[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]
[edot] the laity of ECUSA and liberal trends
Were the laity to vote on this issue directly, I strongly
> believe that they would stand with the third world Episcopal bishops against
> these liberal ECUSA trends.
The laity voted overwhelmingly on these issues at the last two General
Conventions in support of lesbigay Christians. The House of Bishops is
the younger House. Nothing can pass in the House of Deputies on a
roll-call vote without passing in both the clergy and the lay orders.
Are you saying that your diocese sends people to General Convention who
have no right to represent you diocese? If so, why not try to replace
them? That would seem a much saner course of action than the mutiny which
you seem to proscribe. There is hardly a more democratic process in all
of Christendom than we enjoy in ECUSA. Why not put yourself forward to
be a deputy?
It is not usually the practice of Standing Committees to use Consents as a
refendum on theology. My diocse, for example, affirmed the election of
your bishops, the election of Bp. Iker (who would likely not have had
consents had Bp. Spong not pushed for his approval), for the election of
Bp. Ackerman, and for the consents to many others with whom we disagree.
We believe that in the absence of major evidence to the cause us to do
otherwise, people in a diocese should be the primary ones to discern who
should be their chief pastor. As a member of our Standing Committee, the
only thing that would lead me to deny consents would be clear evidence
that the electing diocese had been misinformed by the one elected as to
matters of consequence.
Only two bishops have ever been denied consents, and one of those is now
in the ECUSA calendar of saints.
Secretary, The Standing Commission on Anglican and International Peace
with Justice Concerns