There's an unfortunate proposal circulating on the listserv for General Convention delegates, where I'm a lurker. I can't find the proposal on the Web and don't know exactly where it came from, so I won't mention who posted it to the list.
The proposal is part of a larger recommendation for the Episcopal Church response's to the Windsor Report. The specific proposal in question focuses on WR paragraph 134, that the church observe a moratorium on consecrating partnered gays and lesbians as bishops.
The proposal is unfortunate because it gives ammunition to traditionalists who accuse modernists of playing games with language. Here's how it would have the church observe a moratorium (extra paragraphing and emphasis are mine):
The Episcopal Church regrets the extent to which we have, by action and inaction, contributed to strains on communion and caused deep offense to many faithful Anglican Christians as we consented to the consecration of a bishop living openly in a same-gender union.
Accordingly, we urge nominating committees, electing conventions, Standing Committees, and bishops with jurisdiction to observe a moratorium by seriously considering the possibility of refraining from the nomination, election, consent to, and consecration of persons to be bishops who are living openly in a same-gender union during this triennium, until the General Convention of 2009.
On the merits, I hope the General Convention decisively rejects the Windsor Report's moratorium request. But this isn't the way to do it. The drafters of the above proposal meant well, I'm certain; I assume they were trying to avoid having the church be in-your-face in such a rejection. But on this one, I agree with Brad Drell: What these drafters are proposing isn't a moratorium, and it's unhelpful for them to be trying to call it one.
Subscribe
to my feed
Comments