance. (Which will never happen because the rest of the world* is so slow. IOW, by the time you [*trotw] catch up with this, why we will have studied the SSB’s into the Prayer Book. Tsk, tsk, tsk.)

While that listening process continues, the Episcopal Church is cognizant of the convictions of many of our brothers and sisters in the wider communion and seeks to be respectful of those views.

“... unless they’re expressed in my diocese.  In that case, I’ll see you in court.”

“...our official actions are expressed in our liturgies and no rite of blessing has ever been adopted by the General Convention”.

Maybe not, but Shaw in Massachusetts routinely passed out copies of New Westminster’s service and said, “use this”. 

I’ll play off Craig Goodrich here for a second, with respect:  Sir, it’s not just the “General Convention Church”, its the “General Convention Fudge Church”. 

Maybe we could add that phrase to the revisionist dictionary. 

“The Episcopal Church is cognizant of the convictions of many of our brothers and sisters in the wider communion and seeks to be respectful of those views”

But it’s a very private and personal respect. When you feel it coming one, you go into your, shut the door, and experience it in secret.

Make that:
“It’s a very private and personal respect. When you feel it coming ON, you go into your ROOM, shut the door, and experience it in secret.”

And, above all, don’t act on it.

Bovine feces even urbanites can recognize - maybe not until they’ve stepped in it, but still recognize.  Does +Lee really expect this sort of material to pass muster as fudge?  It is frankly embarassing, though redolent of Griswoldese.  If this is leadership and truthfulness of the sort proffered, we are getting inability and truthiness.  They are different orders of existence.