Realizing that the Episcopalians had passed nothing on gay bishops, something demanded by other churches in the Anglican "communion", a last minute resolution was pushed through by the leadership.
It says that the church needs to practice "restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion" Funny language it is.
Jesus would have qualified for this, as someone whose manner of life challenged the wider society and religion. Martin Luther King's life did this as well. It would strike me as a Christian calling that one's life be a challenge for themselves and the world.
In it's language it's not so much a ban on gay bishops as it's a statement that some in the ECUSA believe can be presented to the wider church. But does anyone believe the right will accept this as adequate? You can read virtueonline for their reactions.
One gets the impression that the only way the right can be satisfied is the expulsion of gays, women, and liberals from any role in the church. I respect the intent behind the resolution to keep dialogue going but I wonder if there has ever been dialogue in the first place?
I don't see the resolution as an indication that gay and lesbians are not fully welcome in the Episcopal church. But I worry that this compromise doesn't represent the mind of the ECUSA nor will it offer anything to those determined to see the ECUSA supplanted.
I worry about the democratic process which led to its passage. Apparently the debate was severely limited, the resolution had little time for deliberation, and strong arm rhetoric was used on the delegates, which is not fair to them or the church.
The spirit behind the resolution is commendable but it assumes that the ECUSA has someone to negotiate with first, where both sides really want to hear each other and want to live together. No resolution can produce that. Only God working on those involved can.