Commentary after Lambeth
From Fort Worth
Katie Sherrod, a great friend of LGBTs who worked the whole time at Lambeth with Integrity et al, writes on Sunday:
Read it all.… What is exhausting is the emotional and spiritual drain of witnessing the continued marginalization and scapegoating of LGBT Christians by the bishops of the Anglican Communion.
….
And while we can understand all the talk of sacrifice – since Christianity if built on the notion that sacrifice can be holy – isn’t there a difference between sacrificing oneself for others and requiring others to sacrifice themselves for your benefit? And if there is a difference, what are theological and moral implications of the bishops forcing LGBT to sacrifice their vocations and loves as the moratoria do?And lastly, we’ve seen that such moratoria do not work. The Episcopal Church offered up LGBT vocations and relationships with resolution B033, the Archbishop of Canterbury declined to invite Gene Robinson, and still most of the conservative bishops boycotted Lambeth. What makes them think continued scapegoating of LGBT Christians will make any difference to the Gafconistas?
If our bishops are willing to sacrifice our baptismal covenant for an Anglican Covenant, what does that say about the future of our church?
Not much that's good, I think.
From Maine
Bishop Stephen Lane (Maine) rejoices in the "new perspectives and new understandings" that his indaba group has reached, but it seems that he ended on a discouraged note about the future of the Episcopal Church in the Anglican Communion, as he spoke about how the Archbishop of Canterbury "lectured" TEC and ACiC. Watch his vlog here or click below.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home