E-mail
Print
RSS
G-bookmarks
Live
TechnoratiLiberal believers, meanwhile, argue that biblical teachings on inclusiveness should take precedence and nullify any such teachings against homosexuality.
Prior to the Sept. 20-25 meeting of bishops, Episcopal church leaders had expressed several times that they were not going to back down from their controversial actions and the church body’s stance supporting the "full inclusion" of gays and lesbians, causing many to believe that the liberal church body would eventually break from its global family.
On Tuesday, however, the Episcopal bishops expressed their “conviction that The Episcopal Church needs the Anglican Communion” and, as they were reportedly told by their guests, “the Anglican Communion needs The Episcopal Church.”
And while they also called for “unequivocal and active commitment to the civil rights, safety, and dignity of gay and lesbian persons” in their statement, the bishops offered their responses “with the hope of ‘mending the tear in the fabric’ of our common life in Christ.”
“We believe they provide clarity and point toward next steps in an ongoing process of dialogue,” they said.
Meanwhile, in Pittsburgh, Pa., the "Common Cause Partners," consisting of U.S. Anglicans discontent with The Episcopal Church and those who have already split, opened a four-day meeting with some 50 bishops and some observers.
The meeting was arranged as many predicted that The Episcopal Church would "walk apart" from the global Anglican Communion by the conclusion of the recent gathering of the Episcopal House of Bishops in New Orleans.
Christian Post correspondent Daniel Blake in London contributed to this report.
Correction: Wednesday, September 26, 2007:
An article on Wednesday, Sept. 26, 2007, about a statement issued by the Episcopal House of Bishops incorrectly reported that The Episcopal Church had agreed to halt the ordination of gay clergy in an effort to prevent a schism in the worldwide Anglican Communion. While Episcopal bishops agreed that there should not be consent given to the consecration of non-celibate homosexuals who would “challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion," they did not state any intentions to bar such consecrations.
crossfire »
Agree: 
Disagree: 
