Wednesday, September 26, 2007


Do you remember the tests we had to take as children?

The test would give us a list of three items, and we had to choose the one that was not like the other two.

For instance, we might be given pig … cow … pecan. Of course, "pecan" didn't belong, for the other two were animals.

The House of Bishops has given us just the same kind of quiz this week. Listen to these three soundbytes from their statement, and tell me which one is the non sequitur:

A: "The House of Bishops . . . . call[s] upon bishops with jurisdiction and Standing Committees "to exercise 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." The House acknowledges that non-celibate gay and lesbian persons are included among those to whom B033 pertains."

B: "We, the members of the House of Bishops, pledge not to authorize for use in our dioceses any public rites of blessing of same-sex unions until a broader consensus emerges in the Communion, or until General Convention takes further action."

C: "We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God's children including gay and lesbian persons, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ's Church."

Are you confused? Let me make it simpler. They said:
A. We won't let any honest gay/lesbian priest be consecrated as a bishop.
B. We won't allow blessings of gay/lesbian unions be celebrated publicly.
C. All the queers in our church are "full and equal participants" in our church.

I think the answer is pretty simple. The answer that does not "fit" is "C." Either the bishops were lying when they said yes to "a" and "b," or they lied when they voted for "c."

Since all but one of our bishops voted "yes" to the whole statement, then all the others all liars. You cannot say "yes" to A and B, and also "yes" to C. It's impossible.

If we are "full and equal participants in the life of Christ's Church," then gay/lesbian priests can be considered as bishops and our relationships can be blessed within the church. In saying "yes" to all three resolutions, our bishops are revealed as the sycophantic liars they are. It is much more important that they have tea with the Queen than that they be our honest pastors.

Frankly, I would rather my bishop had voted clearly on A, B, and C.

No doubt, the bishops marched happily away from New Orleans.

In my view, they marched away with a bowlful of pottage. Frankly, I hope it chokes them.


Anonymous Linda McMillan said...

They would have done well not to meet at all. I mean, who among us couldn't have written BigPete's response even before the meeting?

The bishops have made themselves even more irrelevant and come off looking stupid all at the same time.


9/27/2007 11:52 AM  
Blogger Grandmère Mimi said...

Lisa, you picked out the same three quotes that I did to show that something was not right. How can that be? Because it's so damned obvious. That's why.

Did they think we would not notice the contradiction?

9/27/2007 3:05 PM  
Blogger Lisa said...

Mimi, when I posted this last night, I had been "on the road" all day and hadn't read through my daily blogs. I didn't realize you had already made the point.

Friends, I hope most of you already read Grandmère Mimi's blog. She posted her thoughts here yesterday, and they're well worth a read.

And I thought I was having an original thought. :-( Oh well ...

9/27/2007 6:30 PM  
Blogger Grandmère Mimi said...

Lisa, I was not being critical toward you AT ALL. I was being snarky about the statement. It's what we all notice. And they thought we wouldn't?

9/27/2007 10:56 PM  
Blogger Lisa said...

Thank you, Grandmère. I'm glad we cleared that up. But I stand by what I said: Folks who haven't visited your site should do so.

9/27/2007 11:17 PM  
Blogger Grandmère Mimi said...

Thank YOU, Lisa.

9/28/2007 9:12 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home