ACNA will no doubt issue a statement to the effect that it recognizes and affirms the Church of England's desire to remain part of the family that does not discriminate.

Oh, here it is:
http://churchman.blogspot.com/2010/02/press-release-from-acna-on-civil.html

Are we through the Looking Glass yet?

Susan Russell

One of the reasons TEC is seen as such a laughingstock these days is that we cannot seem to understand nuanced positions. It is perfectly possible for a conservative Anglican to support civil unions and all the rights and privileges of the same and still wish to restrict holy matrimony to heterosexual couples.

Bishop Epting, would you wish to submit your marriage to the same restrictions that the CofE requires of same-sex couples where one is a member of the clergy? If not, the nuance you so laud is really only nuance from a heterosexual point-of-view.

So wait, TEC is a laughingstock, but the world bows before the wisdom of the Church of England? Which world? Who exactly turns to the CofE for moral leadership? Not the English.

There's no nuance here. It's the same old wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more. Make the closet as comfortable as possible, and hope that as many LGBT folks as possible will stay in it.

They surely get their undergarments in a wad when we talk about blessing a same-sex union, no matter what we call it!
Doug Spurlin

Just what I'm saying, Jim. Of course there are "winkers and nodders" in the C of E (as there are in TEC). There are also people who simply disagree with you and who are trying to make the best decisions they can. Is it not possible to believe that people of good will can disagree on some of these matters?

Bishop Epting, the question isn't whether it is possible that people of good will can disagree. Of course it is. The question is whether that is an accurate description of what is happening in this instance. I don't believe it is. I think the CofE is salving its conscience. The majority of them know that they are treating LGBT people and their allies very badly. So they throw them bones when they can. This is a bone. There's a bit of meat on it, which is nice. But it is still a bone. Meanwhile the fiction that these are celibate relationships is maintained so that TEC and the Church of Canada can be pilloried for doing in the open what the CofE does in private.

To the best of my knowledge, our Lord Jesus Christ did not speak with or act in nuanced positions. He spoke directly: To the prevaricating disciples at the Feeding of the Many, he said, 'You give them something to eat.' To the rich young ruler wondering about eternal life, he said, 'Sell all you have, give it to the poor, and follow me.' In the first instance he did not add 'but ... if it is not convenient or possible'; in the latter he did not run after the man and amend his statement by adding 'but ... if that makes you the laughingstock among your family and friends ... well ... then sell all you have, put three-quarters in the bank, and give one-quarter to the poor, and follow me when people won't laugh at you.'

I am reminded of a sermon I heard 25 years ago on the Day of Pentecost. The priest preached that having some people sneer and laugh at us saying, 'They are full of new wine,' is a sign that we have acted boldly. Acting boldly seems to be a hallmark of Jesus' disciples.

All the apostles were put to death or exiled by the establishment as reward for their bold acts. Can we expect anything less?

So why can't TEC's Church Pension Fund provide pension payments for survivors of the partners/spouses of its gay and lesbian clergy? Or for that matter, the free supplementary medicare insurance as provided to straight married couples? I'm told it is because the church's canons and Prayer Book don't recognize same sex marriages or civil unions.

Yet CPC is more than willing to sell health insurance to gay couples if they have a joint bank account or can prove co-habitation whether or not there has been a formal civil union or marriage.

It's time to look at our own beam before criticizing the C or E for removing one of its specks.

So we're laughing stock because we don't do nuance well? I thought we were a threat because we were too nuanced.

One of the reasons TEC is seen as such a laughingstock these days

If I can't say anything nice... :-X

JC Fisher

[Except, Bishop Epting, I do respectfully request you answer Christopher's question.]

Jim: All I'm asking for is civility and not ascribing the same motives to everyone with whom we disagree. That's what I mean by "nuance." People (and churches) are more complicated than what I often read in "Episcopal Cafe."

JC (and Christopher): Of course I would not want my marriage submitted to the same restrictions as C of E clergy who are civil partners. I disagree completely with that decision. So do many people in the C of E.

Bishop Epting, you are ascribing motives to people every bit as much as I am. You are ascribing them good ones. I am not sure why you think that this betrays a "complex" understanding of human behavior.

If "nuance" means we respect the dignity of every human being by fully including some human beings in the sacraments of the church and excluding others, then I say "laugh away."

Better to be a fool for Christ than a foil for oppression, marginalization and discrimination.

Susan Russell

Please can you fix the typo from the Guardian that has now been corrected there, viz.

£3,370 not £307.