In addition to this, I've posted what I take to be a key portion, since it addresses violence and makes it clear that the Gospel is for all, at

http://anglicanresistance.blogspot.com/2007/03/from-house-of-bishops.html

Actually, I thought it a very moving statement which states our majority point of view extremely well. I don't know that it will do much good, but I don't know what else could have been said without surrendering a large part of ourselves.

It is the final comment in the statment of March 20 that is most telling: "It is to that mission that we now determinedly turn."

now, determinedly, turn. Those three words say it all.

As a Canadian I saw this same spirit (small s) at work in the recent Council of General Synod meeting a few weekends ago. Glad to see our friends to the South taking a similar tack.

I am proud (and quite surprised) that the bishops have stood up to the bullying by the Primates. Thank God for the firming of our spine, in so many ways--defending our polity, defending the ministry of the laity, defending our LGBT members, defending our relationships with other regions and provinces, and most of all, defending our mission!

Peter Akinola is a main supporter of the Same Sex Marriage Prevention Act in Nigeria, which would criminalize advocacy by or for the LGBT community there. Human rights are primary. Why have our bishops not spoken up? Oasis Michigan asked them to - I know because I was at the table while the board was drafting a letter to our bishops.

Frankly, speaking up against a violation of human rights comes before all. We must think of others before we think of ourselves, especially when those others are at risk of 5 years in prison for each "offense" of speaking up.

Did our bishops not realize that human rights were being violated? Did they not know that the US and the EU have both condemned the proposed laws? Did they not believe that the reports were credible? Why were we too busy staring at our own navels?

Well my goodness!

That is a very pleasant surprise.

I think they did speak up in the resolution that states the following:

We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God's children, including gay and lesbian persons, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ's Church. We proclaim the Gospel that stands against any violence, including violence done to women and children as well as those who are persecuted because of their differences, often in the name of God. The Dar es Salaam Communiqué is distressingly silent on this subject.

Weimen,

For me this is clear and direct: "We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God's children, including gay and lesbian persons, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ's Church. We proclaim the Gospel that stands against any violence, including violence done to women and children as well as those who are persecuted because of their differences, often in the name of God. The Dar es Salaam Communiqué is distressingly silent on this subject."

It's so funny that we cross posted the exact same text.

More - In the ENS story Jim links to also read this: "The House of Bishops' media briefing officer for the March 20 sessions was the Rt. Rev. Catherine Roskam, bishop suffragan of the Diocese of New York....[She stated,] "While this was not dealt with by resolution, great concern was expressed about human rights violations for gay and lesbians, particularly in Nigeria, and the need for us as Anglicans and Christians to advocate against it.""

So is this it? Will there be any other formal communication between now and the deadline?

I noticed that they firmly rejected the pastoral scheme and backhandedly discussed gay blessings and bishops by affirming our equality.

Is that where it is going to be left or will that be addressed in another resolution?

Like others, I was surprised -- and delighted. I had expected the Exec Council to say words to this effect, but I thought our bishops would be eager to please the primates. On all fronts, this is good news -- especially their clarity in saying why they reject the primates' request.

I think the Panel of Reference report for Florida and Rowan's March 16 deadline for nominations for the pastoral council contributed to this. The bishops could easily see where this car was headed -- skidding out of control. By their action, the bishops have restored direction and clarity of purpose both to themselves and to ECUSA.

Wonderful, thank you Bishops of TEC...today you have given notice that generating fear and hate against LGBT Christians and Muslims is no longer acceptable...it's now clearly stated that NO means NO to bigots and theives (or both)...Christianity is once again taking on REAL moral meaning thanks to the HOB and the majority membership of TEC!

Gracias a Dios

Let's keep on praying and keep on pushing. The HOB is an institutionally conservative body. They will disappoint us all again, as will the Presiding Bishop. This is a very clear sign of which way the wind (of the Holy Spirit) is blowing. At the end of the day, the truth of the Gospel will prevail.

This is simply outstanding work on the part of the HoB. We could hardly have hoped for anything better. While I recognize that I may yet be disappointed, I am celebrating this evening by fasting from cynicism about what may happen in the future.

Doug, tonight I too rejoice. That's how I just ended my blog posting, in fact!

toujours,

I think it was much more direct than backhanded:

"Other Anglican bishops, indeed including some Primates, have violated our provincial boundaries and caused great suffering and contributed immeasurably to our difficulties in solving our problems and in attempting to communicate for ourselves with our Anglican brothers and sisters. We have been repeatedly assured that boundary violations are inappropriate under the most ancient authorities and should cease. The Lambeth Conferences of 1988 and 1998 did so. The Windsor Report did so. The Dromantine Communiqué did so. None of these assurances has been heeded. The Dar es Salaam Communiqué affirms the principle that boundary violations are impermissible, but then sets conditions for ending those violations, conditions that are simply impossible for us to meet without calling a special meeting of our General Convention."

There will be no covenant to moratoria on same-sex blessings or the consecration of openly gay or lesbian persons without the full consent of General Convention.

If anything, the House of Deputies is more resolutely opposed to moratoria than the House of Bishops.

I think this move is brilliant:

1) It acknowledged dissent in the HoB without giving into it.

2) It clearly honors our polity. There will be no bishops running over laity and other clergy today.

3) It honors the majority, who oppose, at least in principle, any move that would rob our LGBT members of their dignity in Christ.

4) It refuses to fall prey to bullying and the double-binds and double standards of the Communique.

I hope this is the last nail in the coffin for B033. Long may it rest in peace.

I should correct one thing, at least. . . "The penultimate nail in the coffin. . ." The last should be a repeal of B033 at GC 2009.

Yes! At last there's a force that works for a synthesis that is not a product of a colonizing monster named 'Communion'; a Levinian 'Do not kill me' spoken to corporate unity. There's still hope that our communion can be transcendent!

Bill and John,

That's a good point, but it's an oblique reference.

Exxon Mobil does not give domestic partner benefits to their workers who are in same-sex partnerships. Despite repeated shareholder resolutions, they have refused. They have also refused to amend their nondiscrimination regulations, which does not specifically cover sexual orientation. They claim their nondiscrimination regulations prohibit any sort of discrimination, and that enumerating sexual orientation isn't necessary. In their case, this is a cover-up for bigotry - or else they would offer DP benefits. Additionally, a Supreme Court decision once stated that only the specific enumeration of protected categories would make concrete the duty not to discriminate.

When many of us read the statement, the intent is clear. But John Chew or Henry Orombi, for example, have demonstrated by their silence that they are not aware that Akinola supports this legislation, and that it is a massive violation of human rights (either that or they do not care). If they don't know, and they read the statement, they still haven't been warned not to support an oppressive law. And what about LGBT Nigerians? The Anglican Communion has been silent on this issue. I don't think it will be clear to them, when they read our statement, that we are on their side.

The Bishops' statement is not enough. They must specifically address Akinola's actions. No one else in the rest of the Communion has done so, and I am deeply ashamed.

I would be very disappointed if we did not break communion with the Church of Nigeria at the next General Convention. I agree that it would have been a better statement if it had named the Nigerian Church by name. At the same time, there can be no doubt about whose actions are being condemned and Bishop Roskam made it clear in the press conference.

The Canadians named names and their house of bishops was unanimous.

http://www.anglicanjournal.com/news-update/100/article/bishops-speak-out-against-nigerian-laws-on-homosexuality/

Of Course it's a wonderful statement, but the folks at Stand Firm and T19 are looking for a minority statement to come as well, if not now when the Windsor Bishops meet in a few days. They also plan a massive campaign to appeal to the ABC to provide for them.

The House of Bishops and Grieb have reframed the issue as one of polity. - We can't really entertain any of your "requests" under our polity and your Primatial scheme itself goes against our polity as well.

Thus, the bishops have created a situation where they can meet with the ABC explain our polity and create a new opening.

It is also an opening to provide assurances to moderates that our polity can provide a voice and "protection" for them. The PB needs to get out front and start talking about the PV she and TEC are offering them.

If the Windosr Bishops can be split from the Network bishops, I believe the ABC and the Primates will back off, discipline TEC (such as the Grieb fast offered) and let Duncan et all fend for themselves.

Progessives need to get on the horn and be proactive. Extend a hand to the moderate bishops. Show support to the HBs. Don't let the reasserts try to dominate the dialogue. They are looking for ABC and the Primates to jump in now.

I don't think we should break communion with the Nigerian Church. This fracturing-of-the-body approach is a central part of the very problem at hand; it is Nigeria's own approach.

What we should do, I believe, is speak as clearly and forcefully as the Canadian bishops have done against the imminent human rights violations in Nigeria and the role of the Anglican Church of Nigeria - especially Archbishop Peter Akinola - in promoting them. We should also bear in mind that, while we know where the Nigerian primate stands in all this, we do not necessarily know what most Nigerian Anglicans think. And we should keep asking out loud why the Instruments of Communion and Unity of the Anglican Communion - especially the Archbishop of Canterbury - remain deafeningly silent on an issue of human rights violations in which some Anglican leaders are clearly implicated.

All too willing are they to come after the Episcopal Church for ostensibly being "too inclusive." But they remain publicly silent as at least one prominent Anglican leader and his allies shamelessly attack the basic human rights of GLBT people in Nigeria.

The task at hand for the HoB was to respond to the Primates' "recommendations."

While doing so, they also made a point of calling attention to the deplorable failure of the Dar es Salaam Communiqué to address human rights violations being perpetrated with the collusion of members of our Communion. They strongly asserted TEC's position of full inclusion and freedom from violence. They proclaimed their intent to focus TEC's energy on "Christ's own mission in the world," rather than on divisive internal AC politics.

This is certainly not everything that could be said on these subjects, but given the context, was quite the ringing declaration. I'm proud of our Bishops, and grateful to them.

"No Thanks"?

I love it, but it reads to me more like "and the horse you rode in on"

Bill, thanks for your link to the AC of Canada's bishops' condemnation of the Nigerian legislation, and the Nigerian Church's support of it. I gladly stand corrected that no other Anglicans have spoken out.

However, I maintain that we should have named the legislation and the perpertrators. If we were serious about focusing our energy on Christ's mission in the world, I think we should have put this right up front.