Something in the baptismal water

Dallas Bishop Suffragan Paul Lambert's posted the following to the Anglicans United website. I find it revealing and informative:

"It goes without saying that the recent Consent for the Bishop Suffragan of the Diocese of Los Angeles has been a topic of discussion among the gathered bishops and how that will impact our relationships with the larger Communion. Although we have not had a plenary discussion on this development we will no doubt do so when the subject of the Anglican Covenant later this week occurs.

Of course, her presence at our meeting makes it difficult to discuss this openly and honestly, both for her and the House gathered. I bid your prayers that we may have a spirit of mutual respect and forbearance for all involved. I do believe that we will do so with sensitivity and concern for all."

"Of course, her presence at our meeting makes it difficult to discuss this openly and honestly."

". . .a spirit of mutual respect and forbearance for all involved."

" . . sensitivity and concern for all."

Yes, he actually wrote those words in the same paragraph.

Yes, this is a bishop in the church.

We must - absolutely MUST - have "sensitivity and concern" for all those who find it so very hard to talk about "them" when they're not there.

I know. Hard to believe, isn't it?

There must be something in the baptismal water.

Have you read the sentiments recently expressed by the Archbishop of York, posted at Thinking Anglicans titled "General Synod Questions With Answers"?

I first had to stop chuckling at the opening line: "We now come to Questions, which you should now have in front of you in that weighty bundle on your seats'.

Ya gotta love the British way with words. 'Weighty bundle on your seat' indeed!

Toward the end (page 34), Mrs. Gill Ambrose (Ely) asks the Archbishop of York if the House of Bishops would consider "inviting a number of female observers to its meetings so that the insights of women are not lost to the church at this high level of leadership and policy development?"

And, +++York responds, "The simple answer is no. . . ."

Mrs. Ambrose presses the point and asks: "Are we to assume then that the Church can still afford not to hear the voice of women at this level when issues on which women have important things to say come up for debate in the House of Bishops?"

And, +++Himself of York responds: "Many women are, in any event, members of bishops’ staff in their dioceses. Members of the House will consequently have had the benefit of their insights in policy discussions within the diocese which will inform the thinking that they bring to the House of Bishops’ discussions."

It's a bad enough impulse to keep women out of the 'ole boy's club', but how on God's green earth could anyone believe that getting input from "staff" is the same as participating in "policy discussions"?

It's like saying, I know how "other people" (Black, Hispanic, Asian) think and feel because I employ them to drive my car and clean my house cook my meals and tend my garden and they tell me things.

Yes, I know +++York is Ugandan.

Prejudice knows no limitations. And, it destroys brain cells.

Bette Middler is quoted as having said, "When the New Year's Eve ball drops in Time Square, no matter what year it is, it's still 1950 in London."

It would appear that the same is true in parts of these United States.

See also "weighty bundle on your seat."