Bishop Ted Gulick saying General Convention 2009 did Not do what in Fact They did
posted by t19elves at 5:35 PM
Monday, July 20, 2009
Previous Posts
- Bishop Epting Says General Convention did not Do w...
- Bank 'walkaways' from foreclosed homes are a growi...
- Still More from the Bishop of Alabama on General C...
- The Dean of the Cathedral Church of the Advent on ...
- The Bishop of Texas on General Convention 2009
- The Bishop of Northern Indiana on General Conventi...
- Stephen Noll Responds to Bishop of Durham Tom Wrig...
- The Rector of Christ Church Sant Antonio Writes Hi...
- Anglican TV Interviews Albany Bishop Bill Love
- Health Care Cost, access plague South Carolina Res...
2 Comments:
If I may be permitted to restate this in a different way.
If the context of D025 and C056 were a law in any other forum, for example a crime or code, the statute is written and thereby exists as an understanding that the act is not acceptable to be committed in society without a punishment being administered/extracted. It is understood that the barrier exists before an act is committed.
A further distiction is that Jesus told us that even the thought of adultery or other sin was the same as committing it.
The idea that the moratorium is only broken once the act is completed is one that boggles my mind. It is a new and different standard that hasn't been applied anywhere else that I've seen. The intent to break it will be sufficient before the act is completed.
The Lakeland Two
Just so that I am clear. By passing D025 and C056, GC09 HOB and HOD stated their "mind" in such a way that a large portion of people across the spectrum in and out of TEC interpret as a blanket approval of open access to every position in TEC by a GLBT person, partnered or not.
Setting aside the conservative objection on Scriptural grounds, the intent was to give this approval in spite of objections in the Anglican Communion.
The wink, wink, nudge, nudge given -- whether it be to the GLBT implying blessing and approval by TEC or the Anglican Communion by protesting that compliance is maintained until one of the GLBT (and associated diocese) actually accomplishes being elected and consecrated based on this implied approval -- is disingenuous. The intent is to push the limits to what "lines" have been drawn and beyond. The intent of the ambiguity is to make room for more movement while pretending the actual usage of these approved resolutions has no meaning until a GLBT is actually consecrated. I would venture to say that the intent was to push the limit in hopes that the lines would moved further, if not fully withdrawn with the passage of time and more lobbying.
If I were of the GLBT, I would see this as a betrayal by these bishops that are "saying GC09 did Not do what in Fact They did." That is, of course, unless they understand that the endgame is to push closer to their goal of full "inclusion" within the AC. TEC in the US has only been the beginning.
I scrolled through the list of deputies and was surprised at first at how many lawyers were listed. Then when I see the ambiguity and how it's being used, I'm not. Brad Drell and the like aside.
If the "mind" of TEC is full inclusion - then go to it and stop trying to hide it.
The Lakeland Two
Post a Comment
<< Home