Thank you, Christopher, for this bold witness to the truth. Parrhesia at its best, and it steadies my troubled heart that you are speaking out with spirit in your words.
In Christ's holy name,
Clark

Not boldly, but with reverence and trembling in building on The Rule, Chapter 64.

A Benedictine notion of authority does not allow me to speak as "to the powers that be" in such a way as to draw sharp opposition of the priestly and the prophetic within the Body or to denigrate the apostolic office, both of which have come to be ways of construing the "prophetic". Rather, each charism is called to proclaim the Gospel.

Our bishops exercise legitmate authority in the life of the Body as heirs to the Apostles. I respect that authority a great deal and desire it formed by the Mind of Christ that obedience is not misplaced. That authority, however, is limited, as is all authority, to and by Christ's own and ever-present Headship, His Abbacy: "Thou art the same lorde whose propertie is alwayes to have mercie."

The House of Bishops' little Star Chamber is still more evidence of the systemic homophobia in the church yet that never gets studied. If this is going to be the approach of our bishops, doesnt' consistency demand that they stop studying racism and start appointing secret committees to study the place of skin tones in the Episcopal Church?

It's not just the secrecy that needs to be lifted, the whole study should be cancelled. If the bishops must keep Parson Parsley and his theology committee busy, they should study their own implicit bigotry that leads to condescending studies like this. Until then, pastoral from their lips = patronizing.

It's time to move beyond the notion that straight white man culture is God's plumbline in the midst of the congregation and to realize that God's overview is a bit larger than our own. Then we might really have something to say to our colleagues in the Anglican Communion.

Thank you for your reasoned and impassioned plea. God bless you!

I thank you, too. An old friend by correspondence many years ago reminded me never to be surprised at what another human being does (and I'm sure that includes church hierarchy.) He said to re-read Genesis 2:2ff and realize that it is still the level to which any of US can fall. Thank God for any improvement over Gen 2:2 . . . and keep moving! It's a hard lesson for me to learn . . . but I am trying.

Kale King

Thanks, Chris.

Secrecy is the daily bread of closeted gays and alcoholics, and other dysfunctional people. Our church is still living in closets, trying to control the free exchange of ideas. But their closets will crumble, if for no other reason than that there is no privacy in our little church. Sooner or later, the HOB´s deliberations always leak, and then the bishops will look like anxious fools.

Whether this secrecy makes their deliberations unauthoritative is a very serious issue, going to the core of our claim to be a "democratic" church. Even bishops accountable to the People of God of us for their discourse. Who is responsible for this betrayal?

Thanks, Chris, for a fine letter. An apology is, indeed, in order. The members of the committee to study same-sex relationships must come out of the closet or dissolve itself. A committee with a secret membership, it is of no use at all.

June Butler

Other than as a stalling mechanism, and the church has a long history of that when it comes to extending justice and love, the need for such a "study" is lost upon me -- It has been done, within, and without, the church. The anonymity of the committee members just makes church nonsense all the sillier.

But of course, the greatest harm is perpetrated upon those who find themselves in physical, emotional, and spiritual harm's way. Yet, this becomes of little importance as we dither pompously, "protecting" the faith from what it should be about.

I am a lay person, and have no idea regarding what machinations are occurring behind the scenes. However, to date, the absence of anything resembling bold leadership on the part of the PB regarding this issue, to put it mildly, is disappointing. I expected more. Silly me!

Kevin Johnson

The fix is in. This Super Secret Committee is not interested in pastoral care for LGBTs. It is interested in protecting the place of the Episcopal Church in the Anglican Communion.

Why are we studying this issue AGAIN? And why right now? My guess is that all of this is window-dressing for Rowan Williams' benefit. I believe that the Bishops are terrified that the House of Deputies is set to repeal B033, or adopt a new "mind of the House" resolution about same-sex marriage rites or blessings. This committee is their way of making it impossible to move forward—and to mollify +Cantaur.

I suspect that +Williams is coming here to warn the Bishops that he may be "forced" to recognize an alternative province in the U.S. if they don't keep the rest of us in line and push our LGBTs back in the closet. He has shown repeated frustration with the inclusion of clergy and laity in the governance of TEC, and this is his last, big "stick" to keep us worshiping the golden calf of the AC.

I believe that many bishops feel they have a higher responsibility to the AC than to their own LGBT faithful. In fact, to me, the very creation of this committee is proof of that.

I hate to sound so cynical, but I predict that General Convention is not going to be good for those of us wanting to extend all the sacraments to all the baptized. And if we aren’t careful, clergy and laity in TEC are going to find themselves moved to the margins—the way they are in most Anglican provinces in the world.

Paige Baker

To be even more frank, this Committee and those responsible for its actions owe lgbt Christians a sincere apology and acts of repentance for this latest handling.¨ Chris

Yes, I would like to suggest a few decades of ¨fasting¨ might be appropriate...or, perhaps a high level banishment to Akinolan Nigeria until retirement?