The entire report was a terrible waste of trees.

In typical Anglican fashion they had a pro and a con report.

The problem is that nobody seems to be interested in determining the Truth. I guess its because of the prevailing belief (wish, desire?) that truth is actually relative.

But what else can you expect from TEC?

CJ: “It must be hell to be married to an Anglican.”

What about being “married” to TEc as a member of TEc?

As being an Institutionalist-Enabler of TEc’s soul-destroying heresy and apostasy by being married to TEc as a member of TEc, yoked, complicit, and morally culpable to some degree for what your spouse TEc does to innocent others with its malignant teaching and practice.

**Does anybody not know what’s coming next?**

To be fair, Chris, there was the possibility of outright surrender, too; more dialog wasn’t a foregone conclusion.

To be fair, Chris, there was the possibility of outright surrender, too; more dialog wasn’t a foregone conclusion.

More dialog is outright surrender!

Is creative theology anything like creative accounting? Thought so …

“God bless ’em, as Joe Biden might say,”

“Biden” has become the substitute for the F-bomb on the local talk radio stations here (Boston) as in “Oh, shut the Biden up.” or “Biden YOU!”

“we will continue to use the report as a basis for further conversations and it should not be seen as the definitive statement of the church’s statement on same-sex relationships, although some would see it as so.” Here is a confusing bit of verbiage. TEC uses behaviors to establish precedence then it tries to offer a rationale like “Justice”. It is not a rational organization. It is a rationalizing organization. TEC has never been able to support its innovations with tradition, Scripture or even reason.If Trinity and Nashota House folks were not included in constructing this report, there probably would have been only one document. I guess this can be fixed by exclusion and editing the next time around. TEC has become a secular organization with a secular agenda.Elvis has left the building.

“One bishop pointed out that there was nothing new in the arguments, stuff we have heard 20 years ago”.

In other words even after 20 years of unrelenting pressure those homophobic conservatives haven’t buckled under yet.

The conservatives have an argument. The revisionists have a wish fulfilment at best and usually a delusion.

What boggles me is this: six years of brassing off the rest of the Communion, suing the backsides off various parishes, congregations and dioceses, and it’s only now they’re getting the theology done?

Cart before the horse, lads.

“The reception was less than thrilling,” Smith wrote of the papers in his blog. “One bishop pointed out that there was nothing new in the arguments, stuff we have heard 20 years ago.”

Yeah, that old-fashioned morality stuff is dead boring. “Bishop, can I off my rich uncle so I can inherit his moolah and go hog-wild?” “Sorry, Fifth Commandment says ‘no’ to that.” “Dang, that’s so twenty years ago! Is there nothing new in this debate?”

If you want to do this kind of theology and get the results you want, you need to accumulate more theologians and bishops who are personally invested in the desired result want, either directly themselves or in trusted friends and associates.

That took time, obviously.

Chris, Chris, Chris, you don’t talk about it, you have a conversation and a conversation and a conversation and a conversation and a conversation and a conversation and a…

CJ: “So the four of you talk about it. And talk about it. And talk about it. And talk about it. And talk about it. And talk about it. And talk about it. And talk about it. And talk about it. And talk about it. And talk about it.”

Yo! Calling all dumb asses who don’t get it yet. The answer to the expansion of all this talk is in two letters. Can you guess what they are?

Okay, quit struggling. I’ll tell you.

WO.

WO and the resulting ungodly feminization of discourse in TEc (and other liberal denominations) have lead to The Listening Process and never-ending gabfests.

Sow WO, Reap Woe.

Fuinseoig: What boggles me is this: six years of brassing off the rest of the Communion, suing the backsides off various parishes, congregations and dioceses, and it’s only now they’re getting the theology done?

The theology was done 2000 years ago. There is no theological dimension to this story – all talk of “theology” is only a smoke screen.

Ahhh, the Anglican Church….

As Biden would also say, “God rest her soul.”

TUaD – as a female, may I say “Hey!” Men are every bit as bad about long-winded yapping that goes nowhere, as you may see in every business meeting anyone ever had to attend about changing the colour of the letterhead on the stationery.

Michael D – the bit that boggles me is that all the “prophetic work” was being presented as the fruits of a new theological approach and understanding; now it appears that “Oh, yeah, well, when we said that, er – we were mistaken.”

I’m not surprised that this came out of “We want to do this new thing so we’re going to do it”, I’m just surprised they’re admitting “We didn’t even have the figleaf of ‘Dr. A. B. Pumperniccle’s radical investigation into the aorist tense in the Dead Sea Scrolls as translated into Urdu has yielded stunning new insights into what exactly “don’t do it” means as applied to living into the tension’ when we decided to go ahead and do this.”

Fuinseoig: “Men are every bit as bad about long-winded yapping that goes nowhere”

Some men, but I’m not referring to feminized men.

Some Bishops will hate the traditional paper, many will yawn, a few will agree with it but slink away quietly, but almost none will still hope for reform through conversation. Stick the proverbial fork in conversation.

I think the commenters here are being a bit too harsh on the Episcopal Bishops. Their recent HOB meeting is simply following the historical precedent of the ancient Church at her Ecumenical Councils. We will recall how Athanasius and the anti-Arian bishops agreed to continue discussions with Eusebius and the pro-Arian bishops at the first Ecumenical Council of Nicea. As I recall, neither side could agree on the full divinity of Christ and His eternal equality with the Father, so a “Common Creed” was adopted that was an attempt to live into the fullness of the Truth. They agreed to continue the conversation and maintain fellowship and Communion with one another.

Oh wait. I’m sorry. That never happened. Never mind.

Years ago, a cleric in ECUSA told me nothing would be “Decided” on an important isuue. They just talk about it for about ten years while everyone meanwhile *does* the thing being discussed. Then they heave a sigh (If that much) and say “Well, we’ve been doing it for years now, it must certainly be OK, right?” It’s done without ever being done. He hasn’t “Married” his live in male friend yet, what’s keeping him I can’t imagine.

If I had the time or inclination, I would write a new version of the Bible for Episcopos. It would be double or triple the size of the original and I could make a fortune selling it by the pound. All views, pro and con, would be presented, e.g. “In the beginning or end, God or someone created or did not create the heavens and the earth or nothing……And God or someone said or did not say, ‘Let there be light or dark, and there was light or dark…..’” Sorry. Getting dizzy, so gotta stop now for some kool-aid.

Don Janousek,
That is a great idea. Then TEC could once again appeal to “Scripture” as a rationale for their actions. they could even call it the KJ(s) version. Now, let’s talk about a history rewrite and call it…well, “Tradition is What We Do Today”

Dale Matson: Your post brings to mind the term, “new tradition.” Cognitive dissonance at its best, or worst. Right up there with “Episcopal orthodoxy” and “Congressional honesty.”

A routine conservative critique of the new homosexualism goes something like: they are putting facts on the ground without doing the hard work of theology to support their beliefs. The “creative theology” line answers that complaint.

Well, it doesn’t really, since we already know it’s nothing that hasn’t been said for 20 years (30, more likely). The bottom line: Lucy is holding the gay football again. What do you think the Episcopalian Charlie Brown will do this time?

… which is why it is disgusting and destructive for any conservative (aka Christian) theologian to engage in conversation or dialogue with ECUSA or other liberals.

Because writing papers, engaging in dialogue, joining in conversation – only strengthens the liberals.

GAFCON bishops will never stay in the same room as people from ECUSA

Matt Kennedy has it right: the only permissible dialogue with liberals is to make very clearly they are damned Heretics!