We, the undersigned Bishops of this 75th General Convention, in the confidence of the Gospel and out of love for this great Church, must prayerfully dissent from the action of this Convention in Resolution B033 (on Election of Bishops). We do so for the following reasons:
A Statement of Conscience
We, the undersigned Bishops of this 75th General Convention, in the confidence of the Gospel and out of love for this great Church, must prayerfully dissent from the action of this Convention in Resolution B033 (on Election of Bishops). We do so for the following reasons:
* The process used to arrive at Resolution B033 raises serious concerns about the integrity of our decision-making process as a Church. In particular we note that we discussed a resolution, A162 , on Tuesday, but were never given an opportunity to act upon it. Instead, we were presented with a different resolution this morning, and were given only 30 minutes for debate and discussion. This resolution bears great consequences both for the Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church and unfortunately was not adequately discussed.
* Our conversation has been framed in a flawed paradigm, forcing us to choose between two goods—the full inclusion in the life of the Church of our brother and sister Christians who happen to be gay or lesbian and our full inclusion in the life of our beloved Communion.
* The process that brought about the reconsideration of this matter failed to honor the integrity of the House of Deputies by bringing undue pressure to bear on that body.
* Our witness to justice has been prophetic in this nation and in the wider Anglican Communion on the issues of the full inclusion of people of color and persons who are differently-abled. For more than 30 years women been permitted to be included in the councils of this Church as lay deputies to this Convention and as deacons, priests and bishops. This witness to full inclusion has borne the fruits of the Spirit and is incarnate in the faces and lives around these tables and throughout the Church. The language of this resolution too much echoes past attempts by the Church to limit participation of those perceived to be inadequate for full inclusion in the ordained ministry.
* Any language that could be perceived as effecting a moratorium that singles out one part of the Body by category is discriminatory.
We are absolutely committed to the future of this Communion and the process of healing the strain that we readily admit and regret exists, and has been exacerbated in our own house by events today. We must participate in this process with our own integrity intact and thus we are obliged to make this dissent. We intend to challenge the rest of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion to honor the promise to include the voices of gay and lesbian in the conversations about the future of the Communion. We pray for the Church, for our Communion, and for our lesbian and gay brothers and sisters.
This statement is being distributed by Mike Barwell from the diocese of New Hampshire. He reports that at least 20 bishops supported the sentiments expressed in this statement, but he is not sure how many actually signed.
|
Are they playing I’ll show you mine if you show me yours? Posted by Dan Crawford on 06-21-2006 at 02:54 PM [link]
|
|
I guess I’m being cynical, but I would not put it past our pluriform Presiding Bishop to welcome this statement. It makes it look like what the GC passed actually means something, which it doesn’t. Posted by Publius on 06-21-2006 at 02:55 PM [link]
|
|
And once we do know the bishops that signed this, can one assume that the remaining Bishops that didn’t sign don’t agree w/GLBT agenda? Would this be indicative of each Bishop making a choice? Posted by CT6Sister on 06-21-2006 at 02:58 PM [link]
|
|
Can they possibly be serious? TEC adopted the most watered down thing imaginable, a mere fig leaf which they hope will garner an invitation to Lambeth. My friend Greg has frequently predicted that revisionists will never be satisfied until gay rites are mandatory in every parish. Based on Chane’s churlish attitude today, I’d say Greg is right. Posted by Wilson on 06-21-2006 at 03:02 PM [link]
|
|
Of course gay rites will be mandatory - look at WO. BTW, why do they always say “gay and lesbian”? Aren’t lesbians gay? Posted by CarolynP on 06-21-2006 at 03:17 PM [link]
|
|
A quick question for Greg: The silence from and about the Diocese of Mississippi delegation has been deafening. What’s going on? How about enlightening us, if possible. the snarkster Posted by the snarkster on 06-21-2006 at 03:20 PM [link]
|
|
I seriously urge Mike Barwell from the Diocese of NH to garner as many signatures on that document as he possibly can. Posted by Tom Cain on 06-21-2006 at 03:28 PM [link]
|
|
Does this not add to the overall tenor of non-compliance? X number of dioceses will not abide by even the most watered-down non-compliant resolution? Posted by Rick Killough on 06-21-2006 at 03:33 PM [link]
|
|
I suspect this “Statement of Conscience” is a “smoke and mirrors” tactic in hopes the ABC and the AC can be duped into accepting the resolution that passed - a dangerous resolution, indeed. My prayer is that the aforementioned pay heed to the dissent of the “Windsor Bishops.” Posted by Aunt B on 06-21-2006 at 03:40 PM [link]
|
|
Snark - radio silence from Mississippi. Gray is not a signatory to the Windsor Bishops’ statement. I have added the names up those who signed it. Posted by Greg Griffith on 06-21-2006 at 03:44 PM [link]
|
|
Let’s not forget that ++Rowan’s friend +NT Wright made it excruciatingly and blindingly clear that the original resolutions were complete non-starters as far as Windsor compliance. B033 is even more arm-wavy and vague. The ABC’s response to B033 was unenthusiastic, to say the least. I for one really don’t think we’ve lost much in the way of clarity; B033 was just Griz’ fatuous attempt to prevent ECUSA from dying with dignity… Posted by Craig Goodrich on 06-21-2006 at 04:10 PM [link]
|
|
Is there any word yet as to which bishops signed this Minority Report? Other than Chane and (I’m assuming) VGR. Posted by GL+ on 06-21-2006 at 04:36 PM [link]
|
|
When are people going to quit comparing sodomites to women and those of color? I have many personal friends who are female and/or black who are repentant of their sins, believe in the teachings of Christ and want to follow him.
Posted by carpprop on 06-21-2006 at 08:44 PM [link]
|
|
Does anyone know the names of the other signatories yet? Posted by The Duke on 06-22-2006 at 05:39 AM [link]
|
|
Just found the following on Diocese of Washington website: “**We are not able to publish “the undersigned” bishops names because the bishops demonstrated their assent by standing after it was read in a closed session of the House of Bishops and it is uncertain exactly who stood up. However, the group at least includes the Bishops of Chicago, Newark, Northern Michigan, Rochester, Vermont, Washington and Wyoming.” I count 7, not 20 or 30. Posted by GL+ on 06-22-2006 at 05:15 PM [link]
|
|
“**We are not able to publish “the undersigned” bishops names because the bishops demonstrated their assent by standing after it was read in a closed session of the House of Bishops and it is uncertain exactly who stood up. However, the group at least includes the Bishops of Chicago, Newark, Northern Michigan, Rochester, Vermont, Washington and Wyoming.” Sorry to repeat myself, but no one seems to have noticed this statement. I think it significant that there are no actual “signatures” to this statement of dissent. Posted by GL+ on 06-23-2006 at 06:12 AM [link]
|
|
I totally agree, GL+. How much of a “Statement of Conscience” can it be if you’re not even truly willing to put your name to it? Posted by MJD_NV on 06-23-2006 at 07:51 AM [link]
|
|
GL+ and MJD_NV -
Or perhaps their lawyers advised them that their signature would weaken their assault on the orthodox clergy of their Diocese because they, too, could be declared to have “abandoned the communion”. Just speculating… Posted by CarolynP on 06-23-2006 at 12:01 PM [link]
|
Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.
Dissent on the left as well now. I’m very curious to know what bishops are endorsing which statement.