I have been patient for a long time and delaying a bit longer would not be the end of the world for me. I already live in the Kingdom much of the time, and it is not something that any of the proposals could give me or take away from me. On the other hand, I see nothing that even remotely suggests that the Episcopal Church's agreement to a limited moratorium would be received in good faith. The Anglican Consultative Council and The Network are off the charts in the arrogance with which they violate canons and boundaries in their plot to overthrow the Episcopal Church. Akinola and Orombi have threatened even the Archbishop of Canterbury. Almost no one in the Communion is having the conversations with lbgt Christians promised for several Lambeths and in the more recent statements from primates, the WR, and from Nottingham. I deplore the abuse of voting at Nottingham against TEC and the Canadians while they had agreed to give up seat, voice, and vote. A spirit of shared forbearance and charity seems to have left the room. Meanwhile, TEC patiently, and without protest, continues to pay its portion of the bill that funds these junkets of condemnation. 'Ugly Americans' would have left. It is in the DNA of U.S. citizens to oppose "taxation without representation"; but it is in the DNA of Christians, and of Executive Council to return good for evil. Would the moratorium which you suggest merely prolong the blood letting and continue the scapegoating of lesbigay Christians? Would it not also give to the Communion a de facto authority which it has never claimed for itself previously? I would be much more disposed to accept delays if all sides were willing to pay the cost of them equally. For example, would the church be willing to stop all consecrations and blessings until we reach a consensus? Lutibelle/Louie Louie Crew, 377 S. Harrison St., 12D, E. Orange, NJ 07018. 973-395-1068 http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~lcrew
Please sign my guestbook and view it.
Statistics courtesy of