A sampling of the debate in Columbus regarding the consecration of homosexual bishops.

Resolution A160 echoes the House of Bishops’ March 2005 Covenant Statement in expressing regret with respect to actions of the 74th General Convention. It offers an “apology and repentance for having breached the bonds of affection in the Anglican Communion…” The Most Rev. and Rt. Hon. John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, said toward the end of the hearing that the Windsor Report was acting like a doctor, saying a relationship needs to be healed. “Anglicanism has always responded to the challenge by scripture, reason and tradition,” he said. “Maybe the committee should ask: do these resolutions help us ourselves ... to show the marks of our own crucifixion?”

Speaking against A160, the Rev. Michael Hopkins, an alternate from the Diocese of Rochester, acknowledged that if there is an expression of regret, “it needs to be much fuller and expressed by all.”

Resolution A161 urges “very considerable caution in the nomination, election, consent to, and consecration of bishops whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.”

The Rev. Canon Kendall Harmon, deputy from the Diocese of South Carolina raised concerns about what he called the clarity and honesty in A161. “The Windsor Report uses clear language. This resolution doesn’t take the specific language of Windsor seriously enough,” he said. “We have been asked to place a moratorium; the timeframe is clear ... yet the language we get is to exercise considerable caution — a fudge. Let’s be honest, let’s be clear.”

Fair to say that the issue is not resolved yet.

GP