Let them stay home then.  Russell is right.  Let them choose this day.

Oh Good.  Let Russell & all the homosexualist activists stay home.
That will clearly make their break from the AC by their own spite and will.

Ouch

As usual with extremists, you’ve got to destroy the village in order to save the village. When will our bishops stop listening to these shrill, angry, selfish, and vituperative schism-mongers?!

This is the reasserter’s opportunity to show charity. 

Our brothers and sisters are feeling the sting of admonition and only our sympathy and reassurance of the Father’s love is in order.

I will attempt to complement Fr. Giles’ agape comment with this further exhortation in love:

.....“outraged”........

Go ahead and be angry. You do well to be angry—but don’t use your anger as fuel for revenge. And don’t stay angry. Don’t go to bed angry. Don’t give the Devil that kind of foothold in your life.

Otherwise, as noted in the BCP’s version of Psalm 37, verse 8,
“leave rage alone.”

RGEaton

As long as the LGBT (and I continue to wonder why they are not calling for the “Bs’” relationshipS to be blessed by the church of what’s happening now)...as long as the LGBT crowd continue to define the issue in socio-political terms, they will have to remain “outraged and appalled.”

“Integrity calls on all the bishops and the leadership of the Episcopal Church to think long and hard about whether they are willing to participate in the continued scapegoating of the gay and lesbian faithful as the price for going to the Lambeth Conference.”

Ah, there is the rub…..every bishop looks forward to “his/her Lambeth Conference “- In most bishop cases - once in the lifetime invite…..

It would be helpful if we knew which bishops WERE invited.  Then we could speculate on which ones will stay away out of outrage over VGR’s “slight”—and which ones will go and do the work of the Church.

Isn’t it curious that they don’t want to comply with the rules, but want to play the game.  The sole reason they continue to seek membership in the A. C.  is that it gives them validity.  Why the outrage when they have already given their answer to the Primates’ September 30 deadline by choosing to walk apart?

If Integrity is outraged now, just think how they will feel on the Day of Judgement when they are told they can not inherit the Kingdom.

Integrity is currently contacting the leadership of the Episcopal Church and consulting with our progressive allies about this situation. We expect to make an additional statement in the near future.

—

What happened to thinking before speaking?

Well, Susan, if you have any ‘integrity,’ you and your progressive pals will take a nice vacation in Key West next year instead of showing up in damp ol’ London.

Re #9: Assuming the press release from Lambeth Palace is accurate, we do know which 800 or so bishops have been invited: every diocesan and coadjutor archbishop or bishop in the Communion except for the Bishops of New Hampshire and Harare, and one additional unnamed diocesan. Also apparently not included in the first round of invitations are several hundred Anglican bishops without jurisdiction, such as retired, suffragan, and assistant bishops (the CANA and AMiA bishops technically fall into that category). The letter from Abp. Williams holds out the possibility of subsequent rounds that might include some of the currently excluded bishops along with the diocesans elected between now and the Conference, and also mentions the possibility that some of those currently invited could later be excluded.

Isn’t the headline redundant?  Integrity has always seemed to be in a permanent state of “outrage” about something.  Does this fall into the category of “now we’re really angry”?

14: The CANA and AMiA bishops are an interesting case.  They are not diocesan bishops in the traditional sense, but they are bishops with jurisdiction.  If RW is going to exclude them based on boundary crossing, it seems like he should exclude every bishop who has adopted parishes from overseas.  And then every bishop which has endorsed same sex blessings.

Their consecrations, if I’m not mistaken, happened legitimately in Anglican provinces according to the constitutions and canons of those Churches.

Just thinking “out loud” here.

Ms. Russell:

I beg to differ with you.  Archbishop Williams’ decision to not invite Gene Robinson is NOT and affront to me or other like-minded reasserters and therefore NOT “an affront to the entire U.S. Episcopal Church.”  You have no right to speak for me, so I ask you to please refrain from doing so.

She sounds really, really mad, which quite frankly is a hard way to live.

Some words from James come to mind: “Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good life let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom. But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth. This wisdom is not such as comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, devilish. For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice. But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peacable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, without uncertainty or insincerity. And the harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.” (3:13-18) I also thought about, “Let every man be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger, for the anger of man does not work the righteousness of God.” (1:19-20) Both shoes seem to fit.

Integrity=Outrage, or was that ACTOUT.  I forget as the primary mode of in-your-face-I’m-out-and-I’m-loud has been so active and shoving their agenda down the Anglican Communion’s throat via their capture of ECUSA/TEC for so long that it makes no nevermind.

Now that all of this has been said, isn’t it possible that the Archbishop doesn’t have to explain why certain bishops weren’t invited?  Since when does he have to answer for what he does or doesn’t do?  He made his choices, and has to make more!

Let’s let the matter rest, shall we?