House of Bishops adopts ‘Covenant Statement’

titusonenine ^ | 3/15/2005 | Kendall Harmon

[Carolina]

Thanks for the correction

My pleasure. Not that it matters to these amethyst-ringed, purple-shirted goofballs. Further proof that they've become unhinged:

How about the move to change Title IV of the Canons to expand disciplinary actions to include the laity. So I could actually be hauled in front of ecclesiastical court for standing for orthodox beliefs. My revisionist bishop could claim that I'm not obeying him and excommunicate me.

Or how about the doing away of Confirmation? No adult confession to turn away from sin. So, instead of Confirmation we'll "receive" everyone instead.

[bobjam]

They're trying to talk their way out of it. Technically, the General Convention did not develop or authorize rites of blessing for same sex unions. It gave individual dioceses and diocesan bishops the authority to develop and implement rites for same sex blessings as they see fit. Instead of dealing with this issue, the bishops, as a whole, are attempting to pass it on to individual dioceses. Now there's some real leadership.

[RonF]

This is clearly wrong-headed -- it's essentially a confession that the ECUSA no longer has any clear idea of what a bishop should look like. This, I think, will provide fodder for the Primates to state that the ECUSA has utterly lost its way.

I disagree with the first statement here. Their idea of what a bishop should look like is clear to them; no one should be excluded from the episcopal office on the basis of race, gender, or sexual practices with other consenting adults.

The HoB probably (and quite rightly) figures that the Primates will force a move if another homosexual in an active sexual relationship is consecrated Bishop in the ECUSA. So, they can't consecrate such a person as Bishop; it's entirely possible that such a person will be elected and approved as a Bishop in some Diocese or another before GC2006; and to withhold consecration of such a person while proceeding with a consecration of someone not so classified would cause cries of "injustice" from the proponents of such a thing. On that basis, they believe it to be only fair to refuse to consecrate anyone until the matter has been resolved at GC2006.

I find the whole comment of "The HoB is only one house of the ECUSA polity, and they can't do anything on their own" quite bogus. The bishops are the chief shepherds of the ECUSA; they can certainly control their own actions until the whole church can discuss it. By refusing to consecrate any bishops, they are doing exactly that here.

[r9etb]

I disagree with the first statement here. Their idea of what a bishop should look like is clear to them; no one should be excluded from the episcopal office on the basis of race, gender, or sexual practices with other consenting adults.

You're right about that. Still, I think the logic of their stance is essentially what I said.

By stopping all consecrations (and elections, too, note...), they're basically saying that the ECUSA can't tell whether a given candidate is unquestionably qualified. I.e., there's no longer a "First Timothy" standard in the church.

This is clearly a dereliction of duty on the part of the HOB. Their real motive is undoubtedly precisely as you've stated ... but that merely takes us to the next chapter, 1 Timothy 4:

Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared....

I don't think this gambit is gonna fly with the Primates, especially since Frank Griswold is apparently claiming that they had been tricked by the devil....