Resolution offered by Bruce MacPherson, Russell Jacobus, Geralyn Wolf, and C. Franklin Brookhart

This is probably one of the more important resolutions. It is DES compliant and offered by a group of centrists. Great work getting a hold of this Sarah.

So where’s the much-trumpeted one from +Jenkins?

I’m glad this is being proposed.  Of course it stands no chance of being accepted, but still…
I particularly like the way they use GC resolutions and the Subgroup report to support compliance with the DES communique.

This is an excellent resolution!  It sets everything in its proper context—mission and unity of the Church—clearly abides by the requests of Windsor and Dar es Salaam, and does so by even citing the much cherished (be reappraisers) sub-group report.  It all shows how easily the HoB can comply with the Primates requests.

Well done, Windsor bishops!

I think that there are some possibilities here but the words “acceptable to them” on the subject of the APO will never fly.  That simply sets up the agenda and strategy of the secret Nov. GS Steering Committee.  The bishops have it.  Maybe some of it can be reworked?

I’m glad this is the last one of the proposed resolutions that I read.  Whew!  It is vitally important that a DES complaint resolution be voted on, whether it’s up or down.  While this one will almost surely go down in flames, at least it is on the table.  It is honest, without being accusatory of enflamatory.  Just the facts ma’m.

This is a big deal. For if and when this resolution goes down in flames, the defiance will be made manifest.

It won’t be allowed to go down in flames; it won’t even get out of the hanger. KJS will not let this get voted down. None of these will be voted on individually; they will all be committed to a mind-of-the-house crafting (not to say crafty [removed]void(0);
cool smirk) group made up of all sides of the polyhedron (including a Network Howe or Stanton). The resulting resolution will gain a substantial majority of votes. But will McPherson (et al) have the nerve to register his negative vote in this vote of votes of the HOB.

Two questions:

First, the inital resolutions states:

undertakes and covenants not to authorize or permit any public Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in our dioceses or General Convention (consistent with the resolution B020 of the 1991 General Convention and with the recommendations of the Windsor Report, and the teaching expressed in Resolution B101 of the 1994 General Convention,2 and in line wih the standard of teaching commanding respect across the Anglican Communion, as most recently expressed in Resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference)

Does this really comply with the DES communique, which says:

we believe that there remains a lack of clarity about the stance of The Episcopal Church, especially its position on the authorisation of Rites of Blessing for persons living in same-sex unions. There appears to us to be an inconsistency between the position of General Convention and local pastoral provision. We recognise that the General Convention made no explicit resolution about such Rites and in fact declined to pursue resolutions which, if passed, could have led to the development and authorisation of them. However, we understand that local pastoral provision is made in some places for such blessings. It is the ambiguous stance of The Episcopal Church which causes concern among us.

Or des it leave open the Naughton/Sisk loophole (SSBs are secretly authorized and permitted, if not encouraged, in many diocese - Integrity lists 15 diocese that have done so)?

Second,  it was said that “the words ‘acceptable to them’ on the subject of the APO will never fly”.  But it seems that the person who wrote that and many other revisionists and institutionalists would support in short order revisionist bishops revoking any orthodox pastoral support, the deposing of orthodox bishops and clergy, and the imposition of revisionist bishops and clergy when the orthodox retire.  Why do revisionists insist on a DEPO that is designed as nothing more than a trap to help rid TEC of more orthodox?  And if you protest that you can be trusted, how are you willing to show that to the orthodox?  Remember, Peter Lee has already shown that he was willing to break his word to the orthodox and throw aside the Virginia Protocol for Departing Congregations.

The Jenkins resolution is here.

Emily—Knowing our beloved HoB, if they start amending this they’ll wind up with nothing left but A159 (note 1) confirming that they are in Communion with Canterbury and jes’ love the Communion.  Thus when they get canned by the Primates it’ll be a situation something like that between the RC and the Orthodox, where the Vatican recognizes the legitimacy of the Eastern Church but the Eastern Church regards Rome as heretical. 

[It’s an interesting thought that the ECUSA Constitution’s “in Communion with Canterbury” clause could be interpreted as “well, we’re in Communion with them whether or not they’re in Communion with us.”]

As to “acceptable to [the ACO dioceses]”, I take it you’re recommending that some arrangement be forcibly shoved down their throats.  Check.  Just remember that the next time you’re expressing hurt and wonder at their desire to leave dear old TEC.

Thanks be to God for these bishops and their will to stand up.  Sadly, even if this were adopted by the HOB it would make not a bit of difference.  We will still have a nominally christian as presiding bishop.  The revisionist bishops along with Integrity, Via Media, Queen Lutibelle and the cast of thousands will immediately begin the work of undoing the goodness that is in this document.  Passage of such a resolution will only serve to delay the death of TEC.  The orthodox have seen this time and time again over the past 40 years.  More of us will leave and the sad part is that the “moderate” and “Windsor” bishops will stay with TEC as their flocks are dispersed.

As sad as it may be, I hope that this fails miserably.

Frreed

It won’t be allowed to go down in flames; it won’t even get out of the hanger.

What sort of hanger?  Like a noose?  In Louisiana?  Quickly, someone call Al Sharpton!

oops- that should read “nominal Christian as presiding bishop”

Frreed

Whatever good is contained in these resolutions is totally undone by this little ticking time bomb: “....unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the Communion.” This is my problem with Windsor, which as I understands it, calls for a ‘moratorium’ on SSBs until the Communion reaches consensus on these matters. A moratorium means to stop something for the time being. Neither of these, this new resolution or Windsor, says SSBs are wrong, always have been, always will be. They both leave open the possibility that the Communion may someday change its mind. Isn’t the whole point of this battle that it’s not up to us but to God?

So this one is the same as the “Jenkins Resolution” then?

What difference does it make? Seriously, the ink won’t be dry on any resolution like this before the uber revisionista dioceses are lining up to announce they will violate it at will.

the snarkster

Humble access—Ouch: “....unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the Communion.” I went cold when I realized that a diminished Lambeth (missing Nigeria, Uganda, etc) could cause this new consensus to “emerge” (a verb connoting a very early phase of appearing).

The first “resolved” begins, “The House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church, mindful that it is the duty of a Bishop to order the public liturgy of the church in his or her diocese, undertakes and covenants not to authorize or permit any <bold> public </bold> Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in our dioceses or General Convention…”

This sentence contains the only quibble I have with the resolution.  That word “public” will be seen as a loophole—private blessings are not forbidden, so there would be many “private” blessings held, some of course in church buildings (invitees only, hence private).

It is a great resolution.  The odds of it being passed are virtually nil, and if it were passed, the odds of it being observed are utterly nil.  The HOB has become like Pharaoh—may the Lord send the power of repentance upon them, that their end is not like that of Pharaoh.

Lets see—after you have a vote on this resolution the ABC and the Primates might be able to tell who should be invited to Lambeth and who should not.

There’s plenty of fudge in this.  Anyone who knows the recent history of TEC can see right through “not to authorize or permit any public Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in our dioceses or General Convention.”
The word “public” anticipates the possibility of semi-private gay ceremonies; likewise “permit” is a nose of wax (who gets “permission”
of have a “Blessing of the Fleet” on Palm Sunday afternoon?)
The fudge bubbles over the pan in the language already noticed:
“unless some new consensus emerges on these matters across the Communion…”  There are several things wrong here; but the worst is the purely sectarian notion of “the Communion.”  This anticipated “new consensus” (which will surely happen just as quickly as you can get those annoying Africans out of Lambeth) annuls any notion of a truly Catholic consensus, grounded in Scripture, Tradition and Universal Consent.  This notion of “some new consensus” emerging sound like the next HOB meeting should take place in Salt Lake City.
This is a Mormon, not an Anglican concept.  In spite of Mark Clavier’s
gushing enthusiasm, the most dangerous people in the HOB are those who hold themselves forth as orthodox.

I am encouraged that what certainly seems to be a DES compliant resolution such as this has been proposed by moderates.  This gives me a glimmer of hope.  We should all pray for this to come to a vote.

Even if it does not get voted on and even should it fail if it does, I find it encouraging that moderates not only greatly desire to remain within the Anglican Communion, but are willing to submit to the authority of the Anglican Communion.

AnglicanXn,

I submit that we should also quibble with “is the duty of a Bishop to order the public liturgy of the church in his or her diocese.”  This is another loophole that allows a Chane to say the whole thing was simply a “mind of the house” exercise, one with which he disagrees, and, in any event, one that affirmed that he is lord and master when it comes to liturgies in his diocese.

Agree with Fr. Wells.  All of this stuff accepts the premise that the content of the Christian Faith is determined from time to time by simple majority votes of our Episcopalian betters.

Phil,

But that is the firm tradition, nonetheless.  My quibble would be with the linkage of public to liturgy as it implies that a liturgy can be private.  In point of fact, a liturgy is by its very nature a public act or work.

I agree, Mark, that this is the Tradition.  I should have been clearer about that.  But, I question that’s why it’s being used here, and I’m almost certain that isn’t the way Chane, Councell, et al. will use that clause, should this pass.

The problem is performance of same sex blessings by priests of the Episcopal Church.The language “public liturgy”  and “public Rite of Blessing” limits the resolution such that it would not stop Episcopal Priests from performing blessing services. If only invited guests may attend, it is not a “public”.

Hopefully, someone in the HOB will move that this Resolution be accepted as is or rejected outright, but not amended.  That will provide clarity.

Of course, as good as this resolution may be, we all know that the gang of Humpty-Dumpties currently occupying cathedrae will make it dance to whatever tune they play—if they can muck up the plain meaning of Scripture, they can certainly muck up a mere “Mind of the House” resolution.

That being said, I do hope it does come to the floor for discussion and a vote—how that goes will tell us, and the Primates, a lot.

Two things to remember here:

1.  There is no way even this halfway reasonable sounding resolution will be passed by the HOB without massive (Katrina-like) watering down.

2.  More importantly, even as written it flat out DOES NOT meet what DAR requires (Primatial Vicar not under the thumb of KJS, no public or private same-sex blessings, no more VGRs, and suspension of lawsuits).  It doesn’t even come close, no matter how good it sounds or how much spin is attempted.

I have not been able to read comments above (I am lecturing at Golden Gate Baptist) but these are the resolutions prepared at the last CA meeting. A lot of thought went into who should offer them. It appears that the environment is good enough to get this off the ground. We could not have known for sure when we were meeting in August. To my mind, this means that +RDW is playing his role very very carefully. The fear was that these could not get off the ground, etc, by manipulation of the process, etc.

The point is not to get TEC bishops to sign on, but to have a roll call which determines who WILL sign, as this could be very useful to the determinations that will ensue.

God bless those in NO working for Dar adjudication….

I agree with what both Frreed and HumbleAccess stated above. This is just not enough. The Presiding Bishop is not a Christian by her own public declaration of faith. Unless she gets down on her knees and repents before the church and God for sinful blaspheming of our Lord, she can’t lead a Christian Church. Bottom line!

Like HumbleAccess said, same sex blessings are WRONG. The Bible is very clear on that. So, there can be no allowance for the communion to come to a “concensus” on this. Like HumbleAccess also stated above, it’s not up to us, it’s up to God. God already made His point very clear in the Scriptures. The whole issue is not just SSBs, but the authority of the Scriptures. TEC needs to accept the authority of the Scriptures and stop trying to twist them to fit their own agenda. It is all about obedience to our one God, The Father, The Son, The Holy Ghost. Let’s not lose sight of that.

Also, the lack of acceptance of authority of the Scriptures is not only a problem with TEC, but also with other provinces in the AC, other denominations, and many non-denominational churches. It’s a HUGE problem globally. It’s the responsibility of all those who are genuine followers of our Lord Jesus to accept and promote only the truth of His Word. We can’t accept this or any resolution that doesn’t honor God’s Truth.

Please let’s all remain in prayer. Something much bigger needs to happen here yet.

Mugsie

Forgive me if I am wrong here but there is a lot of discussion of up and down votes on various resolutions. Hasn’t KJS appointed a draft resolution committee find the mind of the House through the discussions and to present it’s work on Monday?
It seems to me that there will only be one thing to vote on and perhaps it will be amended to try to reach a consensus but that no resolutions presented by anyone other than the committee with be actually voted on.

Rocks, KJS may have appointed a “resolution committee”, I don’t really know that for sure. However, the problem is much bigger than that. KJS herself is part of the apostacy of the church. You can’t have a heretic leading a Christian church. Her own proclamation of her faith is very nonChristian. So she needs to repent. Also, you can’t have any existing clergy in a Christian church who practice and preach what is not Biblical. So, VGR and any other clergy who are declared homosexuals in practice and living with a partner need to be defrocked. That’s only scratching the surface. The whole theology that the current TEC stands on is not on the authority of the Sriptures. They preach false Gospel. That needs to change. I could go on for a while, but I think I’ve said enough to make the picture clear. It’s a BIG mess and it will take some very DRASTIC changes to clean it up.

Mugsie

I don’t like the reference to “public” blessings of same-sex unions. That leaves open the obvious loophole that liberals can claim that the blessing was private, since not everyone was invited.

The language needs to stick with Tanzania: local pastoral provision.  What is so sad, and indeed arrogant, is the way in which the American Bishops will not use others language when they too are part of the body of Christ.  This is part of mutual submission—it is not easy but it is important; just ask anyone who is married for example how often they change the language of their spouses requests and receive a helpful response our a constructive outcome.

Closest yet, but no cigar, ya’ll, for all the reason outlined above.

No Craig, I don’t want to shove anything down anybody’s throat.  What I am suggesting is find a compromise.  The Jenkins draft seemed to allow for the possibility that something could be done WITHIN the canons of the Church, if not, the possibility that they might be modified.  TEC would be irresponsible to condone the plan presented to the GS Steering Committee by +Duncan last November.  That plan totally removed the dioceses requesting APO from ANY accountability to TEC.  In addition, it flatly stated that the APO was to provide “cover” for dioceses and churches while they carried on their legal and property disputes as an interim measure until they had established a new province in the US.  If “acceptable to them” means this, TEC would be irresponsible to support it.  Jensen seemed to have some wiggle room about “acceptable to them”  but I am unclear as to whether the Jensen plan was actually proposed or, from what I gather from Seitz+, it was an earlier edition of the resolution offered by the four?  Clearly, nothing short of a church within a church , the +Duncan plan, will satisfy +Duncan and +Iker.  Is this the case with +Schofield, +Ackerman and +Beckwith?  What about +Salmon, +Steenson, +Howe etc.?  What will it take?  I quess I am very tired of the ideologues on both sides.  I am tired of the “homophobic” “uncaring” insults from the left and the “apostates” and “heretic”  insults from the right.  I am tired of +Akinola and +Orombi and their interventions that help nothing and I found +Gene Robinson’s comments, if correctly quoted, to ++Rowan appalling.  So who is ready to the save the middle way?  Who is ready to compromise?  Are the fundamentalists on both sides so sure of their positions that are willing to dispose of the other?  I once read a comment, that the opposite of belief is not doubt, it’s certainty.  I think it is true.

Emily—Bruno/Beers’ New Years ‘07 sub rosa campaign of threats and vituperation that terrified so many HoB “moderates” into falling in line—look at the stream of SF headlines for last January and you’ll see what I mean—has made any solution that leaves any canonical or legal power whatever in the hands of 815 a complete non-starter.  Blowback.  Live by the lawsuit, die by the lawsuit.  Sorry.