…but you all keep saying such interesting things. But before you read this item, be sure to see Bonnie Anderson’s letter one item down.
Back? Here we go::
Here is an analysis of the Primates Communique by Mark Harris of Preludium, who, it should be remembered, is not just some scruffy blog jockey, but a member of the Executive Council, which meets early next month in Portland. He writes: The Bishops could affirm or deny the requests, and deal with the consequences. But why must they? Suppose the requests were determined to be misplaced – that they belonged not to the House of Bishops but to the whole deliberative assembly of Synod (General Convention)? Suppose, even better, that the forced choice between conscience and communion was rejected? Suppose the Bishops said, we choose a better way – conscience and communion?
The Admiral of Morality picks apart Rowan Williams’ recent article in the Telegraph (see two items down). My favorite bit:
“In a column in the Daily Telegraph, the Archbishop of Canterbury submits the following statement:
“‘One of the hardest things in all this has been to keep insisting on the absolute moral imperative of combating bigotry and violence against gay people, and the need to secure appropriate civic and legal protection for couples who have chosen to share their lives. These are different matters from whether the Church has the freedom to bless same-sex unions.’
“One of the hardest things in all this is that Canterbury continues to pursue this line of reasoning with a supposedly straight face.”
The Rev. Susan Russell takes Bishop Kirk Smith of Arizona, a former colleague of hers, to task for shedding crocodile tears as he endorses the Primates’ communique.
Meanwhile, the Mad Priest has a “Cunning plan” for a worldwide Episcopal Church, And Father Jake, channeling his friend Bill Bartosh, says it is time we put an end to our equivocating and authorized gay marriage.
The pot, I believe, has been vigorously stirred.
Update: The Telegraph has this, but it doesn’t advance the story.