[some] "Episcopalians hopeful they will survive gay issue"

We bracket "some" because from what we can learn about them, some of them hope that their denomination will hurry up and split into two so that some of them can go and do what they really want, and the other half want the embarrasment to end.

ELCA folk must feel the same way. A quick look at statements show that the ELCA is lifting both language and actions directly from the ECUSA handbook.

So this is what they meant by "not a merger, but a common mission?" The plan was to burn both churches to the ground?

Our task force officially recommended that gay and lesbian couples be surrounded in prayer: "Commentary on the second recommendation said "the desire to provide the best pastoral care may motivate some pastors and congregations to surround same-sex couples in committed, long-term relationships with prayerful support. Surrounding persons or households with prayerful support does not necessarily mean public approval of homosexual sexual intimacy."

http://www.elca.org/Scriptlib/CO/ELCA_News/encArticleList.asp?a=2978&p=9

Read what Presiding Bishop Hanson's spin was before the Council decided to go ahead and ordain actively gay pastors (which sort of makes the "shall we do gay weddings?" MOOT)

http://www.elca.org/Scriptlib/CO/ELCA_News/encArticleList.asp?a=3020&p=13

You can read what Solid Rock wrote about that:

http://www.sldrck.org/documents/Critique_of_Task_Force_Report.pdf

Now, read the following and see if you can follow the bouncing ball:

"Despite angst on the part of many international peers, Bishop Griswold did not apologize for the American church's ordination of an openly gay bishop in 2003.

"He told the Deseret Morning News that U.S. bishops have agreed not to authorize "public rites of blessing (for same-sex couples) as though these were actions of the church. Really the church as a whole has to make that decision."

"But many U.S. bishops are "making some provision for private pastoral care" when it comes to blessing the union of same-sex couples within their own congregations, "recognizing that it's not a formal action of the church."

"Utah's own Bishop Carolyn Tanner Irish aligns herself with that position, and requested last year that specific wording for the blessing of same-sex couples be formalized so local clergy have some format to rely on. But she has maintained the action does not have the authority of the church behind it and is simply offered as a way to care for gay and lesbian couples.

"Bishop Griswold said such actions are "consistent with the (faith's) General Convention, and also reflects the distinction the primates made between what is public and official and what is private pastoral care to gay and lesbian people within the context of the local congregation."

"The "fine line" between official blessing and unofficial blessing is a distinction Bishop Griswold acknowledged "would be difficult to comprehend" in many parts of the world, particularly among bishops who believe any recognition of same-sex unions runs counter to biblical teaching.

"It is our way of honoring the request that we not put forward in authorized fashion rites of public blessing. Many things happen in the life of a congregation that are informal with knowledge and encouragement of the local bishop, but they are not seen as formal actions committing the Episcopal Church," Bishop Griswold said.

"Opponents have charged that U.S. bishops are trumping the Bible in their determination to support homosexuality among members and clergy, but Bishop Griswold said the "Holy Spirit can do different things in different places" regarding what works in different cultures.

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600130173,00.html

So now, ask the question whose answer is, "Because they could do it."