Forum Thread
House of Bishops Meeting of TEC September 2007

Tony wrote:"It is pretty clear that this simply and unequivocally excludes non-celibate gay people from the Church. Period. Or have I got that wrong?"

I don't believe that is what is meant. The issue is not church participation in general, but the standard for Christian leaders.  Hence the word non-celibate.

For further reports, see Fulcrum Newswatch:

http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/newswatch.cfm?menuopt=2

See in particular the following reports by two members the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates Meeting and of the Anglican Consultative Council:

'Observations on the House of Bishops meeting in New Orleans', by Mouneer Anis, Bishop of Egypt and Presiding Bishop of Jerusalem and the Middle East, Global South Anglican site, 5 October 2007:

http://www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/comments/observations_of_presiding_bishop_mouneer_anis_on_the_house_of_bishops_meeti/

'New Orleans: the inside story', by Barry Morgan, Archbishop of Wales, The Church Times, 5 October 2007:

http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=45625 

The Report of the Joint Standing Committee to the Archbishop of Canterbury concerning the New Orleans meeting - with an added appendix by Mouneer Anis - may be read on:

http://www.aco.org/acc/docs/JSC%20Report%20on%20New%20Orleans%20071003.pdf

Perhaps I'm being simple-minded, Simon, but can I get something straight: the Bishop of Jerusalem is upset because US House of Bishops didn't revoke the principle as well as the practice, and regards this as a kind of hypocrisy.

I see a parallel of sorts with the pastoral and political 'restraint' exercised by the Church of England for twenty years after it had agreed that there were no significant theological arguments against the admission of women to the priesthood. I don't think this position of self-denial is inconsistent, but it is deeply painful. The TEC is making a grave sacrifice by reining back the imperatives of conscience, and it is utterly churlish of its critics to insist upon that outward sacrifice and then - when they have some of their own way - demand that intellects and consciences and hearts and principles should also be offered up on the pire.

The full revocation that is called for would truly be the most abominable hypocrisy.

as a tiny explanatory addendum, Simon: 'full and equal participants in the life' says nothing about the episcopate, and the 'restraint' is quite explicit. +Anis is careless, or he is is making a much wider exclsuion, alas!

Tony, I think +Anis's particular difficulty was that the American House of Bishops was at the same time stating it would exercise restraint concerning the consecration of non celebate gay and lesbian people to the episcopate, but at the same time, by asserting their right to full participation at all levels of the church they were stating that they didn't believe the rightness of the request for the, to do so.

Put another way the suggestion would be that they agreed with their fingers firmly crossed as regards the principle at stake.

This is a busy time for me, so I'm a bit out of the swing of things. The passage in ++Jerusalem's dissenting note, available as an addendum to the pdf of the report on TA, which is most striking and depressing to me is this:

            The House of Bishops clarified Resolution B033 of the General Convention 2006 in such a way that "non-celibate gay and lesbian persons are included in the restraint". But in the same response we find them saying "We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God's children, including gay and lesbian persons, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ's Church." What does this mean? This statement contradicts their explanation of B033 which put a restraint on electing and consecrating non-celibate gay and lesbian persons to the Episcopate Order, as it restricts them from full participation in the church.

 It is pretty clear that this simply and unequivocally excludes non-celibate gay people from the Church. Period. Or have I got that wrong?

We have now had the JSC report which can be found at http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/43/00/acns4324.cfm

 Unfortunately the comments of ++Mouneer Anis http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2007/10/tec-gone-far-en.html?cid=85000624

have called its process and conclusion into serious doubt, which is the worst possible conclusion.

Quote Pluralist:

There is no way that the Archbishop of Canterbury is going to disinvite some TEC bishops and invite others. He regards the Church as one body, and to pick off some would cause an almighty row that would soon descend into chaos.

Whilst this may well be the position the ABC would like to hold, Andrew Goddard's article lucidly demonstrates that he has deliberately set up a position whereby he could disinvite the whole of TEC House of Bishops. My hunch is that if he does believe that, on the advice received from the Primates, that their response is inadequate that is more likely to be his course of action than to start picking which individuals can come, and which not. TEC, at this stage needs to stand or not together, not least for the sake of any subsequent reconciliation.