From Adrian at Pluralist Speaks:
Since 2003, in particular, the Instruments of Communion (not simply myself as a form of Speaker; I cannot so act alone) have been looking for ways by which we can suspend members or the equivalent of the sitting of the House - and for Houses (plural) read local Churches. Indeed we managed successfully to suspend one member outside his local Church, namely the understood to be Bishop V. Gene Robinson, although actually local Churches have effectively suspended many women who are also understood to be bishops in their local Churches. But we have not yet done this properly and formally in respect of partnered gay and lesbian people. In effect too we also exclude lay and clerical gay and lesbian people, except those who hide this feature of their identities, although I have indicated that such exclusion ought to include listening to the unhiding while they are excluded unless, of course, they resume and have a good hiding instead.
Go read the entire post. It's excellent. What a ride!
Don't blame me for the drawing. Blame Adrian.
Clearest thing from Cantuar in years! (snerk)
ReplyDeleteThat really is good. I made a fool of myself in the comments at Adrian's blog. First I didn't get it, and then, I admitted that, and then I added a third foolish comment. They're not all moderated yet, but they will be. Adrian answered one of the comments, so if I delete it, then Adrian's response won't make sense. So it goes. I'd like to make all my comments to the post disappear, but I won't.
ReplyDeleteDon't worry about it at all. I've made a non-career out of looking like a twit.
ReplyDeleteI'll give you an exclusive about bishops: I've just been reading Mr. Tom for style purposes and someone says I should do Mr Rochester instead, that moody chap who went blind in a fire. Now I am very confused and it is nearly 5 am here as I was busy doing other things. I think I have to do Mr. Tom but I've done the Archbishop of Anglicanism a few times and sort of worked his style before.
Adrian, would that be Mr Tom Jones? Or Mr Tom Foolery? Surely not Uncle Tom.
ReplyDeleteHe may mean +Tom Wright.
ReplyDeleteCounterlight, he means Tom Wright. Just more of my foolishness.
ReplyDeleteIt's ok Mimi, it took me a couple of paragraphs to figure it out. The whole thing is brilliant.
ReplyDeleteI have given up trying to make anything said by the ABC make sense just because... So at Adrian's post, are the red words actual Rowan quotes?
ReplyDeletePlease call me Pooh, as I am a bear of little brain.
I believe that the quotes in red are the ABC's true words. I found them in the links provided by Adrian. The paragraph I quoted is Adrian, and it is excellent parody.
ReplyDeletePoor Adrian. He's probably sorry he ever got involved with the Amurikans.
Mimi - no, he'll be sorry when it's quoted as Cantuar's "official response" to actions taken at GC! There are folks in Anglican-land that take things that sound real...quite literally. And it does seem quite genuine in many ways.
ReplyDeleteThe links are to find the true text. Trust nothing. I've done Mr Tom, and I can't be bothered to provide links. Now do scroll down to where 'he' refers to American bloggers, and do remember to click on a picture before nicking it to then right click on it to use it.
ReplyDelete