I must appologize. I wrote this, initially, as a comment to friend. He posted it with my permission, to a semi-private board. I have been called to task for misreading the two Chicago ressolutions which do not call on the convention, as I said they did, to direct the votes of deputies. On that point, I erred, and the revised version below is edited accordingly.

There are two ressolutions that explicitly, "direct" the deputation. They are both arguably liberal and I will oppose them unless or until they are changed.

Jim B.
**********************************************************

In the same sense that there are two ways (at least) to read the Bible, there are, two ways, (at least) to read the Report from the Crypt. Liberals read that TEC should, "express regret" for the failure understand how fair apart TEC and ACCanada and other communities are (and were,) and for the impact of the approval of +Gene''s election, confirmation and ordination. They do those things and think they are ready to begin conversations on the how and why issues surrounding those actions. Conservatives: strict constructionists when they thunder about the "plain meaning" of the Biblical test, read "express regret" and hear, "repent of and from." They thus see no basis for a conversation because +Gene remains ordinary of New Hampshire and ++Frank remains PB.

I doubt this is an accident. The report besides doing some appallingly bad history, especially considering that +N. T. Wright was one of the authors, is ambiguous. It pleads for a return to status quo ante, and then for new rules. It does deals neither with the issues surrounding the church nor the underlying issues that long predate the election of +Gene. The report simply does not work. The status quo ante idea fails in real life every day, but British culture keeps trying.

What the **American** and **Canadian** churches hear in Windsor is that they should consider if their continued participation in such institutions as the ACC is disruptive. The decisions made about, not with, TEC and AACanada in various contexts after the publication render the questions moot.

I suppose that one must excuse the bad history being done in comparing what is being done by Nigeria, Uganda, and others intervening in the US and other provinces with Europe. After all, their reading is no worse than +N. T. Wright et al’s fantasy reading of the history of female clergy. Given the recent irregular ordinations and threatened schism over female bishops, the concept that somehow, "reception" can stand as a model is laughable.

I suppose if we were not blessed with omnipresent, omniscient archbishops such as ++Gomez, ++Nigeria, and ++Uganda, we might spend way to much time considering the questions and requests in the report. Given that they know the answers, we need only, "comply." We should be clear however the current “request” leads to complying not with the report, but with the reading of it from some literalists on selected scriptures who are revisionists on selected paragraphs in the report.

In my diocese, (Chicago) two resolutions to come before the convention say that we should advise our deputies to vote for resolutions (not yet published if I recall) at GE'06. These ressolutions affirm our "repentance;" call for continuing the moratoria indefinitely (for lesbian and gay elected candidates only of course.) I shall oppose them. But, I do want to have the discussion. That is precisely what we should do.