« To our radical-traditionalist cousins overseas | Main | Randy Pausch's last lecture - a must-see »

September 27, 2007


Scott Gunn


You're right about part of this, I suppose. I was doing Monday morning quarterbacking, if you keep in mind that the HoB statement came out on Tuesday. In other words, this posting -- despite Kendall's characterization -- was not about the HoB statement.

I was pleading for some clarity from the HoB, and I think their statement was actually pretty clear. The reports I read of +Bruno's statements don't suggest that he wasn't particularly honest or clear. But it's quite likely he was quoted out of context.

Speaking of which, if you read more on the InclusiveChurch blog, I think you'd see that you can take away the quotes around "liberal." I fully favor the complete inclusion of GLBTs in the life of the church. I also think that how we get there will determine whether we stay in communion with most of the AC. We won't be in communion with the grumpy primates much longer (we're already done, according to them), but the moderate primates will be willing to engage us if we do this right.

That, I think, is where I've differed from some other progressives. I believe that our global mission is vital, and our path to inclusion matters. I'm not saying it needs to take longer, but our attitude needs some help.

Based on what I've heard about the HoB meeting, I think a growing number of bishops would agree with that.

Read my actual assessment of the HoB statement. You'll see I that I viewed it as favorable. I don't think there was a petulant bit in what I wrote.


P.S. I like your blog. Sorry I haven't commented here before. Read it every day. I'll still read it, even if I'm demoted to being a petulant "liberal" here. :-)

D. C. Toedt III

Scott, you're right that your blog comments weren't in the petulant category; I apologize for inadvertently and implicitly sweeping you up in that net. I was referring mostly to the trads over at T19 (I don't read Stand Firm). And thanks for the kind words; I've read your blog once in a while and like it as well.


You're right, D.C. The Bishops did the only thing they could do - although I wish they'd simply said that to us, rather than adding more sanctimony by saying that "gays and lesbians are full members blah blah blah." We're obviously not.

The church is still divided on this question - and anyway, how would people like it if a different crowd of Bishops came in and decided to put into effect some scheme of their own without bothering to consult GC, i.e., the laity? Not very much, I'd say.

This messiness is reality - something I'd very much rather face and deal with than pretense that things are some other way. Anyway, as I've said a million times already: why are we talking about "gay Bishops in the United States" - when homosexual people are put to death by their own governments in other places in the world? We have way more important things to think about.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz

Favorite Posts


Episcopal Church

  • Come and Grow